Saturday, February 28, 2015

gender - Specifying Pronouns as He/Him;She/Her;They/Them




It is becoming more common for people to explicitly state the pronouns to be used in addressing themselves: he/him, she/her, or they/them. For example, a name tag for a conference might read:



Cory Lopez
Some Company
She/Her


Usage seems to have settled on the singular they and them as gender neutral pronouns. Alternatives that were once widespread in niche communities, such as sie/hir, seem to have died out.



Whether or not one agrees with this language shift, the pairing between subject and object case is fixed. It's difficult to imagine someone who uses "he" as his subject case using anything but "him" as object case, and it's even harder to imagine that such a person would succeed in getting people to use a non-obvious collection of personal pronouns. (And you may see what I did -- flat out assumed that "he" and "his" automatically go together.)




What are the roots of the practice of presenting subject and object case pronouns as opposed to just subject case, subject and possessive, or some other combination?



(Note: I am not interested in a discussion of the gender politics and cultural shifts involved, just the mechanics of how the current representation was chosen.)


Answer



To my knowledge, it's a convention that persists because the form itself has acquired shared meaning.



I don't know all of the details, but we can look at common patterns of usage:





  1. Explanatory usefulness



    It's true that associations between subject + object forms tend to be fixed. However, in a situation where some people might be using the rarer "new" pronouns, it's quite possible that not everyone will know them.



    Writing "ze/zir" on a name badge helps people who haven't encountered ze before to understand the expected usage without having to interrupt the conversation to ask quite as much (they may still need to gently inquire about the possessive form).



    Another contributing factor is that there may be multiple competing conventions. E.g. ze has appeared both as "ze/zir" and "ze/hir," according to Wikipedia. Providing two cases doesn't disambiguate between all of them perfectly, but it's a compromise between clarity and brevity.


  2. Through usage, the form itself acquires meaning



    Once you've got a stylistic convention in widespread use among a community of users, it carries its own bit of meaning. To an audience used to trans-inclusive spaces, seeing pronoun/pronoun in someone's name badge or social media bio immediately registers as "these are my pronouns." "He/him" is more immediately recognizable than just writing "he" somewhere in a small block of text all by itself; it's also shorter than saying "my pronoun is he."



  3. A permutation: flexible pronouns



    Because the convention itself is recognizable, the specific nominative/accusative pairing isn't particularly important. Sometimes what you'll see instead is that people who accept multiple pronouns (e.g. both a gendered pronoun and a gender-neutral pronoun) will join two nominative-case pronouns with a slash, such as "she/they."



    In my experience, people intuitively register the difference between the two-cases and two-different-pronouns forms, for the most part. The underlying idea is the same and familiarity with pronoun inflection fills in the rest.



grammar - regarding the use of "them"


"What they refer to as the habit of dreaming by the Aborigines, is not what the Aborigines themselves believe them to be."




"Them" is referring to dreams. Is the use of 'them' in the second part of the sentence grammatically correct since "habit of dreaming" seems singular to me.




"They" is "Westerners"






Note: The quote in the original version of the question had What Europeans . . . rather than What they . . .

syntactic analysis - I have four children - Simple Present Tense or Something else?

I'm studying english and have been reading about Tenses.



It is my understanding that Perfect tense sentences use HAVE, HAD or WILL HAVE as auxiliary verbs. Some examples of different tenses have been given to me and the following one in particular has be quite confused;



I have four children.



I don't think HAVE is an auxiliary verb in this sentence. I think it is the main verb, in which case there is no auxiliary verb here.



My gut tells me this sentence is an example of Present Perfect, but it doesn't follow the rules. I this instead an example of Simple Present, or something else altogether?




Your help is much appreciated.

Friday, February 27, 2015

word order - Where does the verb go on this question? Is it even a reported question?

I understand that when I report a question, I put the subject back in front of the verb, as in: "He asked if she was going to be late."



But I always get puzzled when it comes to reporting a question with a question. (In fact I'm not even sure this is reported speech, but I think it is, because I'm reporting my own doubts.)




My starting point is the question:




What is the task for the afternoon class?




But now I want to ask if anyone in a group knows what the task is. Which of the following alternatives would be grammatical?




(a) Does anyone know what is the task for the afternoon class?
(b) Does anyone know what the task is for the afternoon class?
(c) Does anyone know what the task for the afternoon class is?





Intuitively, I would pick (c), but I don't know if that is the correct choice, and I certainly don't know why.



Can anyone tell me which of the options is correct and why?

grammar - Which is right: "It's me/I they want!" & "Who/Whom is it you asked?"?

The questions I have are in the title. Which is right, subject or object pronoun?



It's seems the first, "It's me/I they want!," is a reworking of "Subject + Verb + Object" to "Object + Subject + Verb" with a "dummy" subject attached. However, this sentence can also be written, "It is I whom they want." On purely grammatical terms, I believe this is correct, though you might lose a few friends talking this way.



Additionally, the "Who/Whom is it you asked?" can reasonably be answered, "It is she whom you asked." What's going on here? And which form of pronoun should guide statements/questions like these?



Thank you!

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











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



Colleague’s original:




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





I changed to the following:




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




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





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




And these all seem quite natural.



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




In the fridge, you will find some beer.





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


Answer



It's grammatical.



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




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


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



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




  • *With no hesitation did he speak up.

  • *With no grace did he accept it.




Only is a negative.


Thursday, February 26, 2015

word order - Adverbs position in English: “place–manner–time” or “manner–place–time”?

Wikipedia tells us that the order should be place–manner–time. However, this webpage tells that it should be manner–Place–Time. Which one is correct?



I have one sentence in two different orders:




  • No child should grow up in poverty in America in the 21st century.

  • No child should grow up in America in poverty in the 21st century.

Singular entity, plural name/nickname -- verb form?

In writing about the National Archives, I got to wondering about subject-verb agreement. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA, often called simply The National Archives) is one entity, but when using the nickname, it would appear at first glance to be plural.



So, even though Archives is plural, because it is a single entity, does it still take a singular verb?



Note: I see on the NARA website, in the menu at the bottom, there is a link labelled What is the National Archives? so it would appear that they believe the nickname is singular.




Does it matter that the full name of the agency is the National Archives and Records Administration? When using the full name, I think it is clear that the verb should be singular (to match with the singular administration):




The National Archives and Records Administration is the nation's record keeper.




I'm just not 100% certain about the situation when using the shortened nickname:





The National Archives is the nation's record keeper.




I found a question singular entity as a collection of subjects that is similar, but there does not seem to have a definitive answer and does not have the same twist of the full name being obviously singular.

word choice - "Prefer to do something" vs. "prefer doing something"








What's the difference between the two:





  • What materials do they prefer working with?

  • What materials do they prefer to work with?



Wednesday, February 25, 2015

Does "apropos" take a preposition? How do you use this word, anyway?



Which is more correct:




Apropos of your earlier comment, I decided to....




or





Apropos your earlier comment, I decided to...




Actually, apropos is so fancy a word, even I, a word maven if I do say so myself, am not entirely sure when to use it. If I may add to my preposition question, are there any constructions where it would be appropriate to use something like with regard to and not apropos?


Answer



The answer to your either-or question is "yes". :)



In other words, apropos can be an adverb, adjective, or preposition on its own, or it can be used as part of the prepositional phrase apropos of.




Depending on how you want to use apropos, synonyms can include "by the way", "incidentally", "regarding", "concerning", "opportunely", or "appropriately".


word choice - "There is a large number" Or "There are a large number"?

Situation:




I am composing this phrase for a real forum discussion in person:



There are a large number of proverbs/idioms in English (and doubtless additional ones in American). Some are entirely regional and if you don't live in that region you are unlikely to hear them. It is not easy either sometimes when you associate the situation that includes a cultural background [when you translate/interpret the Indo cultural things for Westerner you will find it]. Thank you.



Question:
Any recommended advise whether I should use: "There is a large number" OR "There are a large number"?

sentence - Is it correctly say " "My family watchES television there every night" or " "My family watch television there every night"

I find that sentence in a video on youtube, and I'd like to now what is the correct, please, help me. I would be grateful for your help. I'm trying to learn English and understand special the part about grammar.



Sincerely,



Vinícius Corrêa

Student from Brazil

orthography - "An SQL Server database schema" or "a SQL Server database schema"?











I got the following sentence from the book I'm reading:




You can take a database-first approach
by first creating a SQL Server
database schema.





From what I learned, I think it should be "an SQL Server database schema", not "a SQL Server database schema". So which one is correct?


Answer



This depends, I would think, on your pronunciation of SQL. It can be pronounced as "sequel", or spelled out as "S-Q-L". That perhaps doesn't help in written English.



A thoroughly scientific survey of Google throws up many more hits for "an SQL" than "a SQL". This is also the form used on that Wikipedia article and elsewhere, such as this Microsoft SQL Server documentation entitled "Executing an SQL Query".


punctuation - Where do I put a comma when I have quotes around a short story, and the sentence structure needs a comma?

Where do I put a comma when I have quotes around a short story, and the sentence structure needs a comma? I know that, generally, commas go inside of quotes, but what if the quotes are marking a short story. Here is the part of the sentence I'm having trouble with:




Gertrude Stein’s The Gentle Lena is vastly different from Edith Wharton’s “The Other Two,” yet the two female leads ...





Should it look like that, or should it look like this:




Gertrude Stein’s The Gentle Lena is vastly different from Edith Wharton’s “The Other Two”, yet the two female leads ...


grammar - Whomever or Whoever?

In the following sentence, should I use WHOMEVER or WHOEVER?





I don’t want whomever it is to see that I’m a woman alone.




Or should it be:




I don’t want whoever it is to see that I’m a woman alone.





The first option makes more sense grammatically, though the second sounds better to me.



Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

grammar - Is there a singular-plural conflict in the song title "Terror Couple Kill Colonel"?

I'm not English-speaking, and I'm wondering about the title of the song by band Bauhaus - "Terror Couple Kill Colonel"



"Kill" implies a singular subject, yet couple refers to multiple subjects. Why is it not "killed" or "kills"?

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

word formation - Is there a rule for when contractions are not possible?








In conversing with non-native English speakers online, I saw someone type:




Do you know who ****I’m*** ?





This is obviously wrong to a native English speaker, but I don’t know why. Is there a rule that tells when contractions are not allowed?



Here are some more similar examples where the contraction doesn’t work (with the expansion of the contraction in parentheses following each):




  • Can you tell who **I’m* by my voice alone? (I am)


  • Please, tell me who **he’s/she’s/they’re*. (he is/she is/they are)


  • If you want to go to the movie, **we’ll.* (we will)


  • Will you have some? Yes, **I’ll.* (I will)



  • I won’t have any, but tell me if **you’ll*. (you will)


  • I didn’t have the same thing for supper as **you’d.* (you had)


  • Would you like to go? Sure **I’d.* (I would)


grammatical number - "[adjective] and [adjective] [noun]" -- Should the noun be singular or plural?



In a scientific paper I submitted, a reviewer suggested that I change the sentence





The operation just substitutes "(m, l)" with "m" on both the sender and the receiver side.




to




The operation just substitutes "(m, l)" with "m" on both the sender and the receiver sides.




by changing the last word from singular to plural.




There is only one sender side and only one receiver side, so my intuition tells me to use the former version, since




  • one would clearly write "...both the sender side and the receiver side" and

  • I'd also write "The green and the blue box are standing on the table" (instead of "boxes").



However, I failed to find a grammatical rule for this, and English is not my main language. Is the reviewer right? And why?


Answer




The first sentence features ellipsis, that is, the omission of elements which are recoverable from the linguistic context or the situation. A full version would be on both the sender side and the receiver side. Once we reach the end of the sentence we can recover side and place it in our minds after sender. That’s not too difficult to do because the missing element occurs within a few words. However, some readers might be uncomfortable in performing that little bit of linguistic gymnastics, and that is presumably what the reviewer felt.



The answer to your question is that both sentences are grammatical, and both convey the same meaning. If you think your readers might have difficulty with the omission of side after sender, then use the version that uses the plural: on both the sender and the receiver sides. Alternatively, use the full version of the ellipted form with the singular: on both the sender side and the receiver side.


grammaticality - It is I who am at fault?








Which one of these is correct?




It is I who am at fault.



It is me who is at fault.





The word "is" is a conjugation of "be" which is a linking verb.



I also want to know the same for 2nd person.




It is you who are at fault.



It is you who is at fault.


Monday, February 23, 2015

grammar - Is using passive voice "bad form"?



Whenever I create a document in Microsoft Word, it complains about a lot of my sentences being in passive voice. But, when I read that sentence aloud, it sounds fine to me. I am not sure if it is just me and will a statement in passive voice sound strange to a native speaker?



So, my question is, is it considered bad form to use passive voice generally? Or in some specific cases like written communications only?



Edit: If it is ok to use passive voice, then why does MS-Word complain?



Answer



It's never bad form to use passive form. It's just that in speech, we tend to use a lot of this, but there's nothing wrong with using the passive form in writing, or in speech.



From the Passive Engineer:




Despite the admonitions of grammar checkers, the passive construction has a legitimate function. When you want to emphasize results, use the passive.




Note that it mentions grammar checkers, which I suppose is what you are getting.




Wikipedia states that:




Many language critics and language-usage manuals discourage use of the passive voice....This advice is not usually found in older guides, emerging only in the first half of the twentieth century




Also:





In 1926, in the authoritative A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926), Henry W. Fowler recommended against transforming active voice forms into passive voice forms, because doing so "sometimes leads to bad grammar, false idiom, or clumsiness




It's really just style, but nothing else to worry about.


Past Simple and Present Perfect



In the book Grammar Lab, there were examples of words that would give away the tense, for example, the words "yesterday, last week, the last time, when, etc" and "since, for, yet, still, so far, etc" Now I have found some words that might be one of these but I need to make sure I can confidently use these words with the correct sentences.



Are the phrases "back then, at that time, when I was young" used with Past Simple rather than Present Perfect? If not, can you give me examples of sentences against the statement? Do you know any other words that might give away the tense?


Answer



I think that your question can be answered keeping in mind the difference between "Definite Past" (when we use the Simple Past Tense) or "Indefinite Past" (when we use the Present Perfect Tense).



If we have in a sentence words or expressions that define the moment of the time when the action occurred (for example, yesterday), we work with the Simple Past Tense. On the other hand, if the sentence lacks words or expressions that determine the time of the action in the past, we use the Present Perfect Tense.




We must remember that the Present Perfect can also be used to express an action that started in the past and continues in the present. In this case, the words "since" and "for", among others, can be used. In my opinion, "back then, at that time, when I was young" are expressions that express a kind of past that is defined. So, we should use the "Simple Past".


Sunday, February 22, 2015

nouns - Sports – singular or plural




I am being told that "sports" is a singular noun. This is creating a problem for me (as a teacher) because it sounds 'odd' even if it is correct (i.e. one of the exceptions to the rule).



e.g. Sports has (rather than sports have)...



I always thought sports referred to more than one team activity (e.g. football, rugby, golf, bowls etc.); hence, it was plural.



For example,






  • I like playing sports.

  • Sports have always been of interest to me.




QUESTIONS




  1. Is sports a collective noun?


  2. Which usage is correct?


Answer




"sports" is a singular noun. This is creating a problem for me (as a
teacher) because it sounds 'odd' even if it is correct (i.e. one of
the exceptions to the rule).




I am a teacher, too, and I remember that when I was a student, I was baffled by what seemed a more 'odd' use and that is of sports as an adjective: "sports car"




But you can overcome your difficulty if you think of many words (like economics = economic activity/-ies) that are plural in appearance and nevertheless are treated as singular.



The only (slight) difference is that sports can be treated both as singular and plural: the plural usage is obvious, to justify the singular usage think that (like economics) it really means: sporting activity/ies



You can find a clear definition here:








    1. a contest or game in which people do certain physical activities according to a specific set of rules and compete against each other




"Ice-skating with friends is my favorite sport."





    1. sports in general




    1. a physical activity (such as hunting, fishing, running, swimming, etc.) that is done for enjoyment




So, you use the singular for one type of 'sport' and the plural for 2 or more;



"Football, basketball, and hockey are all team sports, 'I enjoy winter sports like skiing and skating.'"




but you can use indifferently the singular or the plural form to indicate the 'physical activity':



"I used to do a lot of sport when I was younger."
You can see here that both forms are used for the same sentence:




Sport (or sports) is all forms of usually competitive physical
activity which, through casual or organised participation, aim to
use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills.





You can find more examples on the web:




...“sports” as singular when it refers to a general field of activity or
interest. He would say “sports is my chief interest, next to grammar,”
because he is not thinking of different individual sports but about
the field of athletics in general. Fry was referring to sports in
general as a field of coverage, and, as Buck sees it, was right to use
the singular.




But when sports refers to a number of individual activities, it
becomes plural. So Buck would say, “my favorite sports are baseball,
football and bronc-riding.”




In conclusion, it is no exception to any rule, if 'sports is' sounds weird to you you can use the singular form in most contexts.



Note 1.: writing this post I realize that 'sports' used as an adjective can refer to both forms of the word: sports car, and sports column.




Note 2.: besides being an adjective, on its own sports is a singular noun when it is an elliptical form of:




  • [a] sports [car]

  • [the] sports [column]



Source: Oxford Dictionary


Saturday, February 21, 2015

grammar - Use of "mentioned" vs. "mentioned that"




"The writer mentioned although it deals with eastern mysticism and sexuality, the content is not erotic." - This is a sentence I am copy editing. I am under the impression that "mentioned" should be followed by "that" in this sentence. Could you please let me know your thoughts on this as well?



When I wrote about this to the person who wrote this sentence, this was their response "I have checked it through several proofreading sites like Grammarly, Paperrater, Scribens, etc. The sentence is correct with or without inserting "that" after "mentioned."


Answer



They're wrong. The subordinating conjunction "that" is required in this case. In fact, there's a punctuation issue as well—the sentence should be written as:




The writer mentioned that, although it deals with eastern mysticism and sexuality, the content is not erotic.





Hopefully someone with more technical knowledge of English grammar rules can cite what rule was violated, but I'm 100% sure that it's required in this case (even though it can be omitted in certain contexts).



Just goes to show how little one can depend on Grammarly et al. :)


grammar - Is there something wrong with using "said (that)" in this sentence?

Quick context, work as a translator.




I had a short blurb I had to translate where I basically rendered it as:




"Bob spoke about how Countryland was one of the countries that
suffered greatly from the Big Bad Thing, and that he wanted to hold a
photograph exhibition in Hereland."




(Names and places changed for privacy/company policy reasons)




Is there anything wrong with making it "said that Countryland..." Is it ungrammatical? If so, what would be the correct word(s) to use?



My proof reader initially changed "spoke about how" to "told that" which was ungrammatical, so I told her that, to which she responded "change it to 'said or said that' then," which I felt was wrong but could not explain why.



All the stuff I came across online explained that:



-Say is when you pronounce words, express a thought/opinion, for stating a fact, affirming something, declaring something, etc. and is also a one-way sort of action, i.e. doesn't necessarily imply there's more than one person in the situation at hand. It is also doesn't take a person as its object, not without some modifying/adding extra words.



-Tell is for giving information to somebody through speaking or writing and needs a person after it as the object. Unlike Say, it is a "two-way" sort of action, where it implies the existence of two parties conversing with each other.




-Speak is for languages and for general conversation, no specific details usually expressed.



-Talk is more or less the same as speak, but more informal.

Colloquial usage of past tense as future perfect



I have a Japanese friend who is learning English and recently posed me (a native speaker) a question that I am having trouble answering. The problem revolves around two statements:





I was able to get the photos done before I left today




(A contrived example)




He asked you to detain me until he got here, right?




(From an H.G. Wells work)




We started with the former example, where I pointed out that this sentence implies he has already left. My friend countered with the latter example, where the sentence does not make this implication, and he may not have left yet.



I agree with his statement, and believe that the latter is colloquial, albeit not grammatically correct. However what I am having trouble understanding is why the latter is colloquial and not the former. Both of the sentences look grammatically the same to me (past tense followed by a preposition followed by past tense). I believe that no native English speaker would ever say the former example in a scenario where they have not already left, but I could see some people saying the latter in a scenario where he has not left yet (or where his state is unknown).



Is there a concrete reason why the latter is accepted in this scenario where the former is not?


Answer



The second sentence contains indirect speech with a matrix verb in the past, so the verb get is backshifted to got.



[Incidentally, there is no question of "future perfect" here. The English for what the person presumably said is "until I get here", not "until I shall have got here". The fact that some other language would use a future perfect in this context has no relevance for a discussion of English. ]



Friday, February 20, 2015

grammaticality - "This chapter, and the following chapters in this section" — singular or plural?




I have some technical documentation that has the phrase:




This chapters describes how to...




And I need to upgrade it to refer to the current and following chapters. What is the correct English phrase to use?





This chapter, and the following chapters in this section, describes how to...




or:




This chapter, and the following chapters in this section, describe how to...




In other words, is the thing doing the describing a multitude of chapters (that would "describe" something), or are the multitude considered a single item here (needing "describes")?




Or, are both phrases wrong?


Answer



There is no need to repeat "chapters":



"This and the following chapters describe how to ..."



Plural verb agrees with the compound subject in this case.



There's a good segment on compound subject verb agreement here:




http://www.towson.edu/ows/moduleSVAGR.htm



If you need to include information about the section, then you can get away with something like:



"In this section, this and the following chapters describe how to ..."



If you like, you can get away from the use of "in this section" altogether by doing something like:



"This chapter through chapter 15 describes how to ..."




Oddly, the singular verb seems to agree here since now it is a single subject--a nounal phrase which operates as a collection--rather than a compound subject. It is like saying:



"This collection of chapters describes how to ..."


word choice - A or an XML report?











Quite simply, should a sentence read "a XML report" or "an XML report"?


Answer



It's "an XML report", because which form of the indefinite article to use is decided by how the next word is pronounced. In this case, it's pronounced:




An ex-emm-ell report





'XML' begins with a vowel sound, 'e', so an is used rather than a.


syntax - My and my brother's education... ?

I am not convinced with this sentence somehow.
" My Dad focused on my and my brother's education"
It doesn't sound right to me. How can I write it in a better way?

formality - proper way to write the slang term for “gravitational force”



I came across something very similar to this in a thriller novel:




At this stage, the rocket is experiencing its maximum acceleration, say about ten gees.





Here, the author has spelled out the common military-pilot slang term for “gravitational force” using gee. However, as this term is an abbreviation, and is commonly treated as a unit of measurement (of acceleration) I'd have expected the written form to be g’s.



By analogy, I have heard people speak the unit “kilometer per hour” using the two-letter symbol for kilometer. However, I would expect this to be transcribed as “km per hour” versus “kay em per hour”.



Is this use of gee common? Is it correct?


Answer



This Google Books search shows that gees is a perfectly common way to write out the abbreviation for the force of gravity. Here are a few of the relevant citations:





  • The outer four were all engineered to simulate gravity, in half-gee increments. Each layer consisted of three rings of ... The outermost triplet of rings was ten kilometres across and simulated gravity at two gees.

  • The clamshells and nanite foam filling were in place, sealing us against the pressures, cushioning us against the growing acceleration—more than ten gees and building.

  • We'd been boosting at half a gee, which isn't unpleasant. Two Mars gees would actually be three-quarters of an Earth gravity. Two-thirds Earth gees would be heavier than I like, but not nearly as onerous as Pismo Beach.

  • The idea that life might exist under the extremely rigorous conditions scientists predict on the surface of a neutron star — surface gravity 1011 gees, surface temperature 104 kelvin, and equatorial magnetic field strength 108 tesla — was first ...

  • Forward's novel, on the other hand, is of intelligent life on a neutron star with a radius of 10 kilometers and a surface gravity of 67 billion gees.

  • ... field and being in an equivalent accelerated frame of—it means that when the Anniversary is blasting five gees, the effect on us is the same as if it were sitting on its tail on a big planet, on one with five gees' surface gravity.”

  • One day the control shorted out in the rec. room and plastered the guests into the couch at 3 gees.

  • The gravity on the floor of level one was almost four and a half gees.

  • If there is no bounce and little room in which to decelerate, the magnitude of gee is so high as to be deadly. The force on an object due to Earth's gravity near Earth is equal to the mass of the body multiplied by 9.8 m/s2 (1 gee) and


  • number ot gees =1.0 32 ft/sec2 b F = 1.6 (1 lb) = 1.6 lb In Example 2-7 we introduced the term "gees" of gravity. When we state that a jet pilot experienced 4 "gees" we mean he felt four times the pull of gravity due to an acceleration or ...

  • And what we know today about gee forces proves that Ar-dan's dear adversary is absolutely right. A gee is a unit for measuring how rapidly a body's speed changes. One gee is the acceleration caused by gravity as a body falls near the ...

  • Then he felt gravity again as some force began to slow him down. The chair spun around so that Hackworth was looking up into the irregular constellation of chandeliers, and the acceleration shot up to several gees. Then back to normal.


possessives - Strunk and White says "Charles's" is correct -- is this still the case?











I just bought The Elements of Style, an awesome little book. However, in the first section, the authors promote the use of 's, no matter what the last letter of a word is, to show possessiveness.



Some examples they use:





  • Charles's friend

  • Burns's poems





Are these grammatically correct?


Answer



It's down to personal preference -- but the modern convention, in my opinion, is to omit the final s. I'd always advocate omitting the final s because it's simply unnecessary: the apostrophe, by itself, clearly denotes possession. Whether or not American English adopts this is another matter...



But with British usage, it can often be quite erratic and anachronistic. A typical example is when I get on the London underground every day (the Piccadilly line going eastwards). One stop is called Baron's Court and its immediate neighbour is Earls Court.



You also get this with particular brands who choose to omit the apostrophe for clarity (like Twinings, and Waterstone's has announced it's dropping its apostrophe soon). So, in modern usage, the general trend is to omit the apostrophe. Another convention I've worked a lot with (MHRA's -- which I only use in academic essays) chooses to use the additional s for singular possession, and omit it for plural possession; so, for example: the boss’s daughter and the bosses’ daughters.




To answer Henry's point, there is no debate over 'St' and 'St.'. Because St James' Park refers to Saint James, the use of St is a contraction. You put a full-stop after an abbreviation (like Prof.), but you never put a full-stop after a contraction because the final letter of the abbreviated form is the same as the final letter of the full form (which is why you see Mr, St, Mrs, etc.)


Thursday, February 19, 2015

grammar - How to simplify "noun phrase" + "noun phrase" structure

Example 1: User 1 and user 2 have the same request.
In this example, I would like to remove the second "user" to shorten the sentence. I wonder if I need to change the first "User" to be "Users". If not, then I do not know how the following writing style is correct.



In our technical writing, we often use "Figs. 1, 2, and 3" to mean "Figures 1, 2, and 3". Since I cannot find a related grammar for such a usage, can anyone give me some hint or tell me which one is correct. (It will be better if there is an explanation)



Another example is to simplify "from user 1 to user 2." I do not know which one of the following two writing is correct: "from users 1 to 2" and "from user 1 to 2."



Thanks!

adjectives - "A place nearby" but not "A place good"



I can ask any of:




Do you know a breakfast place nearby?
Do you know a nearby breakfast place?
Do you know a good breakfast place?





but I really can't ask:




Do you know a breakfast place good?




Is there a general rule for determining whether an adjective must come before the noun or may come, Spanish-style, after it?


Answer




The general rule is




One-word modifiers precede the noun; modifiers of more than one word follow the noun.




I call this the Eleven-year-old boy rule.



If you make a single word out of a phrase, it can precede (that's what the hyphens are for in writing), but it's got different syntax, because preceding adjectives are not declined for number.




Note the plural years and singular year below:




  • A boy eleven years old rescued the princess.

  • An eleven-year-old boy rescued the princess.



If you pluralized the second year, or used singular year in the first, they'd be ungrammatical.



Nearby, while it is enough of a single word to precede, still retains enough independence in its two consituents near and by to follow, as well. It's in transition from one state to the other.




Language changes, word by word and phrase by phrase, as we continue to speak it.
In fact, it changes because we continue to speak it.


meaning - Multiple Instances of Same Noun: Does the use of "that" distinguish between them?

Consider the following sentence taken from some co-operative housing rules:





"Any costs of repairing a suite are the responsibility of the owner of a suite, which could be a different suite from the suite repaired, if the damage was caused by the owner or guest of that suite."




There are two different instances of "suite" in this sentence: The suite that was repaired, and the suite whose owner or guest caused the damage. Does "that suite" refer unambiguously to one instance or another?

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

grammatical number - "Standard compliance" vs. "standards compliance"




Searching the Internet I have found that both wordings "Social standard compliance" and "social standards compliance" (standard vs. standardS) are used frequently.



I suppose that the wording "standards" is correct, since it refers to a list of standards and not only one. But then, I've been told to use the singular "standard".



Which one is correct or are they both correct?


Answer



Both are fine, but have slightly different meanings.



When you use the singular:





Social standard compliance




You are referring to compliance with the ethos of the standards, and general compliance with any standards whatever they may be.



When you use the plural





Social standards compliance




The emphasis is placed on the individual standards, and not the abstract idea of a social standard.



There may be many social standards, and by using the plural, standards, you are articulating that you are compliant with every single standard.



The singular version has more of an air of generality about it, and an emphasis on the spirit of the social standard you are complying with.


grammatical roles - "To hunt is my favorite pastime." What part of speech is "to hunt" in this sentence?

The function of infinitives seems to be up for grabs at the last post I commented at. I either need to be schooled or my interlocutors do. May your answers bring some clarity.



These are your choices. There are eight: noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection.




Avoid answers like: subject, predicate, direct/indirect object, complement, etc. These are not parts of speech.



The last post:
What is the part of speech is "the door" in the sentence below?



Some definitions (premises):



1.A verbal is a verb form that functions as another part of speech, i.e., nouns or modifiers (adjectives or adverbs).




2.Infinitives are a subset of verbals.



Therefore,



3.Infinitives (yes, composed of two words) function as nouns, adjectives, or adverbs.



As far as I know, these are standard definitions and noncontroversial. I'm simply asking, based on these definitions what part of speech is "to hunt" functioning as in my sentence. I don't know if people are unaware of these definitions or I am seriously missing something, but no one seems to be able to pull the trigger and simply identify an infinitive in a sentence as either a noun, adjective, or adverb though this type of analysis is everywhere on the web and in the grammars on my desk. People seem to be stuck on saying these are verbs because of their form (which is understandable) but ignoring that they are verbals, which never function as verbs. Others forgo parts of speech altogether and jump to sentence analysis, i.e., subject/predicate/D.O./I.O./ complements and so forth.



I believe the fact that an English infinitive technically has two words is incidental and doesn't inhibit it from being analyzed a single part of speech (German, Latin, Spanish, French all have single word infinitives). Wouldn't it be odd that in all these languages, their infinitives could be analyzed as a part of speech because they are single words, but because English has an additional "infinitive marker" we can't? The fact that the "to" (when combined with an infinitive) is not identified as a part of speech should be the clue that it is uniquely bound to the infinitive and that both are functioning as a single word (and please don't say "to," in this case, is a preposition ).




So I'm ready to find better web sources and burn my grammars if someone who knows grammar better than me can resolve this. Thanks to those who have already commented.

Object pronouns

I've managed to get myself confused about using object pronouns in some cases. I'm unsure whether it's correct usage, or incorrect, but very common, usage



Q: Who is hungry?
A: Me
or should it be:
A: I



If I put a verb in ("I am"), then it's obvious, but without the verb, "I" am still the subject of my answer "I" am the one who's hungry. So, is "me" or "I" correct? If "me", then why? (I'd say "me")



Or "The worst player on the football team is I" or "... is me"?




Again, I'd say "...is me", but I think it should be "...is I", because the verb "to be" is intransitive so doesn't take an object". But "...is I" looks wrong...



There are similar cases where "is I" looks more correct (eg "it is I who is confused" - although now I'm thinking should be that be "it is I who am confused"? Argh. I'm even more confused!). Even in that case "it is me who's confused" would be common.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Words order in a question



Which is better (and why)?





Which feature should I attach this task to?




or




To which feature should I attach this task?



Answer



The first phrasing is what one would use in casual conversation; it does a good job of establishing the subject, object, and verb to a listener whereas the second phrasing takes some "decoding", in my opinion.




The "rule" that you can't end sentences with prepositions is a myth; it's generally agreed that ending sentences with prepositions is fine as long as the preposition is not extraneous (i.e. you wouldn't have the same meaning by removing it.) So, the first sentence is not ungrammatical.



However, the idea of this rule indeed exists because as TLP said, it is a bit of mouthful. It might make sense to go with an alternate phrasing.




Which feature is this task associated with?



Which feature involves this task?




grammaticality - Which is correct: "one or more is" or "one or more are"?



Should the phrase be "one or more is...", or "one or more are..."?


Answer



The Oxford Living Dictionaries says the following, about the usage of or. (Similar definition was given from the NOAD I had installed on my Mac Mini, the copy that comes with the Dictionary application together the OS.)




Where a verb follows a list separated by or, the traditional rule is that the verb should be singular, as long as the things in the list are individually singular, as in a sandwich or other snack is included in the price (rather than a sandwich or other snack are included in the price). The argument is that each of the elements agrees separately with the verb. The opposite rule applies when the elements are joined by and—here the verb should be plural: a sandwich and a cup of coffee are included in the price. These traditional rules are observed in good English writing style but are often disregarded in speech.





In a sentence like one or more photos are better you use are because the noun closer to the verb is plural (more photos).


pronunciation - How should the first "o" in "operator" be pronounced?



I've always been taught that a vowel before a double consonant following another vowel should have a short sound. Conversely, there are many situations where a vowel preceding a single consonant and vowel gets a long sound.



Short Sounds:




Mississippi    - All I's except the last get short sound
Communication - First O gets short sound
Oppose - First O gets short sound where second O gets long


Long Sound:



Ape            - A gets long sound
Popery - O gets long sound
Oppose - First O gets short sound where second O gets long



Yet, I hear people use a short O in "operator" when using the word. Is this the correct pronunciation?


Answer



Indeed, it is. 'Operator' is pronounced ˈɒpəreɪtə (IPA), with the o- sound of 'offense' or 'orange'.



Most spellings as we use them today were standardized in the late 18th century on a fairly arbitrary basis. Most choices were based in common transliteration habits, but others followed historical convention. In this case, 'operator' had been historically spelled with a single p thanks to its root the Latin 'operari', and so the habit stuck.



Edit: I'm aware our American cousins have some regional variations, but these accents evolved more recently.


grammatical number - Which is correct when using the word staff?

Which sentence is correct? Call center staff receive the information, or call center staff receives the information? I would consider the use of the word Staff as plural in this usage case.

grammar - Correct comma use with "but" and "that"

Compare these 3 sentences:






  1. Both are based on librsync, but above that they behave quite differently.

  2. Both are based on librsync, but above that, they behave quite differently.

  3. Both are based on librsync, but, above that, they behave quite differently.




I found the first one hard to parse (I needed to read it more than once to actually make sense of it). The second is far easier, and the third has oh-so-many commas.

Monday, February 16, 2015

pronouns - "He and I", "Him and me"












Somebody taught me a rule of thumb how to discern if I should use "I" or "Me" when adding self to the end of a list of people in a sentence: Ignore the list, strip the rest and treat it only as if it was the singular "me", choose one that matches.



Still, often I see things like John and me went to the park. Is this just a common error or are there some specific rules where I will be replaced by me if appearing on a list?


Answer



Standard English requires I in subject position, producing John and I went to the park. Other dialects, however, allow me in subject position when the pronoun is coordinated with a noun or another pronoun. That is why you will see, or more likely hear, John and me went to the park.


On the usage of "the" article with acronyms and initialisms



I've read Using the definite article with acronyms and initialisms and Is it appropriate to use "the" before an abbreviation? I know that



1. The article is often used with initials that are pronounced letter by letter (initialisms).




2. The article is often NOT used with initials that are pronounced as a word (acronyms).



I used 'often' because I'm not sure about possible exceptions.



In my field of study (Operations Research), initials are frequently used to represent optimization problems (e.g., the TSP). I discussed this point with my university supervisor who makes comments on my reports (English is not his native language). He responded that:



"What I learned from [...] was that whenever we use (specific) acronyms, we don't use 'the' when they are within a sentence, and we use 'the' when a sentence starts with them. For instance,



(i) The HCP is an NP-Complete problem.




(ii) We developed a new algorithm to solve HCP."



HCP stands for the Hamiltonian Cycle Problem. It is really confusing me because I do not know when to use and when not to use the article. For example, on this site, the author Jane Watson writes:




Use a definite article with an initialism if the spelled out term begins with “the” but is not covered in the initialism.




which implies that I should use the article with "HCP". What do you think?


Answer




Sadly What I learned from [...] was that whenever we use (specific) acronyms, we don't use 'the' when they are within a sentence, and we use 'the' when a sentence starts with them indicates rather more about his use of it, than about English.



Is it not wholly irrelevant whether the acronym starts or is within a sentence? If the full-out phrase, in this case the Hamiltonian Cycle Problem needs an article then so does the abbreviation… except where the author can demonstrate how that article is included in the abbreviation.



(i) The HCP… seems correct by itself; is an NP-Complete problem contributes nothing.



(ii) … to solve HCP seems to be lacking an article, whichever that be.
Please consider a rather different example of MP meaning Member of Parliament.



The crucial point here is that Joe Soap, who is MP works only in a very few, very specific circumstances; otherwise it fails solely because it has no article.




Joe Soap, who is MP for Piddlington does work in both abbreviated and full forms.



Joe Soap, who is the MP for Piddlington does work in both abbreviated and full forms.



Joe Soap, who is an MP does work - even though using an for the abbreviation almost contradicts the ordinary use of a for the full version.



Joe Soap, who is a MP doesn’t work in abbreviation even tough it should work with the full form, Member of Parliament.


definite articles - Is it appropriate to use "the" before an abbreviation?










For example, which one of these is more appropriate:





I am talking about what the UNICEF has done for India.




or




I am talking about what UNICEF has done for India.



Answer




It depends on how you pronounce the abbreviation (in this case, UNICEF) in whichever part of the world you are in. If you treat it as an acronym and pronounce it as one word (~younisef), then you won't need the article. However, if, you treat it as an initialism and spell out each letter when you pronounce it, then you will need the the.



Illustrating with examples:




I am talking about what UNICEF has done for India.



I am talking about what the UN has done for India.





I believe that this is more of a general rule of thumb than anything else.


Are roller coasters proper names?



I want to write a sentence like this:
I look up at the new roller coaster they built called Superman.



Superman is the name of the roller coaster. Do I need to do anything special with the name? for example should it be in italics?


Answer



You should treat it as as a geographical name or business name: capitalize but not italicize or quote.


Sunday, February 15, 2015

Inversion by "only" in a passive sentence



I have searched for the grammar concerning inversion in passive voice, and my search was fruitless. I was wondering how to put "only" at the beginning of a passive sentence. For example:




Only the temperature is changed ----must be turned into----> Only is the temperature changed



Does it work in this way? If not, how does inversion with only work?



Thanks in advance for your help.


Answer



Passive does not invert its auxiliary be; it just inserts it and turns the verb to past participle.
Promoting the direct object to subject is not inversion, which is simple re-ordering of words.



The "must be turned into" part of your proposed transformation is wrong, with preposed only.
Inversion is not required with preposed adverbs, although it is optionally grammatical
with preposed negative adverbs of place, time, or circumstance (i.e, ones that negate the clause).





  • At no time was the temperature changed.

  • Nowhere may the temperature be changed from the thermostat settings.

  • Under no circumstances is the temperature to be changed.



Only, however, is not one of those. If you try this with different adverbs, you get ungrammaticality:




  • *With no instrument was the salami sliced by George.


  • *In no particular way did she say the sentence.

  • *Only is the temperature changed in the daytime.


Pronunciation of German proper nouns in America





Why are American names of German origin pronounced differently than they would be in German? For example:




  • "Kreutz" sounds like "krites", not "kroyts" (same deal with Anheuser-Busch)

  • "Boehner" sounds like "Bay-ner"



Answer



The German sounds do not exist in English



In some cases, the name is pronounced in German with a sound that does not exist in English. In standard German, "Boehner" or "Böhner" is pronounced /ˈbøːnɐ/, but the /øː/ sound isn't part of the standard inventory of English sounds. (I'm using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) to transcribe sounds.)



This is awkward for English speakers, and generally names like this are made to conform with the English sound system by replacing the foreign sound with one that does occur in English. This isn't specific to words from German; surnames from other languages like Polish or Chinese are also subject to this process.



English speakers choose a replacement sound from English



The choice of which English sound to use to replace the foreign sound is somewhat complex, and linguists actually study this kind of thing.




The most obvious factor is phonetic similarity (how close the actual physical sounds are); but there can also be influence from the overall sound structures of the languages (which are abstract) and the frequency of the candidate English sounds. I think in many cases, the written representation of a word also has a large effect.



Phonetically, /øː/ is a front mid-height rounded vowel, so English vowels with similar phonetic features will work better as substitutes. The English "ay" sound (IPA /eɪ/) is front and mid-height (but not rounded) so it shares 2 features. The English "oh" sound (IPA /oʊ/) is mid-height and rounded (but not front), so it also shares 2 features. The English "er" sound varies between dialects; in British English, it's a pure vowel sound /ɜː/. This is a somewhat different case; it doesn't really share that many specific features with German /øː/, but the features it has combine to create a sort of gestalt that is perceived as similar.



In writing, the use of "oe" may bias native English speakers to pronounce these names with the /oʊ/ sound of "toe."


grammaticality - Expressing rumour with the conditional



Is it grammatically correct to report a rumour using the conditional ('would be', 'would have') to express the simple present ('is', 'has')?



Supposing that the story is not a confirmed fact regarding a royal family's new carriage:




According to press report, the royal family has a new carriage.





To avoid possible accusations of getting the facts wrong, could we reword the sentence above as follows?




According to press report, the royal family would have a new
carriage.




Would that be grammatically correct?


Answer



You need to analyse "conditionals" in three different moods.





  • Optative: Expressing a wish, where the fulfillment is possible.
    The optative is a polite form of speech.


  • Speculative: Expressing a hypothetical situation implying that the fulfillment is possible.


  • Subjunctive impossibility: Expressing a hypothetical situation where the fulfillment is impossible.




These conditionals are often confused by the non-native speaker with the past and past perfect tenses.




Let us look at various examples by comparing with the assertive/non-conditional statement.




  • Present Assertive (of a future action):




    I will have a beer. I will drink beer, when you place it on the table.



  • Present Optative (using the past tense):





    I would like to have a beer. I would drink beer if you placed it on the table.



  • Infinite Assertive:




    She drinks beer. She drinks beer that you place on the table.



  • Infinite Speculative:





    She might have beer. She might drink beer that you placed on the table.



  • Past Assertive:




    She had a beer. She drank the beer, after he placed it on the table



  • Past Speculative (using the past perfect):





    She could have had a beer. She would certainly have drunk it, if he had placed it on the table.



  • Infinite Assertive:




    Stars are little twinkling diamonds in the sky. I wonder how they twinkle.



  • Infinite Subjunctive/impossibility:





    If stars were little twinkling diamonds in the sky, I would wonder how they twinkled.



  • Past Subjunctive/impossibility:




    If stars had been little twinkling diamonds in the sky, I would have wondered how they would have twinkled.



  • Past Speculative:





    Stars could have been little twinkling diamonds in the sky. Our ancestors might have wondered how they had twinkled.





To answer your question: With the above illustrations, you should see that there are subtle differences between the various moods and the difference between "might", "could" and "would".



The press often masquerades speculation as asserted facts. By saying the following, the writer is asserting it as a fact.





According to press report, the royal family has a new baby.




To honestly express a speculation, you would write




According to press report, the royal family might have a new baby.




To express the same speculation in more respectful terms





According to press report, the royal family could be having a new baby




Do not confuse with the optative where the royals are deciding whether to have a new carriage, but have not decided to have one.




According to press report, the royal family would have a new carriage.





Do not confuse with the past perfect retrospective




According to press report, the royal family would have had a new carriage.




Do not confuse with the permissive optative, where the royals are given the permission to have a new carriage.





According to press report, the royal family could have a new carriage.




Difference between "have/had" and "have/had had"



People are often confused when to use "have had". It is actually the confusion in the differing use of of have. The application of "have" in your sentence reveals that confusion. Therefore, it would not express your intention accurately.




According to press report, the royal family would have a new carriage.





"Have" here is not the auxiliary tense verb "have". In your sentence "have" is replaceable by "get".




According to press report, the royal family would get a new carriage.




The following illustrates the meaning of the second "have", where the first "have" is the usual auxiliary tense verb:





I had had breakfast = I had eaten breakfast.



I had had a baby = I had given birth to a baby.



I had had brandy = I had drunk brandy.



We had had wars = we had fought wars.




In conclusion




Therefore, my advice is,




According to press report, the royal family could have had/acquired a new carriage.




To speculate "more assertively", you may write,





According to press report, the royal family should have acquired a new carriage.




You need not use the subjunctive form to express a speculative. The following form would be much better.




According to press report, the royal family may have acquired a new carriage.



grammatical number - "Attached {is/are} X, Y and Z." If X, Y and Z are all singular, is it correct to use "is" here?

Which is correct?




  1. Attached are our compensation plan, an independent contract agreement, and a W9.


  2. Attached is our compensation plan, an independent contract agreement, and a W9.




I thought because each of the items segregated by the comma was singular it should be "is".

meaning - What is the difference between Ukraine and the Ukraine?




Time magazine (March 5th) carries the article titled, “Ukraine, not the Ukraine: The significance of three little letters,” in which the following comment of William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009 was quoted:




“Ukraine is a country. The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to
that part of the country during Soviet times … Now that it is a
country, a nation, and a recognized state, it is just Ukraine. And it
is incorrect to refer to the Ukraine, even though a lot of people do
it.”





http://time.com/12597/the-ukraine-or-ukraine/



What is the difference between Ukraine and the Ukraine? Does the Ukraine mean Ukrainians or Ukrainian district (of Russia)?



Most of all newspapers call Ukraine Ukraine. Are there a lot of people who call the country “the Ukraine,” Really?


Answer



There is something fundamentally wrong with the statement that “The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to that part of the country during Soviet times”. Russian has no definite article, and as far as I know, the Russian name for (the) Ukraine has not changed since the country’s independence.



‘The Ukraine’ is how English-speaking people have traditionally referred to the country—since long before the Soviet Union was ever a thing, too (at least as far back as the 17th century).




There isn’t one, specific reason why some countries acquire the in English. In some cases, it’s because the name is semantically recognisable as referring to a specific thing (the United States of America, for example, refers to a particular set of united states); in others, it is either random or due to some historical meaning of the name that is no longer clear (The Gambia, for example).



There is a tendency that countries with plural names (as well as archipelagos) have the definite article: the Netherlands, the Philippines, the Canaries, the Bahamas, etc.



There are only two country names and one ‘area name’ (for lack of a better word) that officially have the definite as an integral part: the Bahamas, the Gambia, and the Congo (the latter used in the names of two countries that make up the ‘area’: Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo). In all other cases, it is a matter of euphony and convention—to many people, it simply sounds nicer to include the definite article. With some countries, the tendency to include the article has diminished, making forms with the article sound quaint and archaic. Who these days says ‘the Argentine’, for instance, rather than just ‘Argentina’?



The article does not, however, in and of itself indicate that the country whose name it is attached to is seen as a part/colony/state/subject of another country. That interpretation is—to my knowledge—only applied to (the) Ukraine, and it was invented by the Ukrainians themselves.



There is nothing wrong with avoiding the article and thereby pleasing those Ukrainians who feel that it somehow belittles them—unfounded and unwarranted as such a feeling may be—but outside of official statements where a specific guideline dictates what form to use, there is also nothing wrong with using the traditional English name, with the article.




In brief: the only difference between ‘Ukraine’ and ‘the Ukraine’ is political correctness and official guidelines.


Saturday, February 14, 2015

grammatical number - Is using "their hairs" grammatically wrong?

I'm Soumya, an author from India.




A reader has challenged me about the use of the word 'hairs' in my book. I have used, 'a few hairs' and that's justified, as hair is a countable noun in that very phrase. But I'm at a confusion for some other sentences. Could you kindly tell me if I'm wrong grammatically?




  1. "The evening zephyr ruffled their long flowing hairs - the Indian village girl's shiny, black hair, and Audrey's curly blonde hair."


  2. "They had golden or brown or ashen hairs."


  3. "His black and white hairs had now turned into complete white."




Could you please help? Thank you!

nouns - "A friend of my father" vs. "a friend of my father's" — which one is right? Why?

I have seen them both in my reference book, which is written by a native speaker. I wonder why there are two different phrases to describe the same meaning and am looking forward to some reasonable details to explain why this is so.

What is the rule for adjective order?




I remember being taught that the correct order of adjectives in English was something along the lines of "Opinion-Size-Age-Color-Material-Purpose."



However, it's been a long time and I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few categories
(I think there were eight or nine). Can anyone fill them in?


Answer



I am re­mind­ed of how J.R.R. Tol­kien’s moth­er once fa­mous­ly
cor­rect­ed him at a very ear­ly age when he said ‘a green great drag­on’.
She told him that it had to be ‘a great green drag­on’, but when he asked
her why, she couldn’t an­swer, there­by start­ing him down the road of
puz­zling over mat­ters lin­guis­tic and philo­log­ic his whole life long.




This top­ic is one of con­tin­u­ing re­search. Sim­ply goog­ling for
‘ad­jec­tive or­der­ing re­stric­tions’ (AOR) or ‘ad­jec­tive hi­er­ar­chy’
can un­cov­er some fas­ci­nat­ing re­search in this area.



In her 2006 pa­per on “Ad­jec­tive Order­ing Re­stric­tions
Re­vis­it­ed”
on pp
309–407 of the Pro­ceed­ings of the 25ᵗʰ West Coast Con­fer­ence on
For­mal Lin­guis­tics
, Alex­an­dra Te­o­dor­es­cu writes:





Ad­jec­tive or­der­ing re­stric­tions (AOR) have been wide­ly dis­cussed,
but they are still not very well un­der­stood. For ex­am­ple, in
lan­guages like English pre­nom­i­nal ad­jec­tives are strict­ly or­dered.





For ex­am­ple, ad­jec­tives that de­note qual­i­ty have been ar­gued to
pre­cede ad­jec­tives con­vey­ing size, which in turn pre­cede ad­jec­tives
con­vey­ing shape, and so on, in all lan­guages (5). Sim­i­lar claims have

been made for oth­er ad­jec­tive types, and the re­spec­tive or­der­ing
re­stric­tions are giv­en in (6).




  • (5) Qual­i­ty > Size > Shape > Color > Prov­e­nance [Sproat and Shih (1991)]


  • (6) a. Posses­sive > Speak­er-ori­ent­ed > Sub­ject-ori­ent­ed >Man­ner/The­mat­ic [Cinque (1994)]


  •        b. Value > Di­men­sion > Phys­i­cal prop­er­ty > Speed > Hu­man Propen­si­ty > Age > Color [Dixon (1982)]






See Teodor­es­cu’s bib­li­og­ra­phy to chase down re­lat­ed work. You
should al­so look for pa­pers that cite hers (Google Schol­ar finds 26 such
ci­ta­tions

to her work), like Lu­cas Cham­pi­on’s 2006 pa­per on “A Game-The­o­ret­ic
Ac­count of Ad­jec­tive Order­ing
Restric­tions”
, which
starts off with the Tol­kien ex­am­ple.



Build­ing then on Cham­pi­on’s work is this English-lan­guage pa­per by
An­to­nia An­drout­so­pou­lou, Ma­nuel Es­pañol-Eche­va­rría, and Phil­ippe

Pré­vost en­ti­tled “On the Ac­qui­si­tion of the Prenom­i­nal Place­ment
of Eval­u­a­tive Ad­jec­tives in L2
Spanish”
, from the 10ᵗʰ His­pan­ic Lin­guis­tics Sym­po­si­um in 2008. This one is in­ter­est­ing
be­cause it looks at how sec­ond-lan­guage learn­ers ac­quire an
un­der­stand­ing of ad­jec­tive or­der­ing when learn­ing a new lan­guage:




In this pa­per, we fur­ther in­ves­ti­gate knowl­edge of ad­jec­ti­val
or­der­ing re­stric­tions in for­eign lan­guage learn­ing, by fo­cus­ing on
L2 ac­qui­si­tion of eval­u­a­tive ad­jec­tives (EAs) in Span­ish by French

learn­ers.




The most re­cent pro­fes­sion­al pub­li­ca­tion I could find on this is­sue
is Katy Mc­Kin­ney-Bock­’s 2010 pa­per on “Ad­jec­tive Class­es and
Syn­tac­tic Or­der­ing
Re­stric­tions”
,
in which she writes:





There is a lack of con­sen­sus in the lit­er­a­ture as to which
clas­si­fi­ca­tion of ad­jec­tives is di­rect­ly rel­e­vant for the
ob­served syn­tac­tic re­stric­tions on their or­der­ing. In this pa­per, I
ar­gue that ad­jec­tives are di­vid­ed in­to four class­es of rel­e­vance
for syn­tac­tic or­der­ing. I pro­pose that ad­jec­tive or­der­ing
re­stric­tions (AOR) are the re­sult of ad­jec­ti­val con­stit­u­ents
rais­ing or not rais­ing in the struc­ture as a con­se­quence of their
com­plex­i­ty, rather than stip­u­lat­ing that se­man­tic prop­er­ties
cor­re­late to syn­tac­tic heads.





and whose ex­tend­ed ab­stract reads:




I ar­gue there are four class­es of ad­jec­tives rel­e­vant to
syn­tac­tic or­der­ing: pred­ica­tive/in­ter­sec­tive,
pred­ica­tive/non-in­ter­sec­tive, non-pred­ica­tive, clas­si­fy­ing
(Sven­on­i­us 2008, Al­ex­i­a­dou et al 2007), and pre­vi­ous pro­pos­als
have not iden­ti­fied the rel­e­vant se­man­tic di­men­sions. Among the
prop­er­ties of grad­abil­i­ty, mass/count, and in­ter­sec­tiv­i­ty, on­ly

in­ter­sec­tiv­i­ty is syn­tac­ti­cal­ly rel­e­vant. The four class­es of
ad­jec­tives are mo­ti­vat­ed by the dis­tri­bu­tion of
or­dered/non-or­dered ad­jec­tives, scope ef­fects with cer­tain
ad­jec­tive-pairs, PP-mod­i­fi­ca­tion, N-drop­ping and com­par­a­tives
(Bouchard 2002, Hig­gin­both­am 1985, Ken­nedy 1999). DP struc­ture
in­volves 1) merg­ing the clas­si­fy­ing ad­jec­tive with pro­nounced N, 2)
merg­ing in­ter­sec­tive ad­jec­tives with N, 3) merg­ing
non-in­ter­sec­tive ad­jec­tives with a silent copy of N.





Fi­nal­ly, if you’re look­ing for some­thing slight­ly less pro­fes­sion­al
— or at least, less aca­dem­ic — then in this blog
post­ing
,
the wri­ter pos­its an or­der­ing of:




  • eval­u­a­tion

  • size

  • shape

  • con­di­tion


  • hu­man pro­pen­si­ty

  • age

  • col­or

  • ori­gin

  • ma­te­ri­al

  • at­trib­u­tive noun



And sum­ma­rizes with:





If there’s def­i­nite­ly a mean­ing dif­fer­ence be­tween dif­fer­ent
ad­jec­tive or­der­ings, let that de­ter­mine how you or­der them, and
don’t use com­mas. If you can’t find a mean­ing dif­fer­ence, don’t go
try­ing to force there to be one. In­stead, go by the
ad­jec­tive-or­der­ing hi­er­ar­chy, and don’t use com­mas. If more than
one ad­jec­tive has the same kind of mean­ing in the hi­er­ar­chy, then use
com­mas, or ands or buts if the ad­jec­tives have con­tras­tive mean­ings.





There’s a lot more out there on this top­ic.


Friday, February 13, 2015

grammar - Meaning of "I would there were..."?



What is the meaning of "I would there were", as in this quote from Shakespeare's "A Winter's Tale"?





I would there were no age between sixteen and three-and-twenty, or
that youth would sleep out the rest;




From its context, I assume it means "I wish there were" but I find it difficult to conceive how the modern usage of "would" could ever have been used in this way.


Answer



It simply means “I wish” or “O that”. Even today some people will still say “Would that it were so!” in an intentionally archaic manner.



See sense 36 of the OED entry on will. This is just an excerpt:





36. Similarly with const. as in 2: viz. with obj. clause, with vb. in past subj. (arch. except in would rather or sooner = ‘should prefer’), †rarely in pres. subj., or with acc. and inf. Hence (arch.) with ellipsis of 1st pers. pron. as an expression of longing = ‘I wish’, ‘O that’; also, by confusion with 37, in the form (I) would to God (or heaven).




  • 1590 Shaks. Mids. N. v. i. 255, ― I am wearie of this Moone; would he would change.

  • 1595 Shaks. John iii. iv. 48, ― I am not mad, I would to heauen I were.

  • 1599 B. Jonson Cynthia’s Rev. To Rdr. A 4 b, ― I would thou hadst some Sugar Candyed, to sweeten thy Mouth.

  • 1777 Miss M. Townshend in Jesse Selwyn & Contemp. (1844) III. 260 ― This news I picked up at Bet’s door. Would to God that we had peace!

  • 1816 J. Wilson City of Plague ii. i, ― At a sad hour the sailor hath return’d; Would he were yet at sea!


  • 1831 Scott Ct. Rob. xix, ― I would to God I had more.

  • 1865 Whittier Kallundborg Church 48 ― Would I might die now in thy stead!

  • 1882 Tennyson Charge of the Heavy Brigade Epil. 10-11, ― I would that wars should cease, I would the globe from end to end Might sow and reap in peace.



semicolon - Rule of punctuation when a principal sentence is followed by two or more subordinate sentences



I put below a text I found in a written reply I came across:




"...in the Audit Report, it is stated that we did not rebut the Draft Audit Report (DAR). The actual fact is otherwise: we had prepared a written submission against the DAR; when we went to submit the same to Sales Tax Office, the Receiving Clerk, before receiving the written representation, asked us to get an initial of Mr. Dharmendra Verma on the written representation in compliance with the practice prevalent in that office; when we requested Mr. Verma to put the initial, he kept the written representation with himself and asked us to visit him on a later date; we paid several visits to him on the later dates as, each time we visited him on a later date, he asked us to visit him on a still later date; he has not yet put the initial and the written representation is still laying with him. So, it is not true that we did not rebut the DAR."





In the text quoted above, the writer, in order to introduce a story, first puts an introductory sentence as follows:




"The actual fact is otherwise:"




and then unfolds the story in five sentences that follow the introductory sentence. After the introductory sentence is written, the story that the writer seeks to introduce gets initiated, but remains incomplete until all the five following sentences that unfold the story are written. It is perhaps for this reason that the writer first punctuates the introductory sentence with a colon (:) and then punctuates all intermediate sentences with a semicolon (;) before he punctuates the final sentence closing the story with a full stop (.).




I do not know if this rule of punctuation is okay. Can anybody shed some light?



In the instant text, the story consisted of just five sentences, so the punctuation pattern (first a colon, then one or more semicolons and, finally, a full stop) was workable. In case a story is lengthier, say consisting of twenty sentences or thirty, the reader, by the time he finishes the story, would forget the context that he was in when he started reading the story. Cannot in that case the writer resort to put the entire story in a separate paragraph with usual punctuation and no need to punctuate as aforesaid?


Answer



I certainly wouldn't ever punctuate in that way nor, I should hope would I ever write in such a tortuous manner.



It either needs to be bullet-pointed, or else written as a piece of prose, with separate sentences for each item. And, as prose, it requires linking syntax.



My suggestion would be something like the following. I have also eliminated the excessive verbosity. The end result I would suggest is far simpler and more easily read.





The facts are otherwise. To begin with we prepared a written
submission against the DAR, but when we went to submit it to the Sales
Tax Office, the Receiving Clerk, asked us to get it initialled by Mr.
Dharmendra Verma, in compliance with the usual practice.



However, when we asked Mr. Verma for his initials, he kept the
written representation and asked us to visit him at a later date. We
have made several visits but each time he has asked us to come on a
still later date.




He has never initialled the document, and it is still in his
possession.



Hence it is not true that we failed to rebut the DAR.



hyphenation - When should com­pound words be writ­ten as one word, with hy­phens, or with spaces?



Some compound words are written without hyphens (nonaggression, nonbeliever), some with hyphens (well-intentioned), and others with spaces (post office).




Is there a rule or good guide as to which option should be used?


Answer



In English, there are three types of compound words:





  1. the closed form, in which the words are melded together, such as firefly, secondhand, softball, childlike, crosstown, redhead, keyboard, makeup, notebook;


  2. the hyphenated form, such as daughter-in-law, master-at-arms, over-the-counter, six-pack, six-year-old, mass-produced;


  3. and the open form, such as post office, real estate, middle class, full moon, half sister, attorney general.






For the most part, compound words that are created by adding a prefix are not hyphenated. For example, there are the words anteroom, extraordinary and coordinate. Some exceptions to this rule are (from the link above):





  1. compounds in which the second element is capitalized or a number:
    anti-Semitic, pre-1998, post-Freudian

  2. compounds which need hyphens to avoid confusion:
    un-ionized (as distinguished from unionized), co-op


  3. compounds in which a vowel would be repeated (especially to avoid confusion):
    co-op, semi-independent, anti-intellectual (but reestablish, reedit)

  4. compounds consisting of more than one word: (poster's note: these are phrasal adjectives)
    non-English-speaking, pre-Civil War

  5. compounds that would be difficult to read without a hyphen:
    pro-life, pro-choice, co-edited




Your original example of "well-intentioned" is also explained here:





The other time we must use hyphenation is to join a word to a past participle to create a single adjective preceding the noun it modifies: "a well-intentioned plan," for example, or "a horseshoe-shaped bar."




So, why isn't nonaggression hyphenated? It can be broken into non + aggression, so it is formed by adding a basic prefix onto the noun. In doing so, it breaks none of the exceptions to the rule: "aggression" is not capitalized, hyphenating the term doesn't avoid confusion, a vowel isn't repeated, the compound only consists of 2 words, and it is perfectly readable without a hyphen.


Thursday, February 12, 2015

grammar - When do present participles shift from being "gerunds" or "verbal nouns" to become non-finite clauses?

Note: This is not a question about what is the difference between a gerund, verb and participle, interesting as that polemic may be. It is about non-finite clauses, which does bear upon these distinctions but that is not the question at hand.



There is so much confusion about gerunds, and people often think that any use of the present participle outside the continuous tenses is either a gerund or an adjective. When a present participle is used as a simple subject or object, or when it takes a determiner or adjective as a modifier, its noun-like function is clear and obvious, but when does a such a participle stop being being noun-like or even verb-like (which they always are) and become a verb in a non-finite clause?





Baking is my hobby.



My kids need tutoring.



Owning is better than renting.



Swimming has made my physique lean and strong.





These verb forms are all clearly functioning like nouns and qualify as 'gerunds' because they are things or actions as things but this argument seems to be made because subjects and objects are always things. However, they are not always nouns, obviously. You can't reclassify a verb as a noun because it appears in a sentence as a subject or object. And I doubt this could be considered conversion or zero-derivation because participles are already derivative.



But I can add verb complements and modifiers to these, which cause them to behave more or less like nouns and more or less like verbs, all in one go.




Baking cakes in the wee hours is my hobby.



My kids need (their) tutoring (regularly), at least once a week.




Owning a house is better than renting one.



(my) Swimming (everyday) in the lap pool has helped me in building a lean and strong physique.




The words in ( ) are optional simply to show that these participles can be modified as nouns with determiners and adjectives and as verbs with adverbs and adverbial complements all within a single sentence. This rather confounds the idea that participles can be classified as nouns or verbs based on the modifiers they take, and also the notion that gerunds are nouns.



Have I changed these present participles from 'gerunds' to verbs in non-finite clauses? Is is safe to say that present participles are only 'gerunds' when they do not take a complement or am I missing something more specific that determines this distinction? Or, perhaps, even bare participles as subjects or objects are always non-finite clauses? I'm quite confused on this point. But in any case these participles are not functioning as nouns per se, they are rather functioning as subject or objects, and that distinction to me anyway, seems clarifying.



Addendum:

As always, my objective is to explore ways to frame complex topics in the simplest of ways for my ESL students, so they are more readily comprehensible, while still remaining in the zone of broadly accepted linguistic concepts terminology. That's not easy, for one because prescriptivists routinely abuse linguistic terminology and concepts, mixing them up and misapplying them. As a result, there is a lot of inconsistency as to how they are applied in the world of on and offline language instruction and reference works, which usually leaves students befuddled and quite literally hating grammar. At least linguists somehow manage to keep these ideas organized in their proper theoretical silos, even while they debate them, which is quite a feat if you ask me.



I don't particularity like the term gerund and would much prefer to call bare present participles, when used as subjects or objects, as 'participle subjects' or 'participle objects'. This would obviate the confusion around calling them verbal nouns or gerunds or the need to reclassify them as nouns (which I think is wrong because they are already derivative). In this article Zero-derivation – Functional Change – Metonymy by Doris Schönefeld there is no mention of participles as examples of conversion.



My question is really about when these participle subjects/objects are properly considered as non-finite clauses. I know that I'm often opening a can of worms, a rabbit hole so to speak with such queries, but as I delve into these topics I consistently find ways to explain them in simple terms that my students can understand. I also rely on the brain's natural capacity to subconsciously organize patterns in language, which allows me to state things as simply as possible, and then to help students observe the patterns and the meaning that develops with various training exercises. None of us needed to understand the linguistic complexity of our first language to become expert at using it. I think the same should be true for second language learners, with a bit of help from a simplified system of grammar but one that is consistent with standard linguistic terms of analysis. This feels a bit Sisyphean at times but I do make progress.



Note to those who think this is a duplicate question: This is not a question about what is the difference between a gerund, verb and participle. It is about non-finite clauses.