Tuesday, March 31, 2015

punctuation - When ending a list with "etc.", should there be a comma before "etc."?



When listing items and ending the list with "etc", should there be a comma before "etc."? E.g.




red, green, blue, etc.





or




red, green, blue etc.




Related question, though this one involves the word "and", so I am no sure if the answer applies to this question or not: Should I put a comma before the last item in a list?


Answer




If there's no conjunction at the end of the list (and / or for example), then a comma is required. Thus, the correct version is:




red, green, blue, etc.




(Note that etc. should include the full stop, as it is an abbreviation.)



Regarding commas before and (or any conjunction) at the end of the list, that is a matter of huge debate. The subject is well-discussed on the Wikipedia page for the serial comma. Although it's probably fair to say that usage of the serial comma is non-standard in general, many notable institutions and publications such as Oxford and Harvard Universities strongly recommend its usage. There are certainly some good arguments for its usage, mainly in terms of consistency and unambiguity. If you want to open up this can of worms, I suggest we start another question (and make it community wiki for its subjectivity).


tenses - "Have never had" vs "never had"




My friends and I are discussing about a grammar question that hasn't reached a conclusion. We were at a birthday party last night and we ate pizza there. Immediately after eating the pizza, one of my friends said "It was nice! I have never had pizza before." I told him that it should be "It was nice! I ** never had** pizza before. I think the past tense should have been used because by the time he spoke about not having pizza, he actually had it. But I could not counter why he was wrong. Could someone please tell me "have never had" or "never had" which one he should have used?


Answer



I would say both of them are correct, but the present-perfect one sounds more natural.



The present-perfect version basically says "We just had a good pizza – up until now, I've never had anything like this", while the past-perfect version says "We had a good pizza this evening – up until that pizza, I'd never had anything like it".



It's about point of view. Your friend views the moment of eating that pizza as very recent, hence he chose to use present perfect. You view that moment as occurring in the past, hence you chose to use past perfect. Both are OK, but I personally would use the present perfect tense.



Do note that in the future, where the moment of eating that pizza clearly belongs to the past, we must use the past perfect.




Also, in spoken English, have/had as helper verbs are (almost always) contracted to 've and 'd


Monday, March 30, 2015

grammar - Contractions With "Has"

Is it acceptable to make a contraction with an arbitrary noun and the word "has" to create a more conversational style in writing?



For example, can I write...



"Tomorrow, when the storm's blown away," instead of "Tomorrow, when the storm has blown away"?



I haven't been able to find any set, grammatical rules that apply in this context. Any help is much appreciated.

hyphenation - Plus sign before or after hyphenated word




Let's say there's a set of buildings with differing numbers of units in each. I would like to describe them as two or more unit buildings. Writing it out with the number, would I write "2+-unit buildings," "2+ unit buildings," "2-unit+ buildings" or something else entirely?


Answer



Most of this is coming from my personal experience, as I've not seen any professor or style guide talk about this. That might be the main problem here. I'll evaluate the three options you've presented and why I would go with one and not the others.



However, if you want to quickly know the answer, the tldr is I'd personally go with "2+ unit buildings".



1. 2+-unit Buildings



I suspect this option stems from thinking that this is a compound word. I'm basing this off of the inclusion of the hyphen.




The first problem, which isn't that big of a deal, is that it looks very confusing and ugly.



The more major issue I have is that it's an attempt to be formal, but violates a lot of formal style guides. Most style guides that I've ever been exposed to say that numbers less than 10 (some like Chicago Style say less than 100) in text should be spelled out. I've also seen some not allow starting sentences or phrases with numbers.



I just personally don't like and have never seen this option. It's trying to be formal when the most formal thing to say would be something like "Each building contains two or more units." If you're going to break formalities, just break them.



2. 2+ Unit Buildings



I prefer this option because it's more casual, which (I'm assuming) is better suited for the situation. I've seen it in use, though I don't think any so called Leading Authority has said it's the right thing to do in your situation, or any situation for that matter. I've most often seen it used on websites, games, or posters either implied or outright shown. I believe the reason for this is because it's quicker to read and easy on the eyes (at least my eyes anyway).




It also maintains sense when rearranged. What I mean is that if you were to write "Each building contains 2+ units." it makes sense.



3. 2-unit+ Buildings



I dislike this option the most; the first reason is for a similar reason I don't like option 1: It looks awkward. Though honestly, this is a nitpick.



The main reason I dislike it is because it doesn't make much sense. The plus as I understand it is a stand in for the phrase "or more", and should be right next to the amount it modifies. If you take that away, you are saying that each building contains a 2-unit. Not sure what that is.







I'm not sure what you're doing this for. If it's for something formal, I wouldn't do it at all; I'd rewrite the phrase and/or spell everything out. If this is for a poster or ad or something, I'd pick the 2nd option for the reasons given above. Hope this helped.


Sunday, March 29, 2015

grammar - It it wasn't FOR or BECAUSE OF



If it wasn't for the view, this would be a lovely room




and




If it wasn't because of the view,...




Which one should I use? Are they different from each other

word choice - {Profession}'s Inn or {Profession}s Inn

Say you would open an inn primarily for people who build things.



Would that be called the "Builder's Inn" or the "Builders Inn"?

Saturday, March 28, 2015

grammar - The definite article with geographical terms

I know in English you can use the definite article with geographical expressiones such as the sea, the country, the land, the city, the beach, the seaside, but what about other geographical terms? Can I use them as generic terms to mean "the idea of ..."? I don't mean any particular place.




The jellyfish lives in the water.



(= I don't mean any particular water. I mean the idea or concept of water: an area of
water, especially a lake, river, sea or ocean)



The grasshopper lives in the meadow.




( = I don't mean any meadow. I mean the idea or concept of meadow: a field
covered in grass, used especially for hay)



The lion is the king of the jungle.



Is there a cat that lives in the desert?



There is only one type of cat that lives in the desert. The sand
cat (Felis margarita) is the only member of the cat family tied
directly to sand regions. Found in North Africa, the Arabian peninsula

and the deserts of Turkmenistan in Uzbekistan, the sand cat has
adapted to extremely arid desert areas.



Plants live in many different environments. Some live in the
ocean, some live in the desert. Plants are very important to
everyone on the planet.



Hope shows up in several places in this very dark world—such as in the
incorruptible goodness of Katniss' sister, Primrose. It shows in
Katniss' rare sacrifice for her sister, when she volunteers to take

Prim's place in the Games. It lives in the meadow and the woods, where
the natural world exists mostly unmolested by the powerful central
government.



In Africa, the rhino lives in the Savannah among zebras, lions,
giraffes, elephants, hippos, and other animals




This is what books say, but obviously they can't cover all cases:




enter image description here

meaning - Being Clever vs Being Wise




A sage is wise. That young woman is clever.



Both of them (I think) are good at not getting into unwanted trouble, and both are good at solving problems.



So.. Is there a difference between being clever and being wise?


Answer



As I use the terms -- and I grant that there may be variation in usage --



Cleverness/intelligence is the ability to solve a problem.




Wisdom is the ability to know whether the problem needs to be solved, whether it's the right problem, and whether it's a problem at all.



(MIT had many students who were extremely intelligent, but some of them didn't have the wisdom God gave a goose.)


grammaticality - "A friend of his" type expression for abstract entities

Like many non-native speakers, formulations like "a friend of his" strike me as counter-intuitive, but I'm trying to adapt. Now I have a strange situation: I want to apply it to abstract entities. The sentence would be:




"What can we do with assignments and hierarchies of theirs?"




(I use assignments because I'm trying to avoid repetition. In the real text it's "blabla transmogrifying assignments").



I think this sounds awkward, and I can't recall ever having read anything like that. Is it possible that this type of construction is only valid for people? Or maybe it's a slightly different meaning of "of", and there's no possessive aspect to my usage of "of"?




I'm aware of Why do you say "friend of mine" instead of "friend of me"?
and
Is "a friend of his" a used phrase? but all the examples had a person as the possessing subject.

questions - can we point o an animal and "what animal is this ? or which animal is this? which one is correct?

I just wanted to know if its gramatically correct to say what animal is this? or which animal I this?

grammar - Are there other grammatical ways to say, "I'm reading a novel of Steinbeck's"?

I would like to ask why the following sentence is only possible according to grammatical rules:




I'm reading a novel of Steinbeck's




What's wrong with "I'm reading a novel of Steinbeck" or "I'm reading Steinbeck's novel"?

usage - "Thousands-Dollar" or "Thousand-Dollar"?

If a prize is worth thousands of dollars, is it called




a thousands-dollar prize





or




a thousand-dollar prize


Friday, March 27, 2015

nouns - Is the word "management" singular or plural?








Which one of the following is correct?




Management gets its ideas from its employees.
Management gets their ideas from their employees.


Thursday, March 26, 2015

prepositions - Meaning and usage of “be of”



As I'm preparing my GMAT test, I see the "be of" structure very frequently.
for example





By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records, earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were of dangerously experimental design.




This really bothers me as it contradicts the conclusion from the post
Meaning and usage of "be of", because in GMAT writings the "be of" looks very flexible. I find it's very difficult to understand sometime, but I know these are really fine and efficient writings.



I guess my question was, in this case, can you get rid of the "of" and what the usage of it here?
If I take off the "of" here, does it modify the meaning of this sentence?





By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records, earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were dangerously experimental design.



Answer



This is a different phemomenon from the one discussed in the "Meaning and usage of "be of" post. That one describes a set of idiomatic predicate prepositional phrases -- be of assistance/service/use/help -- that have special pragmatic uses.



This phenomenon is a headless relative clause that happens to have a prepositional phrase. If you put back all the stuff that has been left out and unwind the transformations you get something like





  • ... the planes that she flew were planes that were of dangerously experimental design.



That-deletion results in




  • ... the planes she flew ...



and Whiz-deletion results in





  • ... the planes she flew were planes of dangerously experimental design.



And, since planes just occurred a few words back, it gets deleted here, producing a headless relative clause meaning "[ones that are] of dangerously experimental design".
These are all optional, and unordered, and independent, like most syntax.



English deletes a lot of stuff from relative clauses, producing sentences that look like other sentences with very different uses and conventions.


grammatical number - Which is it: "1½ years old" or "1½ year old"?





1½ is not yet 2 or more, so which do we properly say: "1½ years old" or "1½ year old"?


Answer



If the entry is part of a classification:




That kid is a one-and-a-half-year-old.




If the entry is describing the age of the person:





That kid is one and a half years old.




Both of these work, and work similarly for whole numbers:




That man is a 50-year-old [person].



That man is 50 years old.




grammar - Is "Happy Birthday!" a complete sentence?



Is "Happy Birthday!" a complete sentence? And if it is, what role are the words happy and birthday playing? Where is the verb? Can "happy" be a verb? I know in a sentence like "Go get the milk" there is an implied "You" at the beginning that makes it complete. Is there an implied verb?


Answer




There are those who consider statements which do not consist of complete sentences as always wrong. While sentence fragments and other sentence substitutes (see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentence+substitute ) should not be used where lack of clarity would result, and their overuse is bad style, strings such as 'Happy Birthday(!)', 'No', 'Thanks', 'Ciao', 'On the table', 'Up the Reds', 'Too bad!' etc are commonly used and not wrong per se. Some are formulaic (eg 'On yer bike!') and, even if they are elided forms, that might now be hard to deduce. Less formulaic examples are usually more obviously elided forms (Where are the keys? - (They are) On the table.)



You could consider 'Happy Birthday' to be an elision of 'You have a happy birthday' via 'Have a happy birthday', but the phrase stands well enough alone (and has achieved double-capital-letter status as a fixed expression of salutation). As Janus Bahs Jacquet says in his comment, “Happy Birthday!” is not a sentence according to the normally accepted definition. But that does not make it unacceptable (as is usually quite obvious when it is used).


Wednesday, March 25, 2015

grammaticality - Parallel structures when dealing with two items

Is there a need to make the sentence below parallel?





Whether you are looking for a place to leave items or want to manage your inventory . . .




I find that if it's converted to the more parallel structure below, the contrast between the two choices is lost.




Whether you're looking for a place to leave items or manage your inventory . . .





[Managing the inventory will happen at the place, so the sense of the sentence above is correct. This isn't the actual sentence I'm working with so it might not sound completely logical.]

grammatical number - Should it be "there is a total of 378 vehicles" or "there are a total of 378 vehicles"?




I'm not sure if the subject is the total (in which case it would be "there is") or the vehicles (in which case it would be "there are").



I suppose another option would be to remove "total of" from the sentence, but assuming that "total of" is left in, I'd like to know what the proper wording would be.


Answer



These Google Ngrams appear to show that



(1) both variants are in use




(2) the “there are a total of" version is about twice as common



(3) popularity has reversed since about 1970.



People answering 'it should be ...' are choosing one of the conflicting 'rules' rather than another (and results show that they're hardly worthy of the name 'rule').



“There is a total of 378 vehicles” uses what is known as 'grammatical concord' (there being a single total).



“There are a total of 378 vehicles” uses (at least equally correct) notional concord; compare 'If a majority of the members vote for the bill ...'. I'd consider 'There is a total of 378 vehicles waiting for replacement timer chains' extremely awkward to unacceptable. 'There are a total of ...' is idiomatic for 'There are, in total, ...' when used with further expressions such as 'waiting for replacement timer chains' or 'which need new tyres'.


verb agreement - Would 'There are 300,000 dollars in my bank account' be correct usage?

Would using there are instead of there is be acceptable in utterances that talk about quantity? For example,





  • There are 300,000 dollars in my account.

  • There are 20 gallons of petrol in my tank.



pronouns - "You know more about this than me/I"











Which is correct?





You know more about this than me.



You know more about this than I.




The second sounds unnatural, but I think it is correct because a trailing know is implied.


Answer



My guess is both are correct. The first than is used as a preposition while the second one is used as a conjunction.




Note however, to me, the first sentence means you know more about this than you know about me while the second one means you know more about this than I know about this.


Tuesday, March 24, 2015

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.



Sunday, March 22, 2015

grammaticality - Is this relative clause grammatically correct?

Is the relative clause in this sentence grammatically correct? If not, why?




The screens were there for bulletins but usually showed only mindfulness videos, which made him uneasy and avert his eyes.




  1. ". . . which made him uneasy."


  2. ". . . which made him avert his eyes."




Both constructions independently seem fine to me, but when conjoined something seems amiss.

Word order in imperative sentence

What are the correct possibilities for word order in the following sentence?
Is there any general rule for imperative sentences? (Like SVOMPT?)





  1. Please, check regularly the updated information about the meetings on the EBC website.

  2. Please, regularly check the updated information about the meetings on the EBC website.

  3. Please, check the updated information about the meetings on the EBC website regularly.



Something is telling me 1 isn't entirely correct, 2 maybe. I think 3 is correct, however I don't like the word regularly to be so far from the words check and information.



EDIT: attempt to summarize the answers:





  • #1 sounds awkward to most people except for Barrie

  • #2 seems to have least opponents

  • the comma should be omitted

  • new solution raised (from Hellion & Barrie England):



4) Please check regularly for updated information about the meetings on the EBC website.




Do you all think #4 is the best?

meaning - "I just ate them" and "I've just eaten them" — What's the difference in American and in British?



I know there are differences between American and British English in this area. So when answering, please specify whether you speak American or British English.


Answer



The answer is that "I have just eaten them" is normal in British and I think US usage, but "I just ate them" is not normal in British use, or at any rate wasn't until recently (except in the different sense of mplungjan's answer).



The aspectual difference between the simple past and the present perfect is that the perfect is used for past-with-present-relevance, the simple past for, well, simple past.




So "I have eaten it" has some present relevance - perhaps I can still feel the curry burning in my belly; or somebody has just discovered the cake has gone and wants to know where it is now; or I am in the (present) state of having eaten polar bear at some time in my life. "I ate it" is regarding the event on its own without considering any present relevance - even possibly those same acts of eating the curry, the cake and the polar bear.



In a similar way, some expressions of time encompass the present. "Just" and "just now" do, and so normally do "today" and "this afternoon" (assuming it is still this afternoon). "Yesterday", "once", and "this morning" (if it is no longer morning) do not.



In British usage (more than US), we don't tend to use a present-related expression of time with a simple past, or a non-present-related time with a perfect; if we do the latter, it implies that the relevant time is in fact finished.



So (all judgments with regard to UK usage):




  • "I have just eaten it" but not "I just ate it" (in that sense)


  • "I saw him yesterday" but not "I have seen him yesterday"

  • "I have eaten polar bear" and "I ate polar bear once", but not "I have eaten polar bear once"¹.



"I have seen him today" and "I saw him today" are both acceptable, but have slightly different meanings: "I saw him today" implies that the time within which I might have seen him today is over — for example he has gone away. This is even clearer in negative and interrogative cases: "Have you seen him today?" implies that you might still be able to, while "Did you see him today?" implies that you have missed him.



As I say, the judgments above are for UK English: I am aware that US English is not the same in this regard, but I wouldn't like to specify exactly how.



¹ Actually, I've realised that "I have eaten polar bear once" is acceptable, but with a different meaning, "on exactly one occasion" as opposed to "at some time in the past". "I ate polar bear once" is ambiguous between these, but unless "once" is emphasised, will usually mean "at some time in the past". "I have eaten polar bear once" can only mean "on exactly one occasion".


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

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



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




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

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Is this an it-cleft with bare infinitive?




   "Actually, we didn't get lost," the tall one says. "We
ran away."
   "Not running away so much as just
stumbling onto this spot and deciding to stay put," the brawny one
adds. "That's different from getting lost."
   "Not
just anybody can find this place," the tall soldier says. "But we did,
and now you have too. It was a stroke of luck--for us, at least."
   "If we hadn't found this spot, they would've shipped us

overseas," the brawny one ex-plains. "Over there it was kill or be
killed
. That wasn't for us. I'm a farmer, originally, and my buddy
here just graduated from college. Neither one of us wants to kill
anybody. And being killed's even worse. Kind of obvious, I'd
say."
   "How 'bout you?" the tall one asks me. "Would
you like to kill anybody, or be killed?"
(Kafka on the Shore, tr.
by Philip Gabriel)




Why does the first phrase have bare infinitive?

(If the first be an it-cleft, CGEL says the type is normally inadmissible (p.1422), and Bas Aarts also says in his book to infinitives are allowable not in it-cleft but only in pseudo-cleft.)


Answer



The first phrase is not an it-cleft, which is clear from the complete lack of a subordinating clause. An it-cleft is it + be + X[usually NP] + subordinate clause




it + was + the fall from the cliff + that killed him




Note that an it-cleft does not have a to-infinitive.




kill or be killed is an idiomatic phrase, a single lexical unit sometimes called a Siamese Twin, that describes a situation. The first phrase is actually a simple declarative sentence "It was X" describing a situation or state.




It was crowded



It was dangerous



It was noisy



It was do or die




It was kill or be killed




The second phrase is part of a question, asking "Would you like to X?" As it is asking about a like, it has a to-infinitive.




Would you like to eat?



Would you like to sleep?




Would you like to kill?




To-infinitives are commonly used when talking about thoughts or feelings:




He chose/wanted/decided/liked/hated/expected/hoped/etc to shoot his enemy



word choice - What is the proper way to refer to the Original Poster (OP)?



In a comment, I was corrected by referring to a user named alice as a "he". I said (context):





I know he thinks he needs all of the eigenvalues, but I've learned that ...




and was corrected to by another user




But a protip: the username "alice" and the pronoun "he" typically don't go together. Probably better to stick to gender-neutral singular they.





Which of these would be correct?




  1. I know he thinks he needs all of the eigenvalues, ...

  2. I know he/she thinks he/she needs all of the eigenvalues, ...

  3. I know they think they need all of the eigenvalues, ...

  4. I know the OP thinks they need all of the eigenvalues, ...




Clearly this question is related:



Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")?



I'm interested in the last case where OP is essentially a pronoun, but the usage sounds awkward. Is there a good way to refer to OP or should I stick with "they"?


Answer



As the comments say OP is a noun here.



He/she is too longwinded. "They" is gender neutral. Theirs, they're, they are, them etc.




I would go with option 4 as it identifies "them" as "the OP". Option 3 could confuse readers about who the actual subject is.


grammar - Mixed conditionals - Future / Future

It is the first time that I ask a question, thanks in advance to whoever is going to reply.

I am studying conditional sentences and I cannot find anywhere a structure for a hypotethical future situation with a future result. I am giving you an example to understand if it is possible to express what I want to say, please correct me if I am wrong.



"If I were going to the concert tonight, I would be fulfilling the dream of my life"

Present simple Passive - Change in the meaning when translate from active to passive or Vice versa

I know that passives can not be formed if we don't have direct object. Except that do we have any other situation in which we cant convert active into passive OR Passive into active.



From Active to Passive



I wash my car.



Active: I wash my car.(It means that I wash my car on my own everyday. I like music...kind of habit/something which I do everyday.)



Passive: My car is washed by me. (Now when I read this sentence what my understanding is That the car is in clean state which is done by me.)




In case, if my understanding is correct then by changing voice i also changed the meaning of the sentence.In my understanding, the meaning should not change. Generally, in passive voice the focus changes from doer of the action to object on which the action is done. But the meaning remains the same.



Please let me know how it works? Can we form passive keeping the same meaning for this sentence?



From Passive to active



For simple Past:



"The door was locked." There can be two interpretation:




1) It was a state. (Past participle)
2) It was done by somebody. (passive)



We decide from the context in those cases. If from context I decide that It was done by somebody. I will change the sentence into active voice which will be "He locked the door". Of course if it is past participle. I cant do it because it is not passive voice.



The door is locked. there must be two interpretation:



The door is locked. (Past participle)
The door is locked by him. (Passive)




The issue is I cant form Active tense even if i know it is passive voice. Because if I do then the sentence will be " He locks the door." which means he locks the door everyday which is not the meaning it should be conveying.



Please let me know how these things work.

Friday, March 20, 2015

differences - Where no man {has gone/went} before

Is there any difference between these two sentences? And how to sense the difference?





  1. Where no man has gone before.


  2. Where no man went before.




The first sentence is the title of episode three of Star Trek the original series.



Thanks in advance

formality - Is it acceptable to use "math" in an admissions essay?

I am writing a college admissions essay and would like to get a professional opinion on whether it is acceptable to use the truncated and informal version of the word "mathematics" as "math". I ask this because my essay contains the word "mathematics" about fifteen or so times and would like to cut down on repetitiveness by using various versions of the word. I have included the word "maths" appropriately in my essay because I address my usage of it.



I think it is a creative idea (I think it might be a literary technique - don't know for sure, rusty English skills) to use all of "mathematics", "maths", and "math" in my essay but just want to make sure so I don't seem foolish!



Please add appropriate tags for this question. I am new to this SE site and am not familiar with the tags.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

nouns - What's the difference between "abbreviation" and "abbreviature"?



What's the difference between these two words, abbreviation and abbreviature?


Answer



"Abbreviature" appears to have two purposes: an outdated synonym of "abbreviation" and an entirely additional meaning:




An abridgment; a compendium or abstract.




"This is an excellent abbreviature of the whole duty of a Christian. - Jeremy Taylor"



(wiktionary)




So the current difference is that "abbreviature" applies to large bodies of works or an entire subject; "abbreviation" is more applicable to words and phrases.


word order - Should personal pronouns always be placed at the end of a list?








Today I made a post on Facebook in which I copied a conversation from somewhere else. To preface my post, I wrote:




A conversation between me and John:




There were a number of comments on my use of pronouns, but the one I am most interested in was on the word order. One commentator said that the personal pronoun must always come last. I admit that I was raised to always use the personal pronoun last and simply did not type what I felt was correct, but I honestly don't know whether what I was raised with was correct. So,



Should you always place the personal pronoun last in a list? If so, why?

articles - "Has a value of" vs. "has the value of"

The basic problem



The following types of expressions are ubiquitous, especially (but not only) in scientific and technical literature; note the indefinite article in the construction "...has/with a value of...":



At period 1, inflation has a value of about 1.021.

The electric field within the capacitor has a value of 170 N/C

The energy charge quotient has a value of unity (or, 1.00) when only ATP is present and a value of zero when only AMP is present.

The shipments of cattle were 84,205 head, with a value of $5,473,325.




In fact, it seems that all quantifiable properties obey the same relevant rule:



The Commodore PET was also released in 1977 with a price of $800.

The front of the train has a speed of 23 m/s.



The indefinite article is apparently at least allowable even when the relevant property refers to something previously mentioned, like in the second appearance of speed in the following example:



The train is moving with a speed of 5 mph. It then stops, and then slowly speeds up, until it is again moving with a speed of 5 mph.



(I don't have links to published versions of exactly these sentences, but I hope the following two examples come close enough: look for then accelerates back to a velocity of 25 m/s here, and for again with a speed of 250 r.p.m. here, the latter in the paragraph right below Fig. 2. See also Some analyses that (probably) don't work, B, below.)




The basic question is, why are we not using the definite article here? After all, in all these examples, the "of"-phrase would seem to be providing a further specification, a narrowing down, of the property in question. In other words, it would seem to be a standard prepositional phrase, which normally entails the definite article.



A fill-in-the-blank exercise



To help illustrate this last point, let's try an exercise. Fill in the blank ( __ ) in the following:



"The train is moving with a certain speed."

"What speed?"

"___ speed of 5 mph."




What did you put in the blank, "the," "a," or nothing? Surely, you put "the"?



I think I can show that the reason you put "the" is not that the speed is being mentioned for the second time---see Some analyses that (probably) don't work, A., below. The reason thus must be something else, and I think it is that "5 mph" provides a "narrowing down of possibilities to a single one," a "specifying," of the "speed."



And yet, just as surely, we would say,



The train is moving with a speed of 5 mph



even though here, too, it would seem that "5 mph" serves to "narrow down" the speed to a single value.




So, why the indefinite article? Why doesn't it matter that the numerical value narrows down the possibilities to just one? Why doesn't it matter if the relevant noun refers to something previously mentioned?



Categorical properties



The rule even seems to apply to the cases of categorical (as opposed to quantifiable) properties:



Forty-five percent of the population has a blood type of O.

He has a major in social work.

Wilde looked at the copy with an expression of surprise.




I am tempted to (semantically) analyze these examples as follows: they all involve a determinable property---i.e. a property that can get more specific---being more precisely characterized. In the case of quantifiable properties (inflation, speed, price, charge,...), we make them more specific by giving a numerical value. In the case of categorical properties, we restrict them by specifying the category: so a blood type can be A, B, AB or O; an expression can be one of surprise, fear, love, etc. And all of this talk of making things "more specific" would suggest the definite article, in contradiction to what is actually used.



Apparent counterexamples to the rule



Based on the preceding, we would expect the property of having an emotion (which can be more precisely characterized as happiness, sadness, boredom, surprise, anger, delight, ...) should require the indefinite article as well. And yet, instead we have



God eternally has the emotion of compassion.

For example, consider what happens when the reader has the emotion of surprise.




And to make things really confusing, consider the property called having a property, which we further characterize by specifying the kind of property. Here there seems to be no pattern at all. You might hope that some of the usual rules would explain the particular choices of the articles in the sentences below (e.g. the property was---or was not---previously mentioned). However, if you look at the full texts, it will be apparent that such an explanation doesn't really work here:



The class of all spoons has the property of not being member of itself.

There is a thing which has a property of being the only writer of Waverly and of being Scotch.

As a set of points space has the property of containing points.

The construction of womanhood has a property of Otherness.



Here and then one encounters counterexamples to the paradigmatic cases discussed at the beginning. In the following, the first and the third boldfaced article are the counterexamples, while the second one is the (usual) indefinite article.



A vehicle departing the roadway at the mean speed of 49.3 mph subjected to an effective friction of 0.7 due to braking would need to travel 30 ft before it slowed by 10 mph. If this vehicle was encroaching at the mean departure angle of 16.9 degrees...




You may think that it is significant that we have mean speed. But, no...



Elite human athletes run 100-m races in about 10 s, at a mean speed of 10 m/s.
Ahead of the fleet lay a journey of some 420 miles, scheduled to last for thirty-five hours at a mean speed of twelve knots.
By now the Exeter and the Graf Spee were approaching each other at a mean speed of forty miles an hour.



Additionally, it seems that with the weight of used to be more acceptable in the past (see here), but for many decades already, with a weight of is preferred (see here).



The question summarized: All the examples above would seem to be clear cases of a prepositional phrase telling us "which one," i.e. "which value" of the many possible ones, and so we would expect the definite article in all of them. But instead, we usually use the indefinite article instead. Why? And why don't we use the indefinite articles in the case of having an emotion and in half the cases of having a property?



It could be that this an example where English hasn't yet really worked out what the rule should be. It could be that matters here are simply illogical (see here and here for some comments on why some usages of the English articles---including the zero article---may well be simply illogical). But are they illogical in the particular cases presented here? Or is there, after all, some rule, some pattern behind all of this?




Update 1 (with thanks to Edwin Ashworth): Sometimes when we more precisely characterize a determinable property, we do it by saying that it is the same as something else. In this case, we do use the definite article:



It has the color of deep rich caramel.

One copper coin has the value of a measure of rice.



I think the reason is this: when, to our ear, it seems that the "of"-phrase is coming from a transformation of a possessive phrase, the urge to use the definite article is simply too great. So we say It has the value of a Spanish milled dollar because it feels like it is a rephrasing of It has a Spanish milled dollar's value.



On the other hand, we don't have the same urge to say I have five grains of gold, with the value of $13, because we are not inclined to hear this as a rephrasing of a possessive phrase. And this for the simple reason that there simply is no corresponding possessive phrase. Note that with a $13's value doesn't sound right at all; it would instead have to be with a $13 value, which is not a possessive phrase. So the urge to use the definite article is not as great here, and, indeed, we rather have I have five grains of gold, with a value of $13, consistent with the previous examples. (Of course, a "decreased urge" to use the definite article is one thing; what is the actual reason why we use the indefinite article is another...)




Some analyses that (probably) don't work:



A. It has been suggested that the reason we put "the" in the fill-in-the-blank exercise (the second subsection of the text; see above) is that it is the second mention of the speed, i.e. because it is a reference to something previously mentioned. But if it were so, then this "the" would be obligatory, and it isn't:



"The train moving with a certain speed."

"What speed?"

"A certain speed. The point is, the speed is increasing."



Here the second-to-last sentence is used by the speaker to let his correspondent know that the precise value of the speed doesn't matter. (If it did matter, the speaker's reply would begin with the definite article, e.g. The speed of 5 mph.) But even so, in the sentence that follows, it is obligatory to say the speed and not a speed, because this really is a reference to something previously mentioned. Since in the second-to-last sentence the definite article is not obligatory, I conclude that when we do put it, we don't put it because it is referring to something previously mentioned (if that were the reason we put it, it would be obligatory). Instead, I think the reason is that "5 mph" provides a "narrowing down of possibilities to a single one."




B. It has been suggested that the reason we put the indefinite article in The train is moving with a speed of 5 mph is that this is the first reference to that speed. But this analysis does not work. Consider the following:



The train is moving with a speed of 5 mph. It then stops, and then slowly speeds up, until it is again moving with a speed of 5 mph.



Note that, at the end of the second sentence, it is again the indefinite article, even though we are referring to a previously mentioned speed (a point emphasized by the appearance of again). From this example, I conclude that the whole business of previous mention is irrelevant to what article is to be used here, although, of course, I still don't understand the grammatical reason why it is irrelevant, or why "5 mph" doesn't count as a "narrowing down of possibilities to a single one," like it (I think) does in the fill-in-the-blank exercise (see sub-subsection A, just above).



(I don't have links to published versions of exactly these sentences, but I hope the following two links come close enough: then accelerates back to a velocity of 25m/s, and again with a speed of 250 r.p.m., the latter in the paragraph right below Fig. 2.)

pronouns - Using 'her' vs. 'its' to refer to a country





I am currently reading Liddell Hart's "History of the Second World War", and I'm wondering why he sometimes uses her/she when talking about Japan. In my understanding of English, it should be its or their (if you want to refer to the Japanese people).



For instance:





From 1931 onward the Japanese were aggressively engaged in expanding their footholds on the Asiatic mainland at the expense of the Chinese, ...




makes sense to me, but:




It is remarkable that she deferred striking for more than four month, while trying to negotiate a lifting of the oil embargo




or





Until early in 1941 Japan's plan in case of war against the United States was to use her main fleet in the southern Pacific in conjunction with an attack on the Philippine Islands, ...




does not.



Can somebody explain why Japan is female, and are there more countries for which her should be used?


Answer



Historically, "her" was commonly used as a pronoun for not only women, but also for both countries and ships (e.g. sailing vessels).




However, that usage has more or less fallen out of favor, and instead "its" has become the preferred pronoun. Nevertheless, you'll still see "she" or "her" used depending on the preferences of the author.



http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/01/is-a-country-a-she-or-an-it.html


conjunctions - Oxford comma before "or"?



Is the Oxford comma restricted to the use of "and"? Or can/should it be also applied in sentences with "or"?





  1. I would choose physics, mathematics or biology.

  2. I would choose physics, mathematics, or biology.




Answer



The comments so far haven't answered your question. There's quite an extensive explanation of the ins and outs of the Oxford or serial comma here.



You'll notice that the writer of the article says that "a serial comma or series comma (also called Oxford comma and Harvard comma) is a comma placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually and, or, or nor) in a series of three or more terms."



So in answer to your question, the Oxford comma is not restricted to and.


grammar - Pronoun question

I have a pronoun question, though I am not sure what exact category this question falls into. I'm wondering about what is the best pronoun to use in the following situation:



If the "me" in question is a female first-person narrator, is it best to write:



Unlike me, who always swore I’d never get married before the age of thirty,...



or:




Unlike me, who always swore she'd never get married until the age of thirty,...



The second sounds better to me for some reason.
Thanks for any input!

grammar - The hidden flaw in "singular they"—what to do about reflexive pronouns?




We have a highly regarded answer by nohat to a question about gender-neutral pronouns, in which he points to the "singular they" and its long history of use in English. (Note that he also advises against using it.) Example:




If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes.




This avoids having to say "he or she" in mixed-gender situations. Okay, fine. I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if people want to talk this way.



But it occurrs to me that "singular they"—infelicitous at the best of times—really falls apart when extended into the realm of reflexive pronouns:





If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themselves. [?]




That feels very wrong. The only alternative, if one paints oneself into that corner, is to flip it back to singular:




If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themself. [???]





That feels worse.



If I'm to state this as a question, I guess I would put it thus: How can use of a "singular they" truly be reconciled? Is it really as much of a linguistic dead end as it feels to me?


Answer



“Themself”



enter image description here



Themself was used in the past, and there is no law or authority that prohibits anyone from using it today. I have used it in personal correspondence, conscious of its rebellious and contradictory nature; however, I have to confess many of my correspondents are in the field of language teaching, and they tend to be more open-minded.




Although the singular themself is gaining currency, it would be an arduous challenge for anyone to produce a recent government bill, act, tax form, or any official English document that contains the actual reflexive pronoun. And if they could produce a formal document, it would be akin to seeing an exotic and engendered butterfly in the wild.



It's simply not done; not today, not in a formal context simply because it looks “wrong”. Themself looks dialectal, a word that an uneducated native speaker person might use. While the singular they, their and them are extremely common in speech—and increasingly so in writing as it avoids having to write the cumbersome he or she; his or her; him or her—yet many English native speakers consider themself not a “proper word”, and whenever instances of ourself and themself appear in writing, these words stick out like a sore thumb.






Those in favour of “themself”



Pam Peters in ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ advocates:





The singular reference in ‘themself’ obviously serves a purpose, especially after an indefinite noun or pronoun. If we allow the use of ‘they’/’them’/’their’ for referring to the singular, ‘themself’ seems more consistent than ‘themselves‘. We make use of ”yourself‘ alongside ‘yourselves’ in just the same way. ‘Themself’ has the additional advantage of being gender-free, and thus preferable to both ‘himself’ and ‘himself/herself‘. It’s time to reinstate it to the set of reflexive pronouns!




Those against …



From an article in Language Log, March 08, 2007, two American English authorities condemn the use of themself






  1. As MWDEU (Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage) 1989 puts it (p. 898):



This use of themself is similar to the use of they, their, and them in reference to singular terms... Such use of they, their, and them is old and well established, but this use is not.




  1. Wilson's Columbia Guide (1993) is stern on the matter (p. 435):



Theirselves and themself for themselves are limited to Vulgar English or imitations of it; both are shibboleths.





adding that




Themself can also occur as an unfortunate result of trying to avoid using a gender-explicit reflexive pronoun by using a blend of the plural them with the singular self. The choices are themselves or himself or herself or both the last two...




Themselves




An Ngram showing themself tells us that it existed and exists. An Ngram that compares themself and themselves reflects its usage more accurately.



enter image description here



Him(self) or herself



An Ngram that compares themself (blue line); himself or herself (red line); him or herself (green) and herself and himself (yellow) tells us that the majority of writers (and editors) feel more comfortable using a longer equivalent than the succinct themself.



enter image description here




On Google Books, the politically-correct expression, "herself or himself", produces around 1,480 results. Here are some examples:




The differentiation between self and not-self certainly seems related to the growth of the object concept, during which the child learns to see herself or himself as an object in space and time, separate from the mother.
Research Manual in Child Development 2003




1963, Standard Civil Code of the State of California




the case may be, for the permanent support and maintenance of [3] herself or himself, and may include therein at her or his discretion an action for support, maintenance and education of the children of said marriage during their minority.





and as recently as 2009, Code of Federal Regulations




(a) An ALJ [Administrative Law Judge] may disqualify herself or himself at any time. (b) Until the filing of the ALJ's decision. either party may move that the ALJ disqualify herself or himself for personal bias or other valid cause. The party shall file with the ALJ, promptly ..








Whereas himself or herself gets 8,190 hits



George Herbert Mead and Human Conduct, 2004




He sees it, in the first instance, as being merely the object that the individual is to himself or herself. Obviously, human beings can, and do, think of themselves as being a given kind of object. The human being may see himself or herself as male or female, young or old, rich or poor, married or unmarried …




Interestingly, the authors use the impersonal pronouns it and itself when referring to babies and small infants on page 58.





The human infant or very young child is not an object to itself. While in the eyes of others it acts as a baby, it doesn't recognize itself as a baby. It doesn't see itself as someone who is helpless, gets sick, cries a lot, spends a lot of time sleeping, ...




In a formal or technical register, himself or herself, will usually be preferred. And it seems highly unlikely that it will change in the near future.



Criminal Law, 2010, page 357




Section 2 Any person who
(a) Purposely engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or to fear the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family; and
(b) Has knowledge or should have knowledge that the specific person will be placed in reasonable fear of bodily injury to himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family or induce fear in the specific individual of the death of himself or herself or a member of his or her immediate family; is guilty of stalking.








And those sitting on the fence



In 2013, Catherine Soanes, guest blogger on OxfordWords blog, and one of the editors of the OED 2nd edition 2005, argued:




Given that it’s now largely acceptable to use they, them, or their instead of the more long-winded ‘he or she’, ‘him or her’, or ‘his or her’ (especially in conjunction with indefinite pronouns such as anyone or somebody) it might be argued that, logically, it should also be OK to use themself, it being viewed as the corresponding singular form of themselves. However, this isn’t yet the case, so beware of themself for now! The correct versions of the opening examples in this section should be:





  1. It’s not an expensive way for somebody to make themselves feel good.

  2. Anyone would find themselves thinking similar thoughts.



Of course, if you dislike the use of gender-neutral third-person plural pronouns for singular subjects, or you’re working to a style guide that prohibits them, you should reword the sentences so as to incorporate gender-specific third-person singular pronouns instead:




  1. It’s not an expensive way for somebody to make himself or herself feel good.


  2. Anyone would find himself or herself thinking similar thoughts.



[…] To sum up, the wheel has not yet come full circle and ‘themself’ remains a standard English outcast. . . for now.




If you dislike using “themself”, what can you do?



The OP's example:





If someone wants to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes
all by themselves




Sound perfectly acceptable to my ears. In speech and in an informal context, it is perfectly fine. For anyone who dislikes this solution I would suggest the following:



If I am speaking to more than one person





i) For those who want to watch TV tonight, they'll have to do the dishes all by themselves




or to any individual, male or female




ii) If someone wants to watch TV tonight, he or she will have to do the dishes
all by themselves





or you could try this "clunkier" version




iii) If someone wants to watch TV tonight, he or she will have to do the dishes all by him or herself




If I had to use this particular construction, for efficiency's sake, I'd choose him or herself, which is well-documented and represented by the green line in the third Ngram chart.


Wednesday, March 18, 2015

grammar - Proper way of using who and whose clause at the same time



In my writing, I ended up writing the following sentence:




It benefits both students who perform the review and whose work is
reviewed.





I wonder if there is any structural issues in the way I used who and whose. For example, I wonder if it would be better to say:




It benefits both the student who performed the review and the student
whose work was reviewed.




Any ideas? Please also recommend me if I should use present tense (1) or past tense (2)?


Answer



The second version makes sense. In the first version it sounds like both students perform the review, which you obviously don't want to say.




You probably could say it like that:




It benefits those students who perform the review and those, whose work is reviewed.




What tense you use depends on the context, but I think both would work. If you use present tense the benefits apply as they review/work. If you use past tense the benefits still apply even if the performing/working is over.


parts of speech - A question about this here adjective




I have already seen these here questions:
Can "here" be an adjective?
What part of speech does “here” have in “I am here”?
but they don't appear to me to answer the question I am about to ask.



If I say:




This lovely lady is my daughter. So, be nice, will you?




'lovely' is obviously an adjective pre-modifying the subject noun.




But if say:




This here lady is my wife. So, keep your paws off, will yah?




1- Is 'here' an adjective here?



2- Which parts of the world (of the USA?) and/or what kind of people use the construction:
"This here + noun..."?




I never use this kind of construction, but I sometimes here it in movies...



E.g. in "Night at the Museum" (2006):




Octavius, hold on. This ain't your fight.
This here giant's on our land.
...
Now, this here's King Ahkmenrah.
His tablet is what brings you to life every night.



Answer



Early instances of the form




One of the earliest examples of the form "this here NOUN" that a (concededly) scattershot series of Google Books searches finds is from James Fennimore Cooper, The Pioneers, or, The Sources of the Susquehana (1823):




"But d'ye see see, Squire, I kept my hatches close, and it is but little water that ever gets into my scuttle-butt. Harkee, Master Kirby! I've followed the salt water for the better part of a man's life, and have seen some navigation of the fresh; but this here matter I will ay in your favour, and that is, that you're awk'ardest green'un that ever straddled a boat's thwart.




An earlier (albeit satirical) example comes from England. From Chesterfield Burlesqued; or School for Modern Manners, third edition (1811):





In relating a story be sure to embellish it with, So said I, and said he to me, and I said to him again, and so said she, you take me right, you are up I see to what I mean, that there fellow understands a thing or two, but this here matter is neither here nor there, the worserer the betterer, in some of they cases, in that there sort of manner, &c.




And earlier still, from Tobias Smollett, The Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves (1760):




"Now this here elixir, sold for no more than sixpence a vial, contains the essence of the alkahest; the archæus, the catholicon, the menstruum, the sun, the moon; and, to sum up all in one word, is the true, genuine, unadulterated, unchangeable, immaculate, and specific chruseon pepuromenon ek puros."




An early dictionary notice of "this here" and "that there" occurs in Bartlett, Dictionary of Americanisms (1848):





THIS HERE and THAT THERE. These vulgar pleonasms are often heard in this country as well as in England.




Bartlett provides two examples of "this here" in the course of illustrating other Americanisms:




Some feller jest come and tuck my bundle and the jug of spirits, and left me in this here fix. —[William Tappan Thompson], [Major Jones's] Chronicle of Pineville (1845), p. 47





and




"Brethurn and sisturn, it's a powerful great work, this here preaching of the gospel, as the great apostle hisself allows in them words of hissin what's jest come into my mind ; for I never knowed what to preach till I ris up." —[Robert] Carlton [pseudonym of Baynard Rush Hall], The New Purchase[; or Seven and a Half Years in the Far West] (1843), vol. 1, p. 203




The first book is set in the fictitious town of Pineville, Georgia; the second describes life in the 1820s in Indiana (at the time, the Far West). In both instances the authors seem to be playing up the uncouthness of the quoted person.



Another phrase from the same family is the plural phrase "them there NOUN," which we see in action in this passage from Clerus, "Bright Sunbeams in Dark Dwellings: A Tale of the Coventry Distress," (1861), a British novel:





The window was again drawn up, and "coachy" was left to his own soliloquy once more. "Well now, that's what I call a pretty face if ever there was one, and them there eyes of hers are reg'lar beauties. I should think they've got what these bookmakers call 'hexpression.' And she 's so kind-like to the two old uns ; that looks good of her, and makes her prettier than ever in my 'pinion. ..."




The American jazz/blues song "Them There Eyes," by the way, was published in 1930, according to Wikipedia.






Scholarly identification and condemnation of the form




Perhaps the earliest scholarly (or scholastic) condemnation of "this here" and "those there" occurs in Anonymous, Errors of Pronunciation and Improper Expressions Used Frequently and Chiefly by the Inhabitants of London (1817):




THIS HERE, THAT THERE, for This, That. These expressions are very low.




The next to chime in is George Jackson, Popular Errors in English Grammar, Particularly in Pronunciation, Familiarly Pointed Out (1830), whose treatment of the subject seems remarkably similar to that of his predecessor:





This, not this here. That, (pro[nounced] that, not thet) not that there. [This here and that there are] very low.



...



All that there sort of thing, (low.)




Jackson reserves the characterizations "low" and "very low" for what he views as the worst affronts to English as spoken by the well-bred—blunders such as axed and ass'd (for "asked"), as how (under any circumstances), blow me if I do ("exceedingly low"), botheration seize it ("very vulgar"), chuck it to me (use "throw it to me"), drownded, 'tis all gammon, grub (for "meal"), his'n and her'n and our'n and their'n and your'n, howsomdever (for "however"), unproper, no more of your jaw (very low and blackguard-like"), a lark and sky-larking, obstropolous (for "obstreperous"—"exceedingly low"), hoile or ile (for "oil"), rum (in the sense of laughable), row (for "quarrel"), summat (for "somewhat"), etc. To sum things up, "All SLANG language is vilely low." A feller could git hisself a perdigious edycation from all them idears.



On the U.S. side of the Atlantic, Richard Bache, Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech (1869) lays down the law with regard to "this here" and "that there," in his chapter on "Tautological Phrases":





The use of this here, and of that there, instead of this and that, is incorrect. Alone, the word this, or the word that, relates to one of two things, this referring to the one near, that to the one more remote. In like manner, referring to two sets of things, these relates to the one near, and those to the one more remote.




Echoing (indeed, rather more than echoing, given that he doesn't acknowledge Bache's prior use of the same wording) is William Swinton, Language Lessons: An Introductory Grammar and Composition for Intermediate and Grammar Grades (1877):




The use of this here, and of that there, instead of this and that, is incorrect. The word this expresses all that can be denoted by "this here," and that expresses all that can be denoted by "that there." (This way of speaking is a sure sign of a want of education in the person using it.)





Frank Vizetetelly, A Desk-book of Errors in English (1906) was simply restating the established rule in his discussion of "that there":




that there : An illiterate expression commonly used with the mistaken idea that the use of "there" adds emphasis to what follows, as, "That there man." Say, rather, "That man there" or simply, and preferably "That man."




Evidently, the world of nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century grammar rules was very much like the world of Internet-based information today: One person says something, and then other people copy it and call it their own. Thus are rules (then) and facts (now) created.



Moreover, in the commentators' deep-seated horror of "low" or "illiterate" speech, we see the truth of John Lawler's remark (above) that the reason these forms are nonstandard "is that the wrong people talk that way."







How the form may have evolved



One way to think of the expression "this here NOUN [is X]" is as an expression evolved from "this here [is X]" in order to make the connection between this and the intended noun referent more emphatic or obvious. Instances of "this here" without an immediately following noun go back centuries. One early example that a Google Books search turns up is from a 1602 translation of Innocent Gentillet, A Discourse Upon the Meanes of Wel Governing (1602):




Dr Camines to prove his alleged saying, setteth down other examples, The Partialitie of the houses of Lancaster and Yorke in England, whereby the house of Lancaster was altogether ruined and brought downe, and the one house delivered to the other, seven or eight battailes betwixt three and fourscore princes of the royall blood of England and an infinit number pf people. This here is no small thing, but it is rather an example, which should make us abhorre all Partialities.





Likewise, from a translation of The Morals of Confucius, a Chinese Philosopher, second edition (1706):




The great Secret, says Confucius, to acquire true Knowledge, the Knowledge, consequently, worthy of Princes, and the most Illustrious Personages, is to cultivate and polish the Reason, which is a Present that we have received from Heaven. Our Concupiscence has disordered it, and intermixt several Impurities therewith. Take away therefore, and remove from it these Impurities, to the end that it may reassume its former Lustre, and enjoy its utmost Perfection. This, here is the Sovereign Good. This is not sufficient. 'Tis moreover requisite, that a Prince by his Exhortations, and by his own Example, make of his People, as it were, a new People.




And from Matthew Henry, An Exposition of All the Books of the old and New Testament (1708–1710):





It will be a surprising day, as the deluge was to the old world, ver. 37, 38, 39. That which he here intends to describe, is, the posture of the world at the coming of the Son of man ;besides his first coming to save, he has other comings, to judge: He saith, (John, x. 39.) For judgment I am come : and for judgment he will come ; for all judgment is committed to him, both that of the word, and that of the sword.



Now this here is applicable,



(4.) To temporal judgments, particularly that which was now hastening upon the nation and people of the Jews : Though they had fair warning give them of it, and there were many prodigies that were presages of it, yet it found them secure, crying, Peace and safety, 1 Thess. v. 3.




In each case it would not be a huge step to bring the referent noun into closer proximity to this, either in the form "this NOUN here" or the form "this here NOUN," yielding from Gentillet's sentence, "This example here" or "This here example"; from Confucius's, "This result here" or "This here result"; and from Henry's, "this biblical passage here" or "this here biblical passage."



In fact, the same Cooper novel cited above includes an instance of "this here" without a following noun, as well as the instance of "this here matter" already noted (both are spoken by the same character, a "steward" named Benjamin Pump):





"Why, yes, it was about their minds, I believe, Squire," returned the steward; "and by what I can learn, they spoke them pretty plainly to one another. Indeed, I may say that I overheard a small matter of it myself, seeing that the windows was open, and I hard by. But this here is no pick, but an anchor on another man's shoulder; and here's the other fluke down his back, maybe a little too close, which signifies that the lad has got under way and left his moorings."




So if we can trust Cooper's ear for colloquial speech, which Mark Twain says emphatically that we cannot, we may take The Pioneers as identifying a common colloquial speech pattern in which the referent noun in a "this here NOUN" phrase is sometimes made explicit and sometimes not.






Status of the "this here NOUN'/'that there NOUN' form today




As other commenters have said, the form "this here NOUN"/"that there NOUN" continue carry a lower-class/underclass/hicks-from-the-sticks stigma in the view of many educated people. The notion that it is primarily a southern/backwoods expression is not entirely sustained by usage. For example, I recall that on the Patti Smith album Horses, the narrator of her version of the Them/Van Morrison song "Gloria" says, in a New Jersey accent,




I go to this here party, and I—I just get bored




a narrative that suddenly changes tempo when the narrator first sets eyes on G-L-O-R-I-A. Smith was born in Chicago, lived for a while in Philadelphia, and then moved to Deptford, New Jersey—right across the Delaware River from Philadelphia. Neither Smith nor her family were from the South or from rural backgrounds. For Smith, I suspect, a character who says "I go to this here party" isn't a rustic but a tough guy—lower-middle-class, indifferent about education, cocky. But others' interpretations, no doubt, will vary.


verbs - Difference between "stick with" and "stick to"?



The more I think about it the more confused I get:



One good example is here:




Hmm. Maybe something like this. It's the end of the day and things
didn't go well. We're meeting to talk about what we'll do tomorrow.
Should we stick with the original plan or try something new?




We're at work, and I wander by to see how everyone is doing. You think
that you'd like to try something difference. "Stick to the plan for
now," I say.



So maybe while planning - stick with, and while doing - stick to?



I'm speculating ... sometimes the more you think about something the
harder it is to remember.





Is there a difference between




to stick with something/somebody




and





to stick to something/somebody




...and if so could you please give examples that make the different usages clear?


Answer



On the forum you linked to, a long catalog of uses was posted at 20-Mar-2008, 08:27. I think that posting makes clear that




  1. there is no difference between the two phrases in the senses of "continuing to support/accompany/practise/adhere [figuratively] to": stick to/with the plan, stick to/with me, stick to/with your principles




ANOTHER EDIT: You may find one preposition used more often with any particular object stuck to—see bib's response—but this doesn't exclude using the other.




  1. only stick to may be used to signify "cause to adhere to": stick the poster to the wall but not stick the poster with the wall.


  2. only stick with may be used to signify "impose a (relative) burden upon": he stuck me with the bill or she got the fellowship, I was stuck with an assistantship, but to won't work in these.




One more "stick to" idiom occurs to me: *stick it to [someone]", meaning "inflict excessive (physical, emotional, financial &c) pain upon": They had him cornered and really stuck it to him.




EDIT: And another: Stick to [one's] guns, although it fits use 1 above, is a fixed idiom; stick with your guns would mean "continue to accompany your artillery".