relative clauses - "that" omission, subject-verb distance

when can we remove 'that'? I've heard different opinions

I bought the book that is required for this course
I bought the book required for this course

I recommend that you take my advice
I recommend you take my advice

I know that you are correct
I know you are correct

the report that was approved by the board was written by Susan
the report approved by the board was written by Susan

We are studying advertisement strategies that other companies use to recruit minorities
We are studying advertisement strategies used by other companies to recruit minorities

meaning - The use of "male"/"female" (instead of e.g. "man"/"woman") in everyday speech

In contemporary English, the terms "male" and "female" seem to be almost as commonly applied to people as "man" and "woman". For example, I see people posting questions on certain StackExchange sites starting with "I am a 23 year old male" or similar.

As a non-native (but fluent) speaker of English, this usage still bothers me for reasons I will explain below. I would like to know if this is just because of a bias coming from my native language, or if native English speakers also perceive these terms in a similar way to me.

Both in my mother tongue and other languages I speak, the direct translation of "male" and "female" are either applied to animals only, or are used in technical or scientific contexts. "Male elephant" is natural. "Human male" also does occur in a scientific text, after all humans are mammals (a kind of animal, from a biological perspective). The police may use "male suspect", as this is again a kind of technical jargon (and it goes the extra mile to be strictly objective). Then it's easy to see how this can get shortened into just "male", e.g. "60 year old male", in a police communication.

But hearing these words used in everyday speech always leaves me with a bad taste. In a way, it feels like talking about people as if they were animals when using "male"/"female" instead of the more common man/boy/lad/whatever. It feels ugly and almost rude.

Thus my question is not about the literal meaning of these terms, but their connotations, and how (or whether) these connotations have changed during the past few decades.

Do native speakers sometimes perceive these terms the same way I do? Or am I just influenced by the bias from my native language?

Finally, is my perception correct that the everyday use of these terms has significantly increasing during the last decade? Are there differences in the nuances of these terms between countries (e.g. UK vs US)?

syntactic analysis - Preposition placement mid-sentence

I was recently reviewing a piece of writing for a friend of mine who wrote

Though such a theory does not describe the world we live in, it will undoubtedly shed
light on...

I told him to change this to

Though such a theory does not describe the world in which we live, it will undoubtedly shed light on...

I'm not entirely sure why I think this is correct besides the indirect evidence obtained from recalling that one is not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition.

Was I correct? Is there a general, corresponding rule? If so, what is it?

indefinite articles - Does one use 'a' or 'an' before the word X-Ray?

I was asking this question on Area 51: "How do I tell if an airport scanner is a X-ray scanner?", but I keep wanting to put an 'an' in front of X-ray because it starts with the 'eh' sound.

So is it 'a' or 'an'?

Answer

Definitely "an". The word X-ray is never pronounced any way other than "exray", and as has been discussed before, the choice of a or an is based solely on pronunciation, regardless of spelling. Since X-ray is pronounced beginning with a vowel, it must be preceded by an.

meaning - Is “you’re the door on the right.” grammatically correct?

The you is Harry Potter. I’m really curious about the grammatical construction and the reason why JKR chose it.

”Mrs. Weasley, why – ?”

”Ron and Hermione will explain everything, dear, I’ve really got to dash,” Mrs. Weasley whispered distractedly. “There” – they had reached the second landing – “you’re the door on the right. I’ll call you when it’s over.” (Harry Potter 5 [US Version]: p.62)

N.B.: Mrs. Weasley has just led Harry to his room. She is in a rush because she has to attend a meeting downstairs.

I think it means "your room is at the door on the right," but Mrs. Weasley might be making a mistake because she’s in hurry. I don’t know for sure, though.

1. What’s the true meaning of “you’re the door on the right”?


2. If it’s grammatically acceptable, is there any omission in the sentence?


3. If it’s grammatically acceptable, what situation do you use it in? And what’s the difference in listeners’ impressions between this kind (a-person-is-an-object type) of sentence and the more common version?


4. Would you give me some examples of a-person-is-an-object sentences?

Answer

1. Your understanding of the sentence is correct—it means that Harry's room is the one on the right.




2. It is grammatically acceptable, but a sentence that is grammatically correct is not necessarily meaningful. In this case, however, it is understandable, but your phrasing of the sentence would be the complete form.




3. Personally, I would not use this construction; it's a rather unusual one. Using this sentence might imply familiarity or distraction, depending on the observer.




4. I can think of several, but they are not in the same style as your quote. Most sentence of this type, such as You are my doll, use meanings that have become embedded in the language and are reported on in dictionaries. Sentences like those in your quote are extremely unlikely to be encountered and I would not recommend using them.

grammatical number - "Was" or "were" for "half a dozen"

In Microsoft Word, the following sentence is flagged. It tells me to use "was" instead of "were"

There were half a dozen books strewn about the floor.

I would think that you would use "were" since it's a quantity more than one. You wouldn't say, "There was twelve books strewn about the floor." Does the use of the "half" modify it somehow?

Answer

Formally speaking, the Word grammar checker is right. The subject of there were is the word half, which is singular. So under formal grammar the sentence should be:

There was half a dozen books on the floor.

However, many people find this sentence to be odd in practice, since English speakers often prefer "semantic number agreement", in which the effective plurality of a phrase is determined by its meaning and not the grammatical number of its head. Therefore, for many registers people prefer your original example:

There were half a dozen books on the floor.

If you're writing something formal and can't abide to say there was half a dozen, then rephrase the sentence to avoid phrases like half a dozen.

hyphenation - How can you determine whether a word with the pseudo- prefix should be hyphenated?

I am in a bit of a quandary over conflicting results in dictionary entries about the inclusion of a hyphen in some of the words containing the pseudo- prefix.

An example of one of these words is pseudoscience/pseudo-science.

The Oxford dictionary's entry omits the hyphen for the word (i.e. they spell it as 'pseudoscience').

Meanwhile, Cambridge's dictionary entry decides to place a hyphen between the prefix and 'science' (i.e. they spell it as 'pseudo-science').

Another example would be pseudo-intellectual/pseudointellectual. Oxford includes the hyphen; Dictionary.com does not.

I usually check more than one dictionary to see if a word with this prefix should be hyphenated or not. However, I am not sure which form to use in this case. Is there a way of determining which one?

Any help is much appreciated.

grammar - Shifting position of a noun clause within a sentence

I came across the following odd-sounding sentence while reading The Time Machine by H. G. Wells:

1. But how the trick was done he could not explain.

In this sentence, the clause 'how the trick was done' is a noun clause and functions as the object of the verb 'explain'. So it should go after the verb and the correct version of this sentence should be as follows:

2. But he could not explain how the trick was done.

Is this kind of shifting of noun clause normal in English literature?

word choice - "His head" or "their head"?

I was disappointed to see a favorite storybook from my childhood has been edited. (Harry, the Dirty Dog; ISBN-13: 978-0064430098) I distinctly remember the text written as follows:

...but everyone shook his head and said, "Oh, no, it couldn't be Harry."

I was taught that the male gender form takes precedence, when speaking several individuals of each gender. However, the book was edited to read,

...but everyone shook his head their head and said, "Oh, no, it couldn't be Harry."

ARGH! Please assure me that the original version and I are correct! There are some other minor edits that have simply ruined the book for me. (My linguistic snobbery helped, too.)

Answer

I believe the edited version is incorrect.
It should be "but everyone shook their head" (singular head, for each individual. Unless you're dealing with a hydra :P)

The male dominance in pluralisation that you mentioned is still correct, but is avoided to not offend feminists, and will likely be phased out for the same reason.

grammar - "This was the fastest I heard someone [respond/responded]" - which to use, and why?

Here are the two sentences.

1. This was the fastest I heard someone responded.


2. This was the fastest I heard someone respond.

Can someone help me understand:

A) Which one is correct, and what is wrong with the mechanics of the
incorrect one?

B) If they are both correct, can someone tell me what
is the subtle difference between the two different words used?

I chose #1, but my rival chose #2 and everyone agreed with him because they said it "sounds" good. But i'm interested in mechanics and accuracy not sounds. I am really confused with this one. Help from the grammar mechanics gurus is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

UPDATE

Thanks to both Cerberus, Leon Conrad. Cerebus gave the excellent mechanics break-down. The missing That was making it sound awkward.

This was the fastest [that] I heard [that] someone responded.

This was the fastest [that] I heard someone respond.

And Conrad gave the subtle difference between the two meanings.
Based on the context, (from Leon's explanation) I was correct, because I did not hear the response my self, I heard about the response from someone else. Because I cant choose 2 answers, I chose Leon's. That subtle difference was hard for me to spot.

Answer

The second, to me, implies that you heard the fast response yourself.

The first, to me, implies that you heard about the quickness of the response from someone else.

I'd include 'that' before 'someone' in this version for clarity, as @binderbound explained.

grammaticality - "My Mom" vs "Mom" Usage

Context
My brother and I when having a conversation that refers to our mother usually use "my mom" to refer to her. For example "Have you talked to my mom today?" is a common question we ask.

Now the discussion came up when some of our friends pointed out that it was weird and incorrect for us to say "my mom" since we share the same mom and are siblings and that we should just say "mom".
However, my brother and I think its grammatically correct to use "my mom" since its technically a factual statement.

I'm just trying to find out if our usage is incorrect in English grammar and if our friend is correct that we shouldn't use the pronoun "my" in conversations between siblings.

I just wanted to clarify that while English isn't our native language, my brother and I have notice that we also don't use the correct possessive pronoun in Spanish. Now what I'm getting from both of the answers posted is that this is more of its technically correct, but it might confuse other speakers as its not common use.

Answer

Mom and my mom are very different: it is not simply a question of possessives.

If you and your siblings shared, say, a truck, then you would simply use the appropriate pronoun:

[to stranger]: Where did I park my truck?

[to sibling]: Where did I park our truck?

Of course, you could apply the construction to mom:

[to stranger]: Have you talked to my mom today?

[to sibling]: Have you talked to our mom today?

This is still a bit unusual, primarily because Mom is often used as a proper name. For example, you might say:

Hi, Mom. It is so nice to talk to you!

However, the name Mom is usually used within one's immediate family. I might say "Have you talked to Mom today?" to my brother or even father. This is despite my father, clearly, having a different mother than myself. But I would not use the name Mom when talking to someone outside my immediate family; instead, I would say my mother.

Of course, this last point is not a matter of grammar. The question of who is allowed to use a term of endearment has no definitive answer; it depends on personal preference and cultural norms. Even within the English-speaking world, different people may have different standards for who uses the nickname Mom. To the best of my knowledge, my analysis is fairly standard for white Americans in the Mid-Atlantic. But other groups may have different usages.

word order - Which is correct: "first ever loss" or "first loss ever"

Consider the following two phrases

1. Microsoft reports first quarterly loss ever


2. Microsoft reports first ever quarterly loss

Which of the them is correct?

Answer

Either is right and ok.

In both headlines, "ever" is used as an adverb with the meaning of "at any time."

The first, "Microsoft reports first quarterly loss ever," is the same as:

Microsoft reports the first quarterly loss they have ever had.

It emphasizes the meaning that something has never happened before.

In the second, "Microsoft reports first ever quarterly loss," the adverb "ever" is used as part of a longer structure. Similar to:

the + superlative + ever

Ex. The largest ever theme park

It is used to emphasize the comparison being made with the past.

In any case, the difference is minimal and they can be used interchangeably.

grammatical number - Singular or plural following a list

Can anyone tell me if I should use inspire or inspires in this phrase?

An extraordinary leader whose vision, values, integrity and boundless curiosity inspires all who follow in his footsteps.

Can relative pronoun be omitted in the following sentence?

The color of house that I built is red.

This sentence can be written in following way.

The color of house I built is red.

I can omit that, because that is indicating the house, and it is the object of the verb built. A relative pronoun can be omitted if it indicates the object. But if it indicates the subject, it can not be omitted. Am I right?

Let's see the following sentence.

Apparel engineers are responsible for establishing and monitoring processes essential to maintain product consistency on time production and fair treatment of workers.

In this sentence, I think that has been omitted before essential. I can write this sentence in the following way.

Apparel engineers are responsible for establishing and monitoring processes that are essential to maintain product consistency on time production and fair treatment of workers.

Is it correct? Here that has been used to indicate to processes. In that are essential to maintain ... the relative pronoun that is a subject, not object. Please tell me why that has been omitted before the word essential? Please give proper explanation with some effective examples.

differences - Iteration vs. Repetition

What is the difference between "iteration" and "repetition"?

I have looked on wiktionary but I can't catch the difference in their semantics. Does any reference define the difference between these two words?

Wiktionary gives:

iteration (plural iterations)

1. Recital or performance a second time; repetition.




2. A variation or version.

   
   
   
   
   
   
   • The architect drafted several iterations of the floorplan before deciding on his final design.
   
   



3. (computing) The use of repetition in a computer program, especially in the form of a loop.




4. (computing) A single repetition of the code within such a repetitive process. The code calculates the appropriate value at each iteration.

repetition (countable and uncountable, plural repetitions)

1. The act or an instance of repeating or being repeated.




2. (weightlifting): The act of performing a single, controlled exercise motion; also called a rep. A group of repetitions is a set.

Definitions 1, 3 and 4 for "iteration" seem to be synonymous with "repetition" (obviously definition 1 of it).

word choice - Should go/will go/will be going?

This question was in a test so please choose one of the answers given in the question.

The coach said that they _________ to the gym every day next week to get in shape for the tournament game.

1) should go 2) will go 3) will be going

According to the answer key, the answer is "should go" but I thought "will be going" was the correct answer. Why is my answer wrong and why is "should go" correct? Also, if my anwer was actually correct, why is "will go" wrong? What's the difference between "will go" and "will be going" here? What difference do these two make in the meaning?

(Note: the question is not part of a longer passage. It was an individual grammer question put in the test just like this.)

Thank you, this one's really getting on my nerves!

Answer

The coach said that they _________ to the gym every day next week to get in shape for the tournament game.

1) should go
2) will go
3) will be going

Any of the three options work. The sentence is reported speech. The reported speech includes the phrase "next week", which–when used properly–refers to a situation that has still not happened at the time of the reported speech. Since this is the case, the modal verb will is fine; it can, but does not have to, be backshifted (to would) in this case. Thus, both 2 and 3 are okay. 1 is also okay in this context.

If, on the other hand, the time meant by "next week" is already over when the sentence was said, then the phrase "next week" should have been changed to "the following week" and any present tense verbs, including modals, backshifted to the past tense. In this case, will would become would in both 2 and 3. Should would still work, because it cannot be backshifted.

word choice - What should be the proper reply for thanks?

I like a girl which is in same division as I am. Recently she was suffering from malaria and when I came to know this I sent a "Get well soon!" message. We have hardly exchanged any words in labs and common lectures.
Now she has replied as "thanks!" as expected. I want to give her a good reply for her thanks just to continue. So what should I say in this situation. I really like this girl!

grammar - "Jamie and me" or "Jamie and I"

Please let me know which sentence is proper?

Summer has always been an imaginative time for Jamie and me.


Summer has always been an imaginative time for Jamie and I.

Answer

"I" is a subject pronoun and "me" is an object pronoun.
So, the correct usage would be the second option:
"Summer was a magical time for Jamie and me".

"The maximum number": plural or singular?

Kindly, what are your thoughts on the following sentences:

1. The maximum number of wordbooks (%d) have been saved.


2. The maximum number of wordbooks (%d) has been saved.

My opinion is that (1) is more appropriate as "save" relates to wordbooks (a plural noun) and "The ... number" is some kind of determiner.

The dissenting opinion is that "The number" is obviously singular, and the "wordbooks" are subsidiary.

I agree that (2) is grammatically correct but I maintain it implies merely a single number was saved, not the wordbooks themselves.

Answer

As explained in ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, when number of is preceded by the, it is the head (the most important word) of the phrase ‘the number of . . .’ It is singular, and so requires a singular verb.

The case is different when number of is preceded by a. Then, it is a pre-modifying element, leaving the number of the verb to determined by the number of the following head word (wordbooks in your example), which will invariably be plural.

grammatical number - Should the noun after "any" be singular or plural?

I always thought with "any" I should use the plural, but on the internet I can find both:

• It can be found in any book.




• It can be found in any books




• Do you have any books?




• It can be said in any language.




• This can be understood by anyone.




• It has been used in any form.

So, what's correct?
Is there any rule?

grammaticality - Real past conditional with a single event and its conclusion in the past

If they dispatched the parcel yesterday, Jim will receive it next
Friday. But if they dispatched it last week, then

• A: Jim will have received it yesterday.


• B: Jim received it yesterday.

Are A and B both grammatical? Do they differ in meaning? Is there other forms to express the intended meaning of associating a real (not counterfactual) past event with its past conclusion?

Edit:

Max suggested the use of ‘should have’, but is that the only valid usage? I’ll provide some more examples with comments below:

Have you talked to Jim recently? Did he go to confront the neighbours
when he was having issue with their noise last week? I told him not to

because they’re violent people. If he went there:

• A: They assaulted him.


• B: They have assaulted him.


• C: They would have assaulted him.


• D: They should have assaulted him.


• E: They could have / might have assaulted him. (variation in modality)


• F: They will have assaulted him..


• G: Something else.

Another example:

Did Jim pay the fine when I told him to last week? If he didn’t:

• A: They charged him extra fees.



• B: They have charged him extra fees.


• C: They would have charged him extra fees.


• D: They should have charged him extra fees.


• E: They could have / might have charged him extra fees.


• F: They will have charged him extra fees.


• G: Something else.

Comments:

Simple past and present perfect: I can find examples in different corpora and online sources where simple past is used:

If she lied, she perjured herself.

But this usage seems to imply high certainty or automatic association. What if we want to express lesser certainty?

The perfect tense is possibly just a variation (adding an existential sense):

If she lied, she has perjured herself.

‘Should have’: is also used commonly:

If you have paid your dues, you should have received a membership card.

But because ‘should have’ is also overloaded for recommendation, its usage sounds confusing and funny on the ear in the two examples above. (Unless you do mean to use it for recommendation maybe).

‘Will have’: The usage pattern of the future perfect does cover past actions, but I’m not sure about it’s usage in real past conditionals. Can’t find any examples.

‘Would have / could have / might have’: sound perfectly legal with variation in meaning of course, is there any issue with using them?

idioms - The meaning of "blue canoe" in the lyrics of "Where to Now, St. Peter" sung by Elton John

In his song Where to Now, St. Peter, Sir Elton John sings:

I took myself a blue canoe,
And I floated like a leaf
Dazzling, dancing half enchanted
In my Merlin sleep.

Crazy was the feeling
Restless were my eyes
Insane they took the paddles
My arms they paralysed.

(Lyric written by Bernie Taupin. Available on the album Tubleweed Connection. See the whole lyric.)

I found myself translating Elton's songs into Czech and I am curious about the meaning of "blue canoe". Here is what I have:

According to my friend, "blue canoe" had been used by the soldiers of Confederation during the civil war in the USA meaning a "bullet". Now this would make some sense:

I took myself a blue canoe [I shot myself to death],
And I floated like a leaf [towards the afterlife]
Dazzling, dancing half enchanted [I shot myself badly / the wrong way, dying hours in horrible pain]
In my Merlin sleep [in a sleep there is no waking from].

Crazy was the feeling
Restles were my eyes [this follows the scheme above]
Insane they took the paddles [my hands took the "paddles of the canoe" = gun],
My arms they paralysed ["my paralysed hands", my hands fell down after the gunshot].

I am a little skeptic about this interpretation. First of all, I find it improbable that Taupin would describe "dying hours in horrible pain" this way; it is neither touching nor fun. There are hands falling down after the gunshot, as well as "dancing in pain". The music Elton John composed to this lyric is far beyond psychedelic, further deepening my doubts. And, one more thing that does not match at all:

It took a sweet young foreign gun
This lazy life is short
Something for nothing always ending
With a bad report.

Why would a gun be "sweet" or "young"? Now this could be allegorical expression of a "young soldier", but at the very beginning of the song, he claims himself to be the executor of whatever causes him to die.

I have come with a different idea: "blue canoe" could be some elusive drug / poisonous substance, contained (for example) in the seeds or blossoms of a (tropical) flower that is blue in color. This would make sense to me:

I took myself a blue canoe [I have eaten a poisonous flower blue in color],
And I floated like a leaf [I have been disoriented]
Dazzling, dancing half enchanted [I could not control my body]
In my Merlin sleep [in a sleep there is no waking from]

Crazy was the feeling
Restless were my eyes [kaleidoscopic vision or other vision distortion]
Insane they took the paddles [my insane hands took the drug]
My arms they paralysed [my hands, now paralysed].

This goes with the verse "It took a sweet young foreign gun" meaning fruits, seeds or blossoms of a flower that are blue in color and sweet in taste, that come from a foreign land he finds himself (fighting) and that are "young" meaning unripe, thus poisonous as it is typical for some flowers.

Also, it goes well together with the Merlin; the association between Merlin and shooting myself to death is in my opinion much weaker than the association between Merlin and a poisonous substance, a "spell" that causes "my Merlin sleep".

I have been looking "blue canoe" up in the Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary without success, I failed to find it in my books, too.

If anyone knows the meaning of "blue canoe", please do let me know. If you see any imperfection in the way I come to understand this, please do the same. I will be grateful for everyone's opinion on these two interpretations of the song.

Answer

I think your friend's interpretation of 'blue canoe' (ACW Confederate soldiers' slang for bullet) may be correct, although I've not been able to find any confirmation of that. However, I don't think that 'I took myself..." means 'I shot myself', rather it's the sense of 'I took a bullet' (i.e. was shot). For the rhythm of the song, it scans better to say 'I took myself a blue canoe' rather than 'I took me a blue canoe' ('I [xxx] me a common Southern idiom, e.g. 'I drank me a beer'.) So, 'I took myself a blue canoe' = I got shot.

'Sweet young foreign gun' would then be the soldier who shot him, 'gun' in this context being a someone who uses a gun. Taupin uses the same term elsewhere on the album: 'Ballad of a Well-Known Gun', i.e. a gunslinger.

There is also a pun in the last line of the last verse: 'Something for nothing always ending with a bad report', 'report' also having the meaning of an explosive noise, e.g. the report of a rifle (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/report), as well as the line '...in such a silent place as this, beyond the rifle range'.

I always thought the line 'Insane they took the paddles, my arms they paralysed' was a reference to medics trying to get the wounded man to safety, but, as mawsco so rightly said, songwriters put song lyrics together for the way they sound as well as meaning (if any).

At the time he wrote the lyrics to Tumbleweed Connection, Bernie Taupin was fascinated by the history and culture of the American South and the [American] Civil War era in particular; this theme is carried through much, if not all, of the album. 'Where to Now, St. Peter' is a hauntingly beautiful song about a young Confederate soldier who has been shot, is dying, and is contemplating what happens next. It's also a song about that soldier's faith - 'I may not be a Christian, but I've done all one man can'.

Sorry for the long answer, but this has been one of my all-time favorite songs for decades.

grammatical number - Why does the US Declaration of Independence use the word "depository" instead of "depositories"?

In the following paragraph from the US Declaration of Independence, it seems to me "depository" should be plural. Is it an error, or is there a reason for it?

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual,
uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance
with his measures.

This question is not only about whether it's an error, but also whether there is a reason for it. All the answers I'm seeing and finding seem to point towards it's being technically correct but not as correct as it could be, but with no explanation of why that word choice was made, other than the implied assumption that it was a semi-error, in the sense that the plural would have been more correct but wasn't strictly required.

But those answers don't really answer it, as they only vaguely assume that answer, while arguing that it was technically correct, which only answers part of the question.

In any case, on the assumption that a complete answer is not really available, I will just assume it was a careless semi-error, not worth correcting because it was technically correct, and because the author did not have a word processor.

I'm also seeing a notice that the question was marked as an exact duplicate while I was typing the above additional paragraphs. It doesn't say what it was marked as an exact duplicate of, just that it was marked as an exact duplicate. I will assume the above 3 additional paragraphs clarify the question to make it clear that it's not the exact duplicate of whatever.

pronouns - When is it correct to use "yourself" and "myself" (versus "you" and "me")?

I'm confused by why people use the following:

It's up to yourself.

Rather than:

It's up to you.

Another example of this would be:

Please feel free to contact ourselves if you have any problems.

Rather than:

Please feel free to contact us if you have any problems.

Are both of these correct? Is there any reason for using the former?

Answer

Using "yourself" and "ourselves" in these contexts is incorrect.

"Yourself," "ourselves," and "myself" are reflexive pronouns, correctly used when the subject/actor of the sentence and the object/recipient are the same person or group.

"I see myself" is correct because I am doing the seeing and am seeing myself. In your latter example, the subject is the implicit "you" and the object is (correctly) "us."

Edit

I searched for a clear reference for this. The clearest one I found was Wikipedia's reflexive pronoun article, whose Non-reflexive usage in English section indicates that the usage you refer to is "non-standard and incorrect."

grammaticality - Is “gaggle of girls” plural or singular, or does it depend?

How can I tell whether constructions like “X of Ys” should be considered singular or plural, given that X is singular but Y is plural?

1. A gaggle of girls boards the train.



2. A gaggle of girls board the train.




3. The gaggle of girls was running to catch the train.



4. The gaggle of girls were running to catch the train.

Can one version be right sometimes but the other right other times?

Can both versions ever be right?

grammatical number - In special cases, can you use "one such family are" vs. "one such family is"?

Is it correct to say "one such family are..." as opposed to "one such family is..." in some circumstances?

Say, for instance, as used in this article on gene families:

[...] One such family are the genes for human haemoglobin subunits; [...]

The problem occurs when the family is a collection of things. It sounds weird if you say "One such family is the genes for human haemoglobin subunits" and saying "One such family is the family of genes for human haemoglobin subunits" is too wordy.

Does the problem make sense?

ambiguity - Present perfect or past simple?

I know the basic rules about using PP and PS (like specified time in the past etc.) but in some cases, it is not clear to me:

I have finished painting. - present perfect, I just announce that.

I have finished painting for today - not sure here? I say that today I will not paint anymore but still I feel PP could be possible. What tense should be here?

Answer

If the function is to identify when you finished painting then you might say
I finished painting today.
I finished painting for today at four.

But if the function is to identify the current state of the painting then you might say
I have finished painting.
I have finished painting for today.

These mean you are in one of the following (respective) states:
finished for good (for the indefinite future, for the current painting job)
finished for today

You could also say
I am finishing up painting for today.

Note that "painting for today" is the job in focus, not "painting (until completed)", so we are talking about entering the the state of "finished for today" rather than "completed painting".

conjunctions - Why is there no comma before "and" before this independent clause?

This was at a moment when the magistrate, overcome with tiredness, had
gone down into the garden of his house and, dark, bent beneath
some implacable thought, like Tarquin cutting the heads off the
tallest poppies with his cane, M. de Villefort was knocking down
the long, dying stems of the hollyhocks that rose on either side of
the path like ghosts of those flowers that had been so brilliant in
the seasons that had passed away.

Why is there no comma before the bolded and? My understanding is that there is an independent clause on each side of the bolded and.

By the way, the subject of the two independent clauses is the same.

Answer

You are assuming a rule that I believe is a pseudo-rule (perhaps you could quote this 'rule' from some grammar?) I'd personally have no trouble with

Tom went to France and Dick went to Belgium.

It's clear enough. The addition of a comma before and would not worry me either - I'd add a pause if reading that version.

Here is an endorsement of the optional dropping of that prescriptive comma:

When a coordinating conjunction connects two independent clauses, it
is often (but not always) accompanied by a comma:

Ulysses wants to play for UConn, but he has had trouble meeting the
academic requirements.

When the two independent clauses connected by a
coordinating conjunction are nicely balanced or brief, many writers
will omit the comma:

Ulysses has a great jump shot but he isn't quick on his feet.

( http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm )

What disturbs me far more is the rambling and over-punctuated nature of the example sentence. Two at least are needed - the garden-path flavour of the original might even lead some to misconstrue it, being led to believe that ' the subject of the two independent clauses is the same'.

word choice - What is correct in this case, "probable" or "probably"?

I usually don't have trouble distinguishing when I should use an adjective and when an adverb. But today I wrote a sentence, and wasn't sure — actually, the longer I looked at it, the longer both variants looked wrong.

The sentence was about baking, and it said:

While it is best to use a recipe designed for a big batch, using a multiplied by three small-batch recipe is no more probable to fail than using the small-batch recipe for a single small batch.

While there is probably a way to state the whole idea more clearly, what nags me is the probable. It qualifies using, and using is, of course, a form of the verb "to use" (my English classes are too far in the past to be able to name the form). So maybe it should be the adverb probably, because it is qualifying a verb.

But this is not what my intuition says, and after years of being exposed to almost always grammatically correct English, I have learned to trust my language intuition. Maybe in this case I am mixing it up with the grammar rules for some other language, but I feel that probable and not probably is correct here. Which, of course, is contrary to the rule above. My best explanation is that the phrase "using X" is describing a process, not an action, and is therefore somehow a replacement for a noun, and "using X is no more probable to fail than" is correct for the same reason that "the option of using X is no more probable to fail than...", but this could be just a poor rationalization of my already formed opinion.

So which form is correct, and why?

Answer

In the following sentence:

While it is best to use a recipe designed for a big batch, using a multiplied by three small-batch recipe is no more probable to fail than using the small-batch recipe for a single small batch,

probable is the head of the adjectival phrase, probable to fail, which qualifies the noun phrase using a ... small-batch recipe, whose head is the gerund (noun), using.

contractions - Is it okay to say and write "ain't" yet?

Over 10 years ago saying "ain't" was discouraged but it was gaining momentum. What happened? Seems like it's still discouraged. Maybe in another 10 years?

Answer

After centuries of being denigrated by schoolmarms the word “ain’t” has taken up a unusual position in the English language.

It is a word that almost embodies the essence of informality in language. Using it means that you consider the discourse context to be one of extreme informality, or when using it in a context which is already quite formal, it serves to lighten the mood or to inject a degree of folksiness.

grammar - Mixed person subjects and verb agreement

Please consider this sentence.

1. "Not for as long as I or Patricia Smith live will you be allowed to forget that."

In this sentence, I've chosen to write live as I believe it is more correct as it agrees with the speaker, I. But try this.

2. "Not for as long as I or Patricia Smith lives will you be allowed to forget that."

Now lives agrees with Patricia Smith and sounds much more natural as it agrees with the subject immediately in front of it.

The sentence is to be used in dialogue and cannot be rearranged as it is precisely what the speaker wants to say. Can anyone throw any light on which would be considered the correct grammar, or whether you agree that the second option is wrong, but sounds right so run with it.

pronouns - Can "his/her" be replaced by "his"?

Yesterday, I asked this question on Web Apps:

If a Facebook user dies, what happens
to the account?

Actually, I wanted to ask it this way:

If a Facebook user dies, what happens
to his/her account?

I chose the easy way and used the instead of his/her. Could I use just his in this case?:

If a Facebook user dies, what happens

to his account?

What would you recommend for similar cases? Which pronoun is more appropriate to be used?

Answer

You can use the singular “their”: “what happens to their account”.

While is was regarded with rather less than more favorability in the past by style guides, it is gender-neutral and, as such, regains popularity.

grammar - Omitting the helping verb when using the present perfect continuous tense after "as well as"

How can we omit the subject and/or helping verb after "as well as" with the present perfect continuous tense? Example:

1. I have completed this project as well as been working on another one.



2. I have completed this project as well as have been working on another one.

usage - Positive alternative of Clique?

I'm planning to develop a brand identity, which will be creating revenue through clicks! The whole idea is ethical, no deceptive tricks involved.

I want to add a gimmick to traditional boring form of articles. To do so I will create a group of characters affiliated with actual article writers. These characters are more of anime style fighters ..... like samurai, ninja, boxer etc ....

The name I came up with is " Scarlet Clique "

The reason behind the name is that I will draw the characters in charcoal pencil sketch form with a cloth element of scarlet color. As they are a group of character having a common purpose or aim so I thought to call them clique instead of clan.

I feel that "Scarlet clique" rhymes better than " scarlet clan " does. Also "clique" will point to "click" which is an important aim!

I now have some concerns about "clique" as after reading a previous answer about the word here on this forum. I learned that the world "clique" can have a negative meaning which I am afraid might be an issue in future!

Is there a Positive alternative for the word Clique?

Please ignore any language mistakes as English is not my first language :)

Answer

a plural title coupled with a descriptive adjective , can strongly suggest, when capitalized, that the name must be a "group","team", "squad", "clan" etc.

Scarlet Scribes might fit this alternative approach.

Again, "scribes" is NOT a word for a generic group ... however the "Scarlet Scribes" capitalized as a proper name, leaves little doubt that it is a group.

For example, you have groups like the "Power Rangers" and the "Ninja Mutant Turtles" or even a construction like "The Ghostbusters"

The word "scribes" more firmly connects them to the writers you mentioned they represent.

--

In a similar fashion of using a proper name to create a unsaid group:

The Scarlet Select might be an alternative that meets your desire to emphasize "clicks" ... The term "select team" is common in international sports and the word alone means "elite"

select adjective from Cambridge Dictionary site

the best of its type or highest in quality:

select fruit/school

a select group of people

grammar - "Have you got a chance to" vs "Did you get a chance to"

What is the difference between following two statements?

1. Have you got a chance to look into this?


2. Did you get a chance to look into this?

Answer

"Have you got a chance to X?" asks if the person has a chance to do something. E.g. "Have you got a chance to win the lottery?"

It essentially implies that being able to do something is mostly out of your control.

Asking "Have you got a chance to look into this?" would imply that "looking into this" is something that one is unlikely to do with out a lot of luck.

"Did you get a chance to X?" ask if the person has had time to do X. E.g. "Did you get a chance to go to the shop?"

It essentially implies that being able to do something is mostly constrained by other things in your schedule.

Asking "Did you get a chance to look into this?" would imply that "looking into this" is something that must compete with other things one must do to become a high enough priority to be done.

So 1) is about luck and 2) is about time management.

grammatical number - Use of plural pronoun to avoid mentioning of gender

I'm aware that (at least today's) English allows the use of a plural pronoun to avoid mentioning a gender of the subject. Example: _"Everybody can do what they want to" instead of "Everybody can do what he wants to." A typical use seems to be whenever the speaker does not know the sex of the actors and thus does not want to state it wrong or to let the phrase apply to both sexes alike.

As this example clearly shows, the numerus of the predicate then matches the numerus of the subject: "he wants" vs. "they want". This leads me to a dilemma if there are several predicates, associated to both the "everybody" and the neutral pronoun: "Everybody pays for what they get."

The first verb feels better to be in singular case ("pays"), the latter obviously must be in plural case ("get"), yet both refer to the same entity which can hardly be singular and plural.

To use plural case for both verbs ("Everybody pay for what they get") sounds strange in the beginning of the sentence, and the mixed numerus given before sounds a little as if it isn't reflexively meant, i. e. as if everybody has to pay for whatever some other group of individuals ("they") get.

What is the typical solution to my problem?

EDIT: To make this clear: I'm not asking about the singular they and its use, I'm asking about the "pay" vs. "pays" in my example (i. e. the verb of the "everybody") and about the observed or felt dichotomy of using a plural verb and a singular verb for the same actor in one sentence. Is there a more detailed answer to that besides "'they' can refer to a singular object and is to be used in plural form"?

Answer

"Everybody" normally functions as equivalent to third person singular: "he pays, she pays, everybody pays".

Easiest way to build a complex sentence that uses both is to construct the subject and verb using one of the other third person singulars: "she", "he", or even "it" first, to get that part correct; "she pays ". Then build the adverbial phrase using "they", which takes a third-person plural verb: "they get", "they find", "they are", "they have". Then change "she" to "everybody", and add the adverbial phrase: "Everybody pays when they have enough money". (It's an adverbial phrase because we could replace it completely with an adverb: "everybody pays happily".)

The rule is "everybody" acts singular, "they" acts plural, and we're just accepting by fiat that "they" implies third person singular, but its actual third-person-plural nature is used to decide what verb to use.

grammaticality - "May you please give me your approval?"

The phrase is bring used in our office, and while I am certain it doesn't sound right, ie shouldn't it say "Would/could/will you please give me your approval" I would like an expert to tell me why.

grammar - Should I use either or any in this sentence?

So, I want to ask the students to contact me if they are interested in topics A and B. Which one is better?

Please contact me if you are interested in any of the following topics: ...

or
Please contact me if you are interested in either of the following topics: ...

Or, do you think there is a better way to put that?

Answer

Favour either when there are two alternatives, and only one can be taken.

Either can allow for more than two alternatives and it can allow that both alternatives can be taken, but there's no point using it in these cases unless you've a good reason; being able to argue you were technically correct is not the point of the exercise.

I don't see why you don't just use:

Please contact me if you are interested in [A] or [B].

Seems a simpler approach.

grammar - Not only.... but also

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

He doesn't only like football but also likes tennis.

and if it's wrong, why so?

Specifically, is there any problem with omitting the subject in the second clause?

Also, is there any problem with the verb form likes?

How to use articles in parentheses?

Do I need to use an article for the option word in parentheses?

If you want to create a new design of a handle (flag), the outer

diameter of the casing can be changed in the place of possible
junction with a handle (diverter).

or

If you want to create a new design of a handle (a flag), the outer
diameter of the casing can be changed in the place of possible
junction with a handle (a diverter).

or even

If you want to create a new design of a handle (or flag), the outer
diameter of the casing can be changed in the place of possible
junction with a handle (or diverter).

punctuation - Should there always be a comma after "therefore","However" etc.?

Should you always type a comma after "therefore","however" etc. in the beginning of a sentence? Also, when these (and similar) words are used in the middle of a sentence, should there be a comma or semi-colon before and after the word?

Therefore, he must be killed!

That man is revolting, however, some find him attractive.

Sorry for the lousy examples. I couldn't think of any better.

Answer

Not really. There are many cases for which a comma is unnecessary.

He is strong, and therefore a likely candidate.

However strong he is, he is not a likely candidate.

And so on.

As for subordinate clauses, where the words function as subordinating conjunctions, the comma isn't always necessary either.

He is strong, therefore he must be a likely candidate.

Still, I would use one with however in that case:

He is strong; however, I don't think he's a likely candidate.

Note the semicolon. A period would work there as well. This is because "however" doesn't really work as a subordinating conjunction. Therefore isn't usually classed as such either, but I believe it can function as one just fine.

What grammar is used in "are there" for not a question & "is a compromise view" without a subject?

I have found 2 sentences in a law book, but I cannot figure out what grammar rules are used in them. Please advise.

• 1.) In no state, however, are there [what rule, why such order of the words?] specific guidelines as to what constitutes participation in another business . . .

The above sentence is not a question, so why is there subject-auxiliary verb inversion?

In the following example, why is there no subject?

• 2.) Between these two extremes, however, is a compromise view. [no subject? What rule is this?], which seems . . .

Answer

The first sentence is an example of negative inversion: after a negating, adverbial word or phrase, the subject and auxiliary (here the verb "to be") are often reversed in order:

There are no rules in any state

In no state (negation) are there any rules

Similarly:

In no way am I going to eat my peas!

Never has he travelled by bus.

Not until she went to France did she realise how much she loved baguettes.

The main reason to use this inversion is for formality; rarely is it used in everyday speech.

There are exceptions to this rule and times when it is optional. See Negative inversion for a good overview.

In your second sentence, "there", which would act as a subject, is simply omitted:

Between these two extremes (there) is a compromise view.

"There" in this case is the existential there - it is not an actual subject, though it can stand in for one. In your example sentence, it is simply not necessary.

Similarly:

In the garden (there) was a dog.

On the wall (there) was a giant spider.

Again, this is not common in everyday speech, and is usually used in formal circumstances or storytelling.

Multiple person possession with a pronoun

How do you handle multiple person possession with a pronoun?

For instance, "This organization has been near and dear to my and Simon's hearts for many years"

look alikes - What is the correct pronunciation and etymology of "corps"?

I tried looking up the word "corps" on dictionary.reference.com and it says it's pronounced "kawr", "kohr", "kawrs", or "kohrs", none of which match the way I've always pronounced it with the "ps" sound. I have always been a little leery saying it this way because it sounds like a dead body, and if you're talking about the Marine Corps then this isn't the best mental image.

Answer

"Corps" and "corpse" both have the same ultimate origin in Latin "corpus" (body).

The former derives from the Latin via Medieval French, as far as I know. The French pronunciation "korr" (or slightly Anglicised to "kohr" or even "kore") is thus the historically correct pronunciation.

Pronouncing it in any way ending with an "s" is not advisable. It certainly won't give others the impression that you're educated. (Worst of all is "corpse" - please never say it like that.)

subordinate clauses - I think/know vs. I think/know that

I wonder when verbs like think or know are followed by that; I encountered both forms, is there a difference?

For example,

I know that he did it. // I know he did it.

Are the two sentences both correct?

Answer

Yes, they are both correct. I'd use the second because that's more idiomatic and shorter than the first one. There are times when you don't need "that" in a sentence and this seems to be one of those instances.

verbs - The pronunciation of "ate"

I was talking to some friends and I said "I ate (/et/) chocolate yesterday...". Then my friend corrected me: "you ate (/eit/) chocolate...". I repeated my sentence with the /eit/ pronunciation and we moved on.

But later at home I checked some dictionaries and online debates on the subject, and now I'd like to know if it's possible or not to pronounce ate as /et/ rather than /eit/.

Answer

That's just a regional pronunciation. It's non-standard but not completely uncommon. If I had to guess, I'd say rural midwestern America, where a lot of the different vowel sounds all get pronounced the same --although Peter Shor's comment above seems to imply it might also be a Cockney accent. (I'm not all that familiar with British accents, so I don't know which might fit best.)

names - Surname plural, Wolf becomes The Wolves?

The Simpson family becomes The Simpsons, does that mean I can call a family with surname Wolf, The Wolves or The Wolfs? I don't know if changing letters of someone's surname is appropriate or not.

Ending a clause with a preposition, rule of thumb or hard rule?

So we've all heard the admonishments from our teachers not to end a clause with a preposition

A plumber visits a wealthy estate to fix a clogged toilet. As the butler opens the door, the plumber barks out,"I'm here to fix the toilet. Where's your bathroom at?"

"Please try to speak with more discretion. We do not want to disturb our neighbors with the details of our plumbing issues. And we most certainly do not end our sentences with prepositions, sir.

So the plumber lowers his tone and says more cordially, "I'm here to fix the toilet. Where's your bathroom at, asshole."

Anyway, back to the matter at hand. I have come under the impression that this is a rule of thumb to help the elementary student avoid mismatching case for the target of the preposition rather than a hard rule. For example by placing the preposition closer to its target, you avoid constructs like: "Who did you give the invitation to?" instead of the proper "To whom did you give the invitation?". Moving the preposition closer makes the incorrect case sound absurd. No one would ever say "To who did you give the invitation?"

All of this introductory text leads up to this simple question: Is this phrase correct "Whom did you give the invitation to?" or is it still incorrect english even though we addressed the issue of case?

Answer

I would say it's a rule of thumb, to avoid students make errors.

The NOAD, in the note about the usage of who versus whom reports that

The normal practice in modern English is to use who instead of whom and, where applicable, to put the preposition at the end of the sentence.
- Who do you think we should support?
- Who do you wish to speak to?

It also reports that

Such uses are today broadly accepted in standard English, but in formal writing it is best to maintain the distinction.

As you are using whom, the correct sentence is

To whom did you give the invitation?

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"?

hyphenation - Slash or hyphen in constructions that imply a combination?

Would you use hyphens or slashes in constructions that imply a combination? Examples:

• A yard group / yard steering conflict (meaning a conflict between a yard group and yard steering)


• A building week / structure week / platform combination


• The Program A / Program B communication (where "Program A" and "Program B" are names of software programs)

grammaticality - Is it "a user" or "an user"

Since user starts with a vowel shouldn't we use "an" ? I've seen many cases of using "a" .

Answer

From Amerenglish:

"An" goes before all words that begin with vowels:

With two exceptions:

When "u" makes the same sound as the "y" in you, or "o" makes the same sound as "w" in won, then "a" is used:

• a union


• a united front


• a unicorn


• a used napkin


• a U.S. ship



• a one-legged man

usage - How to ask a question about ordinal number?

There are many pupils in the classroom. Peter was the n th( n is a positive integer) student to arrive. Now I want to ask Peter about what n is. How can I ask him?
It seems that it is very difficult to begin with a wh- question in situations like this.

As I have noticed previous similar questions about this.

Where did Peter fall in the sequence of arrival?

Is this idiomatic ?

Identifying the main clause and subordinate clauses

I’m preparing for my exam and in one of the practice questions i have to identify the main clause, subordinate clause/s and the subject,predicate and/or adverbials. the sentence is:

"The Mausoleum has an interesting place in Greek history because it was a building that was not dedicated to the gods".

i thought the main clause could be "The Mausoleum has an interesting place in Greek history"

with "because" being the subordinating conjunction.

but I'm really struggling to identify the subordinate clause/s. is there 1 or 2? what type of clause is it and what would the subject and predicate be?

thanks in advanced

grammar - Code to or for the lab?

I've been finding myself quite confused about a particular situation. So I know that people say a key to (physical place), such as ''do you have the key to the shed'' etc. However, I'm not sure what to say where there's no key involved but a codelock. Should I say: ''do you have the code to the lab'' or ''do you have the code for the lab''?

I'd think the former makes more sense as the code is what allows you to get through the door, into the lab. But I might be wrong, hence me asking on here.

Thank you for your help

grammatical number - What is the correct plural form of an abbreviation whose last word starts with 'S'?

What is the correct plural form of an abbreviation whose last word starts with 'S' (thus making the last letter in the abbreviation an 'S')?

The example I keep running into is "CMS", an abbreviation of "Content Management System". How would I refer to a group of these beasts?

Answer

I think CMSes is perfectly fine. Some would say CMS's is okay, though I prefer the version without an apostrophe.

I don't agree with CMSs because CMS is an initialism where each letter is pronounced, not an acronym like SCUBA. (Though others might have input on the words initialism and acronym, you know what I mean.)

Reported to Direct speech conversion

This is one of the questions in an exam. According to the official answer key, correct answer is (B). But I found that the most correct answer could be (A). Can any one please point out the right answer with justification?

DIRECTIONS: The following sentences are given in Direct speech.
Change these sentences into correct reported speech:

Q. He said to him, “ Is not your name Ram”.

(A) He asked him if his
name was Ram.

(B) He inquired whether his name was not Ram.

(C) He said to him if his name was not Ram.

(D) He narrated him if name was

not Ram

learning - How to use "undertaken" as an adjective

The analysis of undertaken research.

Is this statement correct? I mean is "undertaken" the correct adjective?

etymology - Quote unquote (or end-quote), unseparated by the actual quotation

In spoken English, people often say "quote-unquote" (or "quote-endquote") to indicate that part of what they are saying is a quotation (scare or otherwise). Sometimes the quoted material will go between quote and unquote, and occasionaly it will precede the quote-unquote. Often, though, "quote unquote" introduces the quoted material.

Why does quote unquote precede the quotation?

It would seem that quote opens the quoted text and that unquote closes it, but then why would we close the quotation before actually providing it. It would be the equivalent of writing your quotation marks together, "", rather than around the quoted text.

What are the origins of this construction?

Three years ago ChrisR asked this well-received question on whether it is correct to use quote, unquote. The answers did not deal with origins, but one commenter suggested that quote-unquote is a corruption of quote-on-quote, but he provided no evidence, nor any real explanation.

conjugation - Does English have "plural" verb forms?

A friend of mine and I were having a linguistics argument (actually, this one), and she brought up as evidence the "plural versus singular conjugation" of the past-tense form of "to be", i.e. "was/were".

I'm sure we all know the 6-form conjugation table:

• I [verb]


• You (s.) [verb]


• He/She/One/It [verb]


• We [verb]


• You (pl.) [verb]


• They [verb]

I'm equally sure we all know that the first three are singular, and the latter three are plural. Now, interestingly, we both agreed on the answer to the original question ("Yes"), but my friend put forth as evidence that You (s.) is conjugated with the "plural conjugation", namely "were", just like We and They, whereas I and He/She/One/It are conjugated with the "singular conjugation", "was".

My argument was that verbs are not conjugated in plural and singular forms, and the fact that "to be" in many tenses seems to follow that pattern is just a coincidence, an artifact of its highly irregular nature.

So, which of us is "right"? Do verbs have explicitly "plural" versus "singular" conjugations, or do they simply have the 6 conjugations (per tense), and "to be" just happens to look like "plural" versus "singular" by mere coincidence?

Answer

Do verbs have explicitly "plural" versus "singular" conjugations, or do they simply have the 6 conjugations (per tense), and "to be" just happens to look like "plural" versus "singular" by mere coincidence?

I'd say that you are right. English verbs have, in principle, six forms, though the maximal number of distinct forms is four, and that only for the present tense of to be. The verb form is entirely determined by the subject. The fact that the subject pronoun you can be both singular or plural doesn't change this at all: you always requires the same verb agreement.

BTW, you can demonstrate that the English "singular" conjugation is in fact not a unitary conjugation by throwing back in the old 2sg thou:

I am, thou art, he is

I was, thou wast, he was

I say, thou sayest, he says

The 1sg and the 3sg are only the same in a few verbs and tenses, and the old 2sg is always different from both of them. The plural forms of we/you/they are always the same for all verbs in all tenses, so as far as that goes it's reasonable to talk about a "plural" verb form. But there is no one "singular" verb form.

prepositions - "The queen of England's crown" or "The queen's of England crown"?

What is the correct way of these two sentences?

1. The queen of England's crown


2. The queen's of England crown

Strictly linguistically, sentence 2 should be the correct one, since the crown belongs to the queen and not to England but it sounds really awkward to pronounce.

Answer

It is a common misconception, partly because of bad use of terminology, that the English 's construction is closely equivalent to a genitive in languages like Latin, German etc with overt case marking.

But in reality, 's works quite differently: it can be appended to the whole noun phrase, including adjuncts such as prepositional phrases and relative clauses. This means that the following are in principle perfectly common and grammatical:

(a) [The girl next door]'s dog just died.

(b) [That man I saw yesterday]'s car is parked in my space.

(c) [The queen of England]'s crown is worth its weight in gold.

Of course, if you find that having a lengthy or syntactically complex noun phrase is clumsy to read, you can always rephrase. In reality, a case such as (b), though fairly common in spontaneous usage, would probably be avoided by careful writers. But a phrase such as "The queen of England" is short and simple enough that there's no need to contort the sentence in my opinion.

To avoid confusion, I personally avoid applying the term "genitive" to this construction in English. That way you avoid false expectations if you're used to the more prototypical "genitive" of other languages.

prepositions - What/Which train are you going on/by?

What is the difference between the following interrogative structures?

• What train are you going on/by?




• Which train are you going on/by?

And which of the prepositions, given at the end of both structures, would be appropriate?

Answer

Practically speaking, they both mean the same thing. Perhaps if there were a number of trains at a station, someone would say "which" train, but "what" is also acceptable.

In terms of the preposition, I have heard both prepositions used.

Personally, I would say either "Which train are you taking?" or "Which train are you on?"

early modern english - Articles before "covenant"?

As I was going through Leviathan I realized that in some places Hobbes left an article before covenant, despite not placing the word in quotation marks:

1. "God is King of all the Earth by his Power: but of his chosen people, he is King by Covenant."

2. "Again, one of the Contractors, may deliver the Thing contracted for on his part, and leave the other to perform his part at some determinate time after, and in the mean time be trusted; and then the Contract on his part, is called PACT, or COVENANT:"

3. "For Justice, that is to say, Performance of Covenant, and giving to every man his own, is a Dictate of the Law of Nature."

In the second example covenant has all the letters capitalized, is it a substitute of quotation marks? If so, I still don't understand why Hobbes left out the in the first sentence and a in the third.

In other places he placed a before covenant:

4. "And for that cause, in buying, and selling, and other acts of Contract, A Promise is equivalent to a Covenant; and therefore obligatory."

Are all the four sentences correct?
According to the research I did covenant is countable, it should be preceded by an article anytime it is
in singular.

Answer

The article seems to be left off for several different reasons.

1. Why do we leave off the in "by covenant"? For the same reason that we leave off the in "traveled by train." We're not talking about a specific train; we're talking about a generic means of travel. We can use this construction even if there is a specific train or covenant involved — I can say I traveled by train to New York and be grammatical, even though I clearly took one specific train. Similarly, even though Hobbes is talking about a specific covenant, he drops the article in this sentence because he intends to reference a generic means of becoming king.



2. These are definitions in 17th century English. Hobbes generally uses either uppercase or all capitals for words when he defines them. He seems to be leaving off the article in these definitions, even though we'd put definitely put it in today. You really can't judge 17th century grammar by today's standards. Hobbes seems to be inconsistent about whether he puts in or leaves off the article. Lots of nouns, like duty, can be both uncountable and countable, and it's possible that Hobbes is treating covenant as one of these.


3. Again, as in (1), Hobbes is using covenant generically. Unlike (1), this does seem strange if you evaluate it in terms of today's grammar. Many nouns, like duty, are uncountable when they are used generically, and countable when they are used for specific instance of a duty. I suspect Hobbes is treating covenant as one of these. I don't know whether this is specific to Hobbes, or occurred more broadly in 17th century Englich.


4. Covenant is a countable noun, and you should generally put an article before it. There is nothing at all unusual about this usage, the way there is about (2) and (3).

capitalization - Should I change the structure of a sentence/add filler words to make sure that the sentence always starts with a capital letter?

Here is a quote from a book on C++ ("for", "while" and "do" are keywords in many languages, and in most languages they have to be in lower case. The C++ language is one of those.):

Simply put, algorithm names suggest what they do. "for", "while", and "do" don't.

One cannot write "For" instead of "for", because that would no longer refer to a well-known technical term, but to something else. Some attempts to fix this sentence would be:

The "for", "while", and "do" don't.

or:

The keywords "for", "while", and "do" don't.

or:

Use of "for", "while", or "do" does not.

Is this a good practice? Is this even an issue? What about other examples, such as starting sentence with a number, with a lower case letter in English or a foreign language, such as:

"l" looks a bit like "i".
as opposed to something like:
letter "l" looks a bit like "i".

grammar - Is "Sent to say" proper?

Is it incorrect grammar to say that someone "sent to say" something?
As in "Joe sent to say that he would love to join you all for the pic nic".
I know that I don't have the greatest grammar skills in the world, but I thought that that was a proper saying.

capitalization - Should "This" be capitalized in title case?

I have read that short words – that is, those with less than five letters – should not be capitalized. However, online sentence-to-title case converters capitalize the pronoun/adjective "this".

What is the correct way to deal with words such as "this" or "these"?

Thanks.

Answer

It depends which style guide you are following - but I couldn't find any that corresponded to "lowercase short words" (So "The Lord of the Rings" not "The lord of the Rings").

Grammarly suggests you capitalize the first word, all nouns, verbs, adjectives, and (implicitly) pronouns and adverbs and then says different style guides differ on how to handle articles, conjunctions, and prepositions. Some call for them to always be lowercase, and some for them to be upper cased if more than five letters.

Daily Writing Tips adds the last word and "subordinating conjunctions" ("as", "because", "although") to the "always capitalize" list (and discusses more the various style guides).

Everybody seems to agree though that "The This in a Title" is correctly title-cased.

grammar - Do I use IS or ARE in this sentence?

"John Smith and all of us at ABC Corp ARE proud to support..." or "John Smith and all of us at ABC Corp IS proud to support..."

grammar - Help me cook vs help me to cook?

This question has been rounding my head for a while, id say help me cook but then i think about omitting "to" which i think isn't correct. Can you give me more examples about this situation.

Thanks in advance

grammatical number - "Her whole family IS/ARE biologists"?

I'm not sure whether to put is (number agreeing with the singular her whole family) or are (number agreeing with plural biologists) in this sentence:

Her whole family is/are biologists.

---

After some more searching, it seems to make it correct, the whole would need to be removed.

Based on this other question, I think "Her family are biologists." is technically correct but "All of her family are biologists sounds better."

Still not certain.

Answer

I would use "are" in this context, even though the word "family" could go either way. Even so, I think that "are" is more suitable because you are labelling multiple people as biologists.

However, the sentence could be worded in a better way, like:
1) Everyone in her family is a biologist.
2) All of her family members are biologists.

That way, there is less confusion with verb agreement. Either way, it is good to know that either "are" and "is" can be used with the unit "family".

expressions - What does “you dropped them keys” mean?

I was listening a song called To The Left from Beyonce.
There is a part that she sings:
“Because you was untrue
Rolling her around in the car that I bought you
Baby you dropped them keys
Hurry up before your taxi leaves”.

Could you guys explain me what does she mean?
If she was talking about the car keys, it shouldn’t be “you dropped its keys”

grammatical case - He must decide who/whom to be. Which is correct?

Which of the following two sentences is correct?

He must decide who to be.

He must decide whom to be.

I can think of arguments for both sides, but I'm not sure.

To elaborate, is who(m) the object of decide, the subject of be, or the object of be? Does the infinitive form of be have any bearing on the answer? And is there anything else to consider about the position or role of who(m) in this particular sentence that would inform the answer?

The answers to the linked question What’s the rule for using “who” and “whom” correctly? say to "substitute he and him for who and whom." However, that doesn't give a clear answer in this context, because neither of those pronouns sounds right: "He must decide to be he"? "He must decide to be him"? Normally we'd use a reflexive pronoun here ("He must decide to be himself") and it's not clear what case that corresponds to.

Answer

The Wikipedia link about the accusative case explains that

Modern English, which almost entirely lacks declension in its nouns,

does not have an explicitly marked accusative case even in the
pronouns. Such forms as whom, them, and her derive rather from the old
Germanic dative forms, of which the -m and -r endings are
characteristic.

Now, whether to use who or whom in your sentence entirely depends on which case should be used, accusative (whom) or nominative (who).

In English, it is grammatically correct to use nominative after the verb to be as in

It's he who stole my car. It's they who told me the truth. It's she
who lied to me.

However, we know that "It's me" (using the accusative case after to be) is broadly used in English. But it is just a few exceptions.

In your sentence, it is appropriate to use the nominative case as it is the complement of to be. If you divide the sentence into two parts:

He must decide / He should be who => He must ask who he should be => He must decide who to be.

in the same way as:

He must decide / He should meet whom => He must decide whom he should meet => He must decide whom to meet.

He must ask / She is who => He must ask who she is. (This question cannot be shortened with wh-word + to-infinitive as the subjects are not same.)

We don't ask,

*Whom is he? or *Who is him?

*Whom am I? or *Who am me?

because whom and him/me are the accusative case and can't be a complement of the verb be in this case.

Note: "He must decide who he wants to be" is more idiomatic than "he must decide who to be".

present perfect vs simple past - I've just bought vs. I just bought vs. I bought

I bought an English grammar book 3 weeks ago. Is it correct to use any of the following sentences interchangeably to tell my friend that I bought the book, or is there a difference in meaning between each sentence?

1. I've just bought a book on English grammar, and it looks pretty good.


2. I just bought a book on English grammar, and it looks pretty good.



3. I bought a book on English grammar, and it looks pretty good.

grammaticality - "For how many days have you been there?"

I read the following and was wondering if it was grammatically correct? Can we use this if the person just moved from that place and you run into him in a new place?

For how many days have you been there?

http://m.fanfiction.net/s/2086227/16/

Answer

If the person is still in the place referred to as there, then the question How many days have you been there? (present perfect) is the only grammatically correct choice.

If the person is no longer there, then the question must be How many days were you there? (past simple).

Note: how many is sufficient; it doesn't need to be for how many.

grammar - "Shouldn't you be at work?"

Say you should be at work. Would the correct answer be "yes" or "no"? The common answer would be "yes", but isn't that really saying, "yes, I should not be at work"?

meaning - "Stop working" vs "stopped to work"

I want to know, is there any difference between "stop + v.(ing)" and "stopped to + v.". These are example sentences.

I stop working for a month. vs I stopped to work for a month.
I stop watching movies. vs I stopped to watch movies.
I stop cooking for a year. vs I stopped to cook.

I read “I like to do (be) something” vs “I like doing (being) something” but I still don't understand what is the difference or when and how to use them.

Answer

Both are correct, but they have very different meanings.

I stopped working means I once worked, and now no longer do. I stopped to work means that I once was doing something (unspecified, based on context), and I ceased from doing it so that I could work. The infinitive (to work) here has the meaning of in order to work and so that I could work.

So I stopped cooking means I once cooked, and no longer do, but I stopped to cook means I stopped [doing something] so that I was then able to cook.