British Mass Nouns versus American Count Nouns

British English often employs mass nouns where American English would only employ count nouns. Count nouns are nouns which take pluralization and numerical quantifiers like 'many'. Mass nouns can't be pluralized and take volume quantifiers like 'a bit of'. For example:

1. I like sport.



2. I like drink.


3. I pay tax.


4. I've got toothache/earache/stomachache/backache.


5. I eat mashed potato/scrambled egg.


6. I play with lego.

In American English, we would render these:

1. I like sports.


2. I like to drink / I like to have drinks.


3. I pay taxes.


4. I've got a toothache/earache/stomachache/backache.


5. I eat mashed potatoes/scrambled eggs.


6. I play with legos.

These facts are documented here, here and here. But this difference is not mentioned on the Wikipedia page comparing British English to American English.

My question is simply what other nouns which are standardly count in AmE are often mass in BrE?

Further, are there any broad categories of nouns (for example, food nouns) that tend to be count in AmE but tend to be mass in BrE? Or does the difference only exist for particular and isolated lexical items? (The first link I provided says that many foods are not conventionally massified in BrE, for example 'refried bean').

Here are two final caveats:

First, I know that any count noun can be turned into a mass noun by simply putting it in the syntactic position of a mass noun. That's why "I ate (a bit of) chicken" is acceptable in both AmE and BrE. But I am asking about the obvious differences between AmE and BrE regards their conventional uses of nouns as mass and count.

Second, I know these types of list questions are hard for single users to answer, and sometimes generate controversy on EL&U (for example, this one on kennings generated some controvery). Still, I'll upvote any responses that make a novel contribution.

Answer

Mighty Fine Words and Smashing Expressions: Making Sense of Transatlantic English (2001)

Summary of this book's section on BrE/AmE uncountable/countable nouns:

• Most vegetables that are uncountable in BrE are countable in AmE, with these exceptions:
  broccoli, spinach, lettuce, i.e. vegetables that already have different ways of distinguishing discrete forms: head of broccoli, leaf of spinach, lettuce leaf




• Individual servings of coffee/tea are countable in BrE, e.g. a coffee/a tea, while in AmE you would say a cup of coffee/a cup of tea.




• accomodation is uncountable in BrE, while accomodations in AmE refers to the multiple different types of accomodation: room and board, food, entertainment




• various different aches are uncountable in BrE, and countable in AmE, such as "she's got cramps" (for menstrual distress but used for muscle cramps as well).





• BrE attaches plural verbs to group nouns and organizations, e.g. "the team are playing"




• (circle-making) compass, (conduit) main, (business) overhead, and (weighing) scale are usually used in their singular form in AmE and in plural form in BrE, while BrE usually uses wood to refer to a small forest and AmE uses woods.

---

In BrE, flies is acceptable to refer to your trousers' zipper:

http://fandom-grammar.livejournal.com/106339.html

---

BrE: roadworks Cambridge dictionary

AmE: roadwork MacMillan dictionary

---

BrE: "a saving of 10%"

AmE: "a savings of 10%"

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/64918/a-savings-is-that-even-grammatical

---

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

For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of

There are many automated teller machines in this city.

Would it be

There are many ATMs in this city.

or

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

or just

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

Maybe something else?

Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

is this usage of like correct?

This computer program treats photonic crystals like a periodic set of cylinders

I am having a hard time to figure out if I should use like or as in this sentence.

Thanks in advance!

grammaticality - Why can't you use the word "me" before a proper noun?

As per the title, I don't understand why it is grammatically incorrect to say "me and John went to the park" as opposed to "John and I went to the park." Is any help on this available?

verbs - Is there a term for removing contractions?

Is there an English verb for removing contractions from a body of text?

Like changing "I wasn't there" to "I was not there".

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.

articles - An Apple Is Green

Which one is correct?

• An apple is green.


• Apple is green.


• The apple is green.

Please describe for me.

Answer

An apple is green.

This is correct when you are talking about a member of a group, something general, for example, fruit. An orange is orange, but an apple is green. A/an is an indefinite article.

Apple is green. This is an unusual sentence, but it could be true if apple is the name of a green child (think Gweneth Paltrow), or you are referring to the color apple. (There is a color called 'apple green'.)

The apple is green.

This is correct when you are referring to a specific apple, the apple you are talking about. The is a definite article; it refers to a particular.

A man and a woman were walking in Oxford Street. The woman saw a dress that she liked in a shop. She asked the man if he could buy the dress for her. He said: "Do you think the shop will accept a cheque? I don't have a credit card."

source

period - When should an adjective be followed by a comma?

This happened whenever she was left alone in someone else's home.
She'd feel as if she had been put inside a huge, abandoned turtle
shell.

I don't know why, but I just put a comma in the example above (I think I learned this in some writing course.)

I searched for a similar sentences on Google and found this:

Living in a huge abandoned turtle shell called Big Green

So I'm a bit confused, when should an adjective be followed by a comma?

Answer

This concerns what R L Trask in his ‘Guide to Punctuation’ calls a listing comma. You might find the entire passage on commas helpful, but the summary of his advice on listing commas, which applies to lists of adjectives as well as nouns, is:

Use a listing comma in a list wherever you could conceivably use the
word and (or or) instead. Do not use a listing comma anywhere else.

In your example, it would possible to write ‘a huge and abandoned turtle shell’, so that means you can write instead ‘a huge, abandoned turtle shell’.

word choice - Is it 'an' humiliating, or 'a' humiliating defeat?

I was looking at the papers and saw 'The Government suffered a humiliating defeat.'

It just felt wrong and I seem to recall it should be 'an' humiliating defeat, although I'm not certain.

I had a search but couldn't find anything. Please could someone explain why it is one or the other.

Commas and Partial Quotations

What are the rules for comma placement when it comes to partial quotes?

My intuition is that a comma should be placed outside of the quotations marks if the comma is related to the overall structure of the sentence. However, the various sources I have looked to (APA, MLA, and others) have stressed that commas (and periods) should always be placed within quotation marks.

For purposes of illustration, would the second comma go within or outside of the quotation marks below?

As Andrew argues, peanut prices “can be ridiculously overpriced", leaving many Americans to resort to jelly sandwiches.

or

As Andrew argues, peanut prices “can be ridiculously overpriced," leaving many Americans to resort to jelly sandwiches.

An explanation of the general rule would be lovely as well.

Answer

As it was explained to me many years ago (in Clinton, Tennessee, USA) by a linotype operator who was old enough to have set type by hand, "[Punctuation] goes inside the quotes because editors are too dumb to know where it goes and, if we have to have to talk about it every time, we'd never get the paper out."

punctuation - Using hyphenated words in technical writing?

I always get confused when using hyphenated words in my research papers. Is there any specific rule for using hyphenated words? For example, which one of the following is the correct usage of co scheduling? One has smallcase s, while the other one has uppercase s. Is it just simply a taste of the writer? Google shows both the words along with coscheduling.

Co-scheduling or Co-Scheduling

Moreover, wikipedia tells that:

Certain prefixes (co-, pre-, mid-, de-, non-, anti-, etc.) may or may not be hyphenated.

Could someone clarify this?

Answer

The problem here is that there is not one true answer. Google will display the various styles used, but there is not one correct one.

To determine the style that you should should use, do the following.

Look up the word in the standard dictionary you are supposed to use. (If there isn't a standard dictionary for your project, choose one). If the word is in the dictionary, use that spelling. If not, look up the hyphenation rules in the style manual you are supposed to use. (If there isn't a standard style manual for your project, choose one). Hyphenate the word according to those rules.

For questions of capitalization, you'll have to refer once again to the style manual. It should contain rules for capitalizing hyphenated words. But be aware, the capitalization rule for a hyphenated word in a title may differ from that at the beginning of a sentence.

---

Example

Let's use your word, "co scheduling", and the rules from the Penn State Editorial Style Manual.

The manual specifies "Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, current edition" for spelling and hyphenation. In that dictionary there is no entry for a word co that would properly modify scheduling, which means that "co scheduling" is incorrect. There are also no entries for either co-scheduling or coscheduling, so we can't follow the dictionary's spelling.

There are entries for the prefix co- and the word scheduling. So the word must be formed by merging these two. We need to use the style manual to determine how to do that. The section on hyphens states: "Words formed with the prefix co should be hyphenated." So if you follow Penn State's rules, the word should be co-scheduling.

The Penn State manual is silent on the rules for capitalizing hyphenated words and refers users to the Chicago Manual of Style in that case. That manual states: "Do not capitalize the second element if (a) it is a participle modifying the first element or (b) both elements constitute a single word." Because co- is a prefix, that means co-scheduling is a single word, and therefore the capitalized form is Co-scheduling.

orthography - When a sentence starts with "e.g.", should the e be capitalized?

When a sentence starts with e.g., should the e be capitalized?

Neverminding that it might be better to start with "For example," ... Thinking of SE posts and comments, should the starting e be capitalized?

Answer

Yes. Sentences start with capital letters; abbreviations are no exception.

A possible* exception is when a proper name starts with a lower case letter. E.g., if I changed my name to matthew then "matthew is awesome." would be correct. This is because the word is intended to be lower case. E.g., on the other hand, has no such association with it.

_{* Don't make an exception. This is just playing devil's advocate. See comments.}

Colloquial usage of past tense as future perfect

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

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

(A contrived example)

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

(From an H.G. Wells work)

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

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

buy = bought
will = would
have = had

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

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

Pronunciation of letter y: asylum vs syrup

I want someone to clarify if there is a rule about how to pronounce the letter Y

I've read in another stackexchange post that when it is in a Greek-origin word it is pronounced as uh e.g. analysis, paralysis.

However in another Greek-origin word, asylum, it is pronounced as i while the in the latin word syrup it is pronounced as /i/.

Answer

No.

There are no rules for how to pronounce the letter Y -- or rather there are too many rules, and none of them work. Similarly, there are also no good rules for how to pronounce any other letter of the English alphabet. Modern English spelling does NOT represent pronunciation in Modern English.

Rather, it represents one spelling (there were many) for Middle English pronunciation, which got fixed when printing became established in England, right before the end of the Great Vowel Shift. Spelling used to be free, like handwriting is now; but printing froze it, a little too soon to get a good spelling for Modern English. Too bad, but we're stuck with it now.

grammar - Why do we put subject and auxiliary verbs at the end of the sentence?

Why do we put subject and auxiliary verbs e.g., have, be, do at the end of the sentence?
I found this kind of sentences from a fantasy book named The last apprentice by Joseph Delany.

Examples:

1. Got what I need, you have.


2. Bossy and arrogant, he is.


3. Try to help her, I did.

punctuation - (I'm not sure) how to capitalize this sentence

When a sentence begins with a parenthetical clause (uncommon, I'm sure), how should the following portion be capitalized? My thought is it would be either

(In my opinion, at least[,]) the play was terrible.

or

(In my opinion, at least[,]) The play was terrible.

Since "The play was terrible" is a complete sentence, and "In my opinion, at least" is a parenthetical attachment, should "the" be capitalized? Should a sentence even start with a parenthetical clause?

---

Additionally (I will remove this part from the question if it turns out to be too separate an issue), should the comma after "at least" be present? Were the sentence written to include the parenthetical statement, it would be included, but it seems very strange to me to end a parenthetical statement that way.

Answer

Since the parenthesis is part of the sentence, and comes first, you should not capitalize the the since it is in the middle of the sentence:

(In my opinion, at least) the play was terrible.

This looks rather ghastly, though, so you shouldn't start a sentence with parentheses. Instead you could say:

The play was terrible (in my opinion, at least).

Also, it is bad form to end a parenthetical fragment with punctuation. The ending parenthesis takes care of any separation that the comma would otherwise be needed to indicate.

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

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

Some examples they use:

• Charles's friend



• Burns's poems

Are these grammatically correct?

Answer

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

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

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

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

grammatical number - What is the correct plural form for multiple bachelor degrees?

I am helping a former intern ready their resume for distribution. The candidate used an abbreviation I was unfamiliar with:

B.S.s in Physics, Computer Science, and Mathematics

I am familiar with the student's educational background so after a moment of thought realized "B.S.s" was their attempt to indicate multiple bachelor of science degrees. That said I can see those unfamiliar with the student's background being confused. Unfortunately, I do not know how to provide the correct punctuation to indicate the correct grammatical number for multiple degrees in the same discipline.

What is the correct plural form for multiple bachelor degrees? Additionally, are there variations for other degree levels: associates, masters, Ph.D, etc.? In addition to the abbreviation what's the correct way to indicate plurality for the unabbreviated form?

Answer

I think this may be one of the rare cases where 's is used to denote plurality:

B.S.'s

This seems to be supported by a bunch of places:

and many more.

meaning - "Still" and "Yet" as Conjunctions

I know there are already many posts on still and yet, but I really find it difficult to use them as conjunction as in following sentences:

1. It's a small car, yet/still it's surprisingly spacious


2. He has a good job, and yet/still he never seems to have any money


3. The weather was cold and wet. yet/still, we had a great time.

So my question is when should I use yet and when should I use still, when using it as a conjunction, and what is the correct option for sentences above?

Answer

Yet is a conjunction meaning nevertheless or however. While still may appear in conjunctive phrases like but still, it is not itself a conjunction. Therefore:

It's a small car, yet it's surprisingly spacious.

The weather was cold and wet, yet we had a great time.

You can use either word in conjunctive phrases. Yet usually carries a sense of negation, so and yet means the same thing as but still.

He has a good job, and yet he never seems to have any money.

He has a good job, but still he never seems to have any money.

ordinals - How can I ask a question with the answer "I'm eating the fourth apple"?

Assume that there are 5 apples must be eaten by Jack. When you want to know about how many of the apples are eaten, you may ask Jack, 'how many apples have you eaten?'; But how can I ask the question to make Jack answers, 'I'm eating the fourth apple'?

grammaticality - If I can say "not that good a review," does that mean I can say "not that good reviews"?

I'm new to the template, so please forgive my ignorance of this community's parlance, formalities.

I'd imagine that many here have seen the construction:

"Adjective + Article + Noun," as in "so fine a person," or "that fine a person."

My question pertains to the possibility of a "Adjective + Plural Noun" construction, as in "They weren't THAT GOOD REVIEWS," or, "They weren't THAT GOOD PEOPLE."
This sounds stilted at best and at worst, wrong. Do these sentences require the addition of an "Article + Singular Noun + Of" between the adjective and plural noun, as in "They weren't that good A GROUP OF people"?

Thank you to all who can shed light on the matter. I'm still a high school student and am acquiring the tools necessary to analyze problems like this one.

grammatical number - "They're using a cell phone" vs. "They're using cell phones"

The usage of singular and plural has always been confusing for me.

I often see sentences like these

1. People are using cell phones.


2. People are using a cell phone.

Does the first sentence mean everyone has a phone and they are all using their own?
Does the second sentence mean they are sharing one cell phone?

If I see a group of people holding a cell phone in their hand(s), <- even this is confusing for me, should I use the first sentence then?

Another example: you see two men, and both of them are carrying a bag. Which sentence should I say/use?

3. They are carrying backpacks


4. They are carrying a backpack

Could you please make it clear for me?

Answer

This aspect of grammar is called the distributive plural. Swan in Practical English Usage (p530) has the following discussion:

Singular and plural: distributive plural

1. people doing the same thing

To talk about several people doing the same thing, English usually
prefers a plural noun for a repeated idea.

• Tell the kids to bring raincoats to school tomorrow.




• (More natural than Tell the kids to bring a raincoat ...)

Plural forms are almost always used in this case if there are

possessives.

• Tell the children to blow their noses. (not ... to blow their nose.)


• Six people lost their lives in the accident.

Quirk et al. in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (p768) list two similar examples:

• Have you all brought your cameras? [Each has a camera.]




• Hand in your papers next Monday. [Each has to hand in one paper.]

and agree with Swan that "... the distributive plural is the norm ...".

But the CGEL goes on to state that:

... the distributive singular may also be used to focus on individual
instances. We therefore often have a number choice.

• Some children have understanding fathers / an understanding father.




• We all have good appetites / a good appetite.

The CGEL concludes its discussion as follows:

The singular is sometimes used to avoid ambiguity:

• Students were asked to name their favorite sport.

The singular makes it clear that only one sport was to be named. Similarly:

• Children must be accompanied by a parent.

Turning to the OP's example, the speaker has a 'number choice'. While, according to Swan and Quirk, the plural is the more usual form (People are using cell phones), the singular (People are using a cell phone) can also be used 'to focus on individual instances'.

As for the recipient of the message, their world-knowledge will most likely lead them to interpret both sentences identically, namely that each person is using his or her own single phone. People don't usually use more than one phone at a time, and people even less usually jointly and simultaneously use a single phone.

The same reasoning applies to the backpack example. Our experience of the world tells us that people almost always carry a single backpack and almost never share the carrying of a single backpack.

It is incumbent, therefore, on the maker of the message to anticipate when our real-world experience may lead us to the wrong interpretation or when the message is inherently ambiguous and a correct interpretation is important. In both such cases, the message needs to be phrased in such a way as to be clear to the recipient how many of the items are involved for each of the people.

For example:

• Two people and one backpack: They are carrying a backpack between
  
  them.




• People, all using more than one phone: People are using each of their
  phones.

grammaticality - A number of questions "has been" or "have been" asked?

Formally, is it correct to write:

A number of questions has been asked here.

or:

A number of questions have been asked here.

As a non-native speaker of English, I would prefer the former: the subject seems to be "number", therefore the verb ought to be singular, I'd say. However, the latter seems more common, and therefore I believe that my gut feeling is just plain wrong — but I would really like to have a definite answer.

Moreover, is it the same for "a myriad of", "a plethora of", and so on?

Answer

"The number" is singular. "A number", however, is plural, and takes a plural verb. Thus, for both informal and formal usage, the following is correct:

A number of questions have been asked here.

See the usage note not quite halfway down the page at Dictionary.com, or this daily writing tip.

grammar - What's the difference between these two phrases?

What's the difference between these two phrases?

• their systems’ security posture


• their systems security posture

Is there any difference in the meaning? If not, when we use either of them?

grammaticality - Asking a question with "have" without do-support: "What symptoms has Anne?"

The context is that a doctor is asking about somebody's child's symptoms of influenza.

Is this question correct: "What symptoms has Anne?" If it's incorrect, then why?

It looks strange to me, I would rather ask "What symptoms does Anne have?" but don't know why.

Answer

As John Lawler says in a comment, this use is possible in British English. But even in Britain, it is rather old-fashioned or literary. The normal British form would be

What symptoms has Anne got?

word choice - Is "youth" gender-neutral when countable?

Matt Errey at the "English Club" website suggests otherwise.

I can easily choose "young people" over "youth," but doing so might suggest I am doing it to increase word count.

grammar - Why is this sentence incorrect? Why is this other sentence correct?

The answer to this GMAT question was not what I expected it to be.

Link to the forum page here.
Up until now, I was certain about two fundamental truths about grammar.

1. It is always possible to connect an independent clause to another independent clause by using an appropriate coordinating conjunction and adding a comma.


2. A list of two items should not have a comma between the two items unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion.

Now that I have seen this question, I am stumped.
I thought the correct answer was A, but it turns out that the official answer was E. I believe A is correct and E is incorrect.
The reasons cited for A being incorrect and E being correct are the same: parallelism. A does not maintain parallelism between "listening" and "he prayed", while E maintains parallelism between "listening" and "praying". Given that this question and the official answer were supplied by an official GMAT test organization, I am inclined to believe this. But I do not find this explanation satisfactory.

It is to my understanding that you can always combine two independent clauses by using an appropriate coordinating conjunction and adding a comma.

She waved goodbye. He waved back.

We are free to combine the sentences like this.

She waved goodbye, and he waved back.

Back to the original question.

The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples recite sermons he wrote years earlier. He prayed for salvation.

Here we have two independent clauses. The first independent clause ("The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples recite sermons he wrote years earlier") uses a sentence structure that I have seen many times before where a present tense verb is used even while the main verb is in past tense to indicate that the two are happening at the same time. (For example, "He walked to the park, whistling all along the way.") For this reason, I do not doubt that it is a grammatically correct independent clause. I know the second sentence is a grammatically correct independent clause for obvious reasons.
Given that the two are independent clauses, and that the conjunction "and" is appropriate, we can combine them using the conjunction and a comma. Right?

The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples recite sermons he wrote years earlier, and he prayed for salvation.

This gives us option A, which is apparently incorrect. But I do not understand why. The explanation cited for why answer A is incorrect is because of parallelism, but to my knowledge, parallelism does not apply here. We are only combining sentences using the most fundamental method of combining sentences: a coordinating conjunction and a comma. Parallelism is (again, to my knowledge) only applicable when you are creating a list. We would only be creating a list if there was not a comma before the "and".

The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples recite sermons he wrote years earlier and he prayed for salvation.

If we remove the comma, we are creating a list and thus have to maintain parallelism.

The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples recite sermons he wrote years earlier and praying for salvation.

This ALMOST gives us answer E, but in answer E there is an extra comma.

The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples recite sermons he wrote years earlier, and praying for salvation.

Not only do I believe this sentence is incorrect because "Praying for salvation" is not an independent clause (and thus cannot be combined to another independent clause by using a conjunction and a comma), I also believe it is incorrect because you should not put a comma between the items in a list that only contains two items.

I believe this sentence is already obviously incorrect, but it will be more clear if we shorten it a little (but still keep the list of two items).

The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples, and praying for salvation.

This appears to be incorrect for the same reason that we would never say

The girls were skipping, and hopping.

or

I went to the store and got milk, and eggs.

So I have multiple questions arising from this dilemma:

1) Does parallelism need to be followed if you are not creating a list and are only combining two independent clauses with a conjunction and a comma?

2) Is my assumption that the creation of a list depends on the presence of commas? (If there is no comma in "The dying old priest lay in his bed, listening to his disciples recite sermons he wrote years earlier and he prayed for salvation," we create a list and thus have to maintain parallelism. If there is a comma, we are not creating a list and can ignore parallelism.)

3) Is my fundamental truth of "It is always possible to connect an independent clause to another independent clause by using an appropriate coordinating conjunction and adding a comma" correct?

4) Is my fundamental truth of "A list of two items should not have a comma between the two items unless absolutely necessary to avoid confusion" correct?

grammatical number - How should we treat a plural term that refers to singular term?

I'd like to better understand why is the following grammatical:

One of the problems is flags.

Here flags refers to the flagging system. However, flags is plural and the flagging system is singular.

I would consider the following alternatives grammatical:

One of the problems is the flagging system.
^{This is the actual meaning.}
One of the problems is the flagging.
^{This would be best option if the problem is in the process of flagging.}
One of the problems is caused by the flags.
^{Best if the problem was with displaying the actual flags, but avoids the [singular] is [plural] pattern.}
One of the problems is “flags”.
^{Quoted to denote unusual usage.}

The original is semantically clear to me, but I am unsure if it is grammatically correct.

---

NOTE:
This is related to the following question and this answer. There is already a short answer there, but I wanted more details and references to grammatical rules that govern this case (so I can further explore on my own) and thought it would be noise over there.

Answer

One of the problems is flags.

This is grammatical because the subject of the verb is is the singular pronoun one. Trim away the prepositional phrase and the predicate, and you get:

One... is...

... which is obviously correct.

One is very frequently used with a prepositional complement containing a plural noun, such as of the problems. This does not change the grammatical number of the subject.

One of the boys is sick.

One of the trees is falling over.

One of the candidates will win.

The only further wrinkle in this sentence is the fact that the predicate nominative flags is also plural. This, too, does not change the number of the subject, and it fact joining a singular subject with a plural predicate nominative is very common in English.

Open-source is many different developers working together freely.

A woman is not just her breasts.

So there really isn't anything ungrammatical about the original form of the sentence. Some people may find it infelicitous, and it could probably be reworded for clarity or style, but it isn't violating any of the rules of English grammar.

Is there any idiom or proverb discouraging knowledge?

I have only found "Ignorance is bliss", is there any other?

Answer

Not knowledge per se,
but the classic warning against the pursuit of knowledge
is curiosity killed the cat:

Wikipedia:

“Curiosity killed the cat” is a proverb used
to warn of the dangers of unnecessary investigation or experimentation. …

The Phrase Finder:

Inquisitiveness can lead one into dangerous situations.

The Free Dictionary:

Prov. Being curious can get you into trouble. 
(Often used to warn someone against prying into other’s affairs.)


• Jill: Where did you get all that money?
  Jane: Curiosity killed the cat.

the Cambridge English Dictionary:

said to warn someone not to ask too many questions about something

I could tell you, but then I would have to kill you.

Quora:

I could tell you, but then I’d have to kill you
has become a way to let someone know they’re asking you something
you don’t want to answer
(and a rather colorful way of telling them to mind their own business!).



This line comes from "The Hounds of Baskervilles" featuring Sherlock Holmes. 
Here is the exchange:









Sherlock: I never did ask, Dr. Franklyn. 
What is it exactly that you do here?
Doctor: Oh, Mr. Holmes, I would love to tell you,
but then, of course, I’d have to kill you.
Sherlock: That would be tremendously ambitious of you.








    ︙





The line has since appeared in many movies,
including Top Gun with Tom Cruise. 

Here’s a handy YouTube video
compiling many snippets with this line and variations on it.

The Free Dictionary:

a phrase said in answer to a question that one does not want to answer. 
Don’t ask.

TV Tropes:

Often heard in settings related to espionage and high security levels,
the phrase “I’d tell you, but then I’d have to kill you” is itself

probably a Dead Horse Trope by this point –
whether for a serious straight use or not.

As the quotes above indicate, this has become something of a joke.

While not exactly an idiom or proverb,
the phrase knew too much is evocative of the films
The Man Who Knew Too Much,
in which a man is murdered for learning of a criminal conspiracy. 

References: [IMDb 1934], [IMDb 1956], 
[Wikipedia 1934], [Wikipedia 1956].

There’s a well-known proverb, “A little learning is a dangerous thing,”
often misquoted as “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” 
For years I (mis)understood this to mean that knowledge is dangerous —
so dangerous, so potent, that it is dangerous even in small quantities. 
But when one sees the complete sentence, which appears in Part 2
of An Essay on Criticism by Alexander Pope:

A little learning is a dang’rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

it becomes clear that the message is that partial or incomplete knowledge is dangerous, while thorough or complete knowledge is a good thing.

The Phrase Finder:

A small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are.

Dictionary.com:

Knowing a little about something tempts one to overestimate one’s abilities.

and from this we get the phrase (again, not exactly an idiom or proverb) knowing just enough to be dangerous.

etymology - What do you call a past participle+noun construction clause such as “No offense meant” “Your point taken,” “With that said,” and “Given that”?

In reference to my question about the usage of “No offense meant/taken,” I noticed that there are a lot of shortened forms like “No offense meant/taken,” “Your point taken,” “That said,” and “Given that” used in place of statements like “I don’t mean to offend you / I don’t take it for your offense,” “I’d take your point (correctly),” “As I said that,” “Under the given situation (condition, statement, fact, story, and so on).” .”

When did these shortened forms come into currency or vogue? Did they surge because the tide of modern time requires speed and shortened form of expression?

Is there specific grammatical terminology to describe such a “noun+past participle (or passive verb form)," or vice versa contracted construction clause?

Answer

These are of a number of types, but what they all have in common is that predictable chunks of a sentence have been left out because they are predictable (to native speakers).

In order, with something like the deleted material in boldface:

1. No offense meant/taken. = No offense was meant (or taken) by what I (or you) just said.




2. Point taken. = I have heard and understood the point of what you just said.



3. That said, = Now that that has been said, let me continue in a different vein.


4. Given that, = Given that topic we just mentioned,

There is no general term for rules that do this, like To be-Deletion, Whiz Deletion, Conjunction Reduction, Conversational Deletion, etc. They are deletion rules, obviously, but far from the only ones.

grammar - Would you use a period after text: Thank you for helping to build the new building

My boss told me that I shouldn't have a period after the text:

Thank you for helping to build the new building.

She said that it is not a complete sentence.

grammatical number - Organisation - singular or plural?

In formal (not colloquial) English, is an organisation such as a sports club singular, plural, or is it discretionary? E.g. is it preferable to write "The X club WAS formed" or "The X club WERE formed", or doesn't it matter?

Do intensive pronouns ever convey new information?

So for instance, the sentence 'I myself am called James' is not different to 'I am called James', information wise.

As a comparative measure, take the sentences, which make use of reflexive pronouns 'I cooked eggs for myself' vs 'I cooked eggs for her'. Here, different information is conveyed, because whilst the object is the same, the subject is different.

But the sentence 'I herself am called James', 'I her am called James', or 'her myself am called Alice', does not make sense, because the object can't be two different things at once.

Note: I've just thought that 'he himself cooked eggs' could imply that only he (whoever he is) cooked eggs, and only him alone. However, I don't think it necessarily means so, where 'he alone cooked eggs', would. Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated.

grammar - A handgun vs. Handguns

In high school debates, we have resolutions or topics. This month our topic is:

In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

Many debaters will specify a certain type of handgun and only defend that. For example, the private ownership of Glocks ought to be banned. Others will specify a certain type of handgun; a certain group that should not be able to own handguns; or a certain area within the US that should ban handguns.

Would this be grammatically coherent? On previous topics, people have argued that a phrase being a generic bare plural would prohibit specification. Is that the case here or is there some other rule that is being broken?

Here is an example to try to clear up confusion. The affirmative debater will argue that the private ownership of Glocks ought to be banned, and they will also argue that proving this is sufficient to entail the resolution. Some negative debaters will argue that the word "handguns" has no modifier in front of it i.e. some or certain, and thus the affirmative debater has not proven the resolution. Grammatically speaking who is correct?

tenses - "Your message was deleted" vs. "your message has been deleted"

I don't know which form is better to use, when telling a user that his message was/has been deleted (in the sense that the message was not appropriate/against the rules e.g. in the comment section etc.).

Answer

I would use the sentence

Your message has been deleted.

if I am telling the users right after their message has been deleted. (Like a little notification superimposes on the screen for a few seconds before fading away, something similiar to what happen when you try to upvote your own question.)

But I would use

Your message was deleted

like this page as they search for their long-gone message.

pronunciation - Are there any words in English pronounced with /e/ at the end?

In first-language English pronunciation (Australian, British, American, etc., not Indian, Malaysian, etc.) are there any words with the /e/ (or /ɛ/) sound in "bed" /bed/ at the end of a word? As a counter-example "me" is pronounced /miː/. I don't know of any words ending in "e" where it is pronounced /e/; it is usually either /iː/ or silent. If you do know of any words please specify if they're limited to a certain dialect, region or accent.

Answer

No, there cannot be. Phonemic /e/ at the end of a word in English can only occur as a phonetic falling diphthong [ej], as in say or they. That’s why those have a ‹y› in our spelling today, and why sleigh has an ‹i› in it.

And unstressed /ɛ/ will soon enough go the way of all things, despite what bokeh enthusiasts would have you believe. (Same with the meh-sayers.) Because English phonotactics forbid an open /ɛ/ at the end of the word, those will therefore soon enough become either a phonemic schwa /ə/ — or else become a close vowel like /e/ or /i/ phonemically and so one with the characteristic falling phonetic diphthong [ej] or [ij] required by English phonotactics.

I therefore little doubt that the word currently spelled bokeh will end up /ˈbokə/ just like the boca heard in the city of Boca Raton, Florida, to rhyme with mocha.

The other two possibilities are for bokeh to wind up rhyming either with hokey or else with hockey. This would be like how Spanish chile which ends with /e/ becomes in English chili which ends in /i/.

Only if the second syllable became stressed could bokeh become /boˈke/ or more likely /bəˈke/, which is the sort of thing you get when in English you pronounce the Spanish word olé under English phonotactic rules.

Whatever happens to words like bokeh as they assimilate to English, they will need to be respelled to use a spelling similar to whatever words they end up rhyming with in order for them to be predictably pronounced by monoglot English readers.

Probably spelling what is now commonly rendered bokeh in English as boka would have been better from the get-go.

grammatical number - Noun following a list of like items - plural or singular?

If you have a list of descriptors (probably names or colours, but could be other things) which refer to items of the same type, followed by a noun which applies to all of the items in the list, should that noun be plural or singular?

For example:

"If you choose the red, yellow or blue door/doors, then you win a prize."

"If you operate the 'On' or 'Activate' switch/switches, the machine will operate normally."

If neither is wrong, but it depends on the context, what does the plural/singular imply about the items in the list? For example if there is only 1 each of the red, yellow and blue doors (vs if there are 2+ of each colour) does that affect which noun should be used?

My inclination was that the noun should be pluralised as it refers to multiple items (there are multiple doors, multiple switches) however I can see the argument that if there is only one blue door, one yellow door, etc. then 'door' should remain singular.

Thanks!

british english - Is it "Myself and _____", "_____ and myself", or "____ and I"?

For example, "Lucy and I are going to a movie" vs. "Myself and Lucy are going to a movie" vs. "Lucy and myself are going to a movie"

Answer

"Lucy and I" are the subject of this sentence. Thus, it would be "Lucy and I are going to a movie". You wouldn't use "myself" because this is a reflexive pronoun.

grammar - Should I use " related" or "-related"

What is the correct use of the term "related?" For example, should I use it like computer related, or is it more proper to use computer-related (where the word "computer" is just part of my example?)

Are the cases where it is used in one form and case in another form, or should it always be used in only one way?

Answer

“Computer related” is a compound adjective and whether or not you should use a hyphen depends on where it is located in the sentence. If it appears before the word it modifies, include a hyphen. If after, omit the hyphen. This is mostly a clarification of Ex-user's answer. To use his/her examples, the following are both correct:

1. This book is computer related. (the noun being modified appears before the compound adjective)


2. This is a computer-related book. (the noun being modified appears after the compound adjective)

Use of hyphenated compound adjectives often prevents ambiguity of meaning (here's a good example), but when there can only be one meaning, hyphens may be omitted. I usually hyphenate anyway to be safe, and because it's one less thing to consider when writing. Additional usage information.

comparatives - “…nicer than any other…” vs “…as nice as any other…”

On a practice test, this sentence was given with the instructions to select the correct version:

The English teacher, Mrs. Jensen, is nicer than any teacher in the whole school.

This is obviously a bit nonsensical, because “any teacher” would include Mrs. Jensen, and she can’t be nicer than herself. Two of the four answers were wrong for obvious reasons, but answers A and B were as follows:

A) The English teacher, Mrs. Jensen, is nicer than any other teacher in the whole school.

B) The English teacher, Mrs. Jensen, is as nice as any other teacher in the whole school.

The test claimed that B was the correct answer. (No explanation was given.) Can you please tell me why answer A is incorrect? To me, they seem like two different, but correct, statements.

Thanks!

grammar - When to use "me" or "myself"?

Which one is correct:

Someone like me...

or

Someone like myself...

Is "like myself" ever correct?

Answer

"Someone like me" is the correct one.

There's a lot to say about the usage I guess, but to make a long story short:

Me is a so-called objective pronoun, opposed to subjective pronouns (I, you, she, he). It's called like this because it's placed in the object field after verbs or prepositions:

Wait for me!
She likes me.

Myself instead, is used with reflexive verbs, meaning those verbs that indicate an action that "falls" on the subject:

I wash myself.
I told myself it couldn't be true.

There are exceptions, you can find them here, but I'll paste the interesting part:

Usage note: There is no disagreement over the use of myself and other -self forms when they are used intensively "I myself cannot agree" or reflexively "He introduced himself proudly". Questions are raised, however, when the -self forms are used instead of the personal pronouns ( I, me, etc.) as subjects, objects, or complements.
Myself occurs only rarely as a single subject in place of I: Myself was the one who called. The recorded instances of such use are mainly poetic or literary. It is also uncommon as a simple object in place of me: Since the letter was addressed to myself, I opened it. As part of a compound subject, object, or complement, myself and to a lesser extent the other -self forms are common in informal speech and personal writing, somewhat less common in more formal speech and writing: The manager and myself completed the arrangements.

There is ample precedent, going as far back as Chaucer and running through the whole range of British and American literature and other serious formal writing, for all these uses. Many usage guides, however, state that to use myself in any construction in which I or me could be used instead (as My daughter and myself play the flute instead of My daughter and I) is characteristic only of informal speech and that such use ought not to occur in writing.

differences - gone vs. due (words refering to pregnancy)

You hear sentences like "How far gone is she?" Or "When is she due?" Used to talk about pregnancy...

A few days ago one of my collegues used the sentence "How long is she due?" and insisted that it's grammatically correct and means just the same as "How far gone is she?"

But it really doesn't make sense to me. I'd like to know what native speakers of English think about its grammaticality!

And my main question is, what's the difference between "How far gone is she?" And "When is she due?" ?!

Is it that the former asks about the amount of time passed and she's been pregnant and the latter to the remaining amount of time before giving birth to a baby?

Thank you in advance

Answer

Is it that the former (gone) asks about the amount of time passed and she's been pregnant and the latter (due) to the remaining amount of time before giving birth to a baby?

Yes, that's correct. When a pregnant woman presents to a caregiver, she's given an official due date (EDC or estimated date of confinement), so any question about her due date is usually when or what: when is she due/what's her due date? Sometimes how long until her due date. It addresses when or how much time is left in her pregnancy.

How far along is she addresses the amount of time she's been pregnant. How far is she (into her pregnancy)/how far gone (that sounds like an incurable illness to me) is she/how long has it been are all used.

I've never heard long and due used together except as above. It seems to me (AmE) to be a contradiction, and I wouldn't quite know how to answer that.

"How long is she due?" seems to require the answer, "Nine months" to me.

etymology - Why are the first syllables of “nature” and “natural” pronounced differently?

The two words nature and natural have the same root, so why are they pronounced differently?

possessives - Bayes' Theorem or Bayes's Theorem? (Similarly, Charles' Law or Charles's Law?)

Which one is correct?
I thought the latter would be correct but apparently the former is always used; why?

Edit:

Another (confusing) example: Charles'(s?) law

pronouns - Who vs whom in "Who is the right person to turn to?

Take the sentence:

Who is the right person to turn to?

I'm not sure whether who or whom should be used in this position.

Is there any particular rule for specific colours in adjective order?

I read here that there is a general rule to write an adjective order. But I didn't find any explanation if the rule has a specific order for colours, especially for primary colours.

This may sound stupid but I'm just wondering. I mean is it preferable to say:

red and white flowers

Or:

white and red flowers

Or is there really no grammatical rule to obey?

Answer

I mean is it preferable to say:

red and white flowers Or:

white and red flowers

Or is there really no grammatical rule to obey?

No, there is no rule, you can use any order you like:

"There were white, red, purple and pale-blue flowers on the table" is correct with any permutations of the colours

grammaticality - The use of nominative "whom" (as in “persons whom it is foreseeable are likely to...”)

From page 48 of Law: A Very Short Introduction, by Raymond Wacks:

In other words, you owe a duty to persons whom it is foreseeable are likely to be harmed by your conduct.

To try to parse this, temporarily overlook 'it is foreseeable'. Then persons is the subject of the verb phrase are likely to be harmed. So according to this question,
should the relative pronoun for persons be who instead? Is my parse wrong?

Are the (deleted) comments right: that this style predominates in law texts?
If this is correct grammar, what is the general rule? Is it commonly used in other contexts?

hyphenation - Making acronyms/initialisms from hyphenated words

Should we use only the first part of a hyphenated compound word to coin an initialism/acronym?

E.g. would "on-site detector circuit" become OSDC or ODC?

Or does it depend on the particular hyphenated word?

grammar - "Hope you won't" vs "Hope you don't"

What is the difference between "Hope you don't mind" and "Hope you won't mind"? What could be a contextual difference between the two? In a situation like the following, which one seems more appropriate?

• Expect me to knock on your door sometimes. Hope you don't mind -or- Hope you won't mind (my knocking on your door)

Can I use two possessive nouns in a sentence?

I'm writing a very brief description for a job duty. Is it grammatically correct to use two possessive nouns in a sentence (e.g., Administration's and company's)?

Full sentence is...
They support, strategize, and promote  the Administration's and company's programs, initiatives, and campaigns.

punctuation - What's the rule for punctuating quoted words or phrases?

Please bear with me as I am not an English expert, only an aspiring amateur!

I'm mostly aware of the rules regarding punctuation and quotes. Something like the following sentence makes sense to me:

She was so rude that I felt compelled to say, "I hope you act that way toward everyone."

However, where I get confused is when quotation marks are used simply to emphasize a single word or phrase:

Nobody really knew what he meant by "feature".

(I'm not really sure what to call this use of quotation marks. Is this still a quotation?) Should punctuation go inside the quotation marks?

I should clarify that I am interested in the common or accepted American usage.

Answer

Elendil's answer is correct for British usage. In American usage, though, " is usually used for both purposes (speech, as in your first example, and use-mention distinction, in the second); and periods (full stops) generally go inside the quotes, so your second example would be, ...meant by "feature."

Can “adulting” be considered a verb, or is it only ever a noun?

I know the word has exploded in popularity in recent times, but I'm not sure how to use it right.

This TIME article considers the word a verb, so does this M-W blog. However, the ODO entry only mentions it as a mass noun or a modifier, conspicuously leaving out any mention of verbs:

informal

[mass noun] The practice of behaving in a way characteristic of a responsible adult, especially the accomplishment of mundane but necessary tasks:

‘it feels really good to take a step back from adulting and have someone else cook dinner for me’

[as modifier] ‘I finished all my adulting requirements for the week’

I recognize that one dictionary entry doesn't prove/disprove anything. Still, if I think about it, I have to agree with ODO; because to me, sentences like:

• I hate adulting.

sound idiomatic, but when I try to frame sentences that use it blatantly as a verb, like:

• I adulted yesterday and I hated it.


• I need to adult tomorrow and I'm not looking forward to it.

I'm not sure if they're idiomatic. My questions are:

1. Can adulting be considered a verb, or is it just a noun?


2. Do these sentences sound right, usage-wise?


3. Are they grammatically correct?

Thoughts?

usage - Is it ok to use the irregular past tense of a verb as it were a regular one?

Let's say I say / write catched instead of caught or buyed instead of bought, etc.

I know this is grammatically incorrect, but is it incorrect or perfectly fine to use it in every-day life ? English is not my first language so I am a little bit curious about this. Some people say it is correct and understandable, while others say it is incorrect and ridiculous.

Answer

You answered your own question when you said it was grammatically incorrect. It is usually understandable but is considered wrong.

That said, there are some verbs which have multiple forms. An interesting one is sneak which has both sneaked and snuck as past participles. Many people consider "snuck" to be incorrect. Indeed my spell check doesn't even recognize it. Yet for many others it is correct, if perhaps informal.

There used to be many more irregular verbs in English and over time a good number of them have become regularized. However, the most commonly used verbs are the most resistant to regularization because everyone already knows the irregular forms and they use them often.

As a non-native speaker you will probably be forgiven if you slip up and use a regularized form of an irregular verb. But, like my three-year-old son who also uses regular forms of plurals and past participles where fluent speakers would use an irregular form, you will be expected to correct them, especially if writing/speaking formally.

hyphenation - "easy to use" versus "easy-to-use"

My belief is that the following two phrases are correct:

A: "The app is easy to use."
B: "It is an easy-to-use app."

And that the following is not technically correct:

C: "It is an easy to use app."

If anyone can point out that C is correct versus B, would you mind pointing to an English language "rule" that shows why? My general rule-of-thumb is that if a section of the compound adjective cannot exist on its' own merit, hyphenate.

Thank you.

Answer

Prepositive modifiers don't like to have postpositive dependents.  The more common pattern employs prepositive dependents: 

It is a very easy app. 

The "very" is a prepositive modifier of "easy", and the phrase "very easy" is prepositive to the "app" that it modifies. 

Another common pattern has postpositive dependents for a postpositive modifier: 

The app is easy to use. 

 

When a prepositive modifier has a postpositive dependent, there is a conflict.  The prepositive modifier is expected to modify the next word, but there's a postpositive dependent competing for that same word position. 

The way to solve the word placement competition is to treat the phrase "easy to use" as a single word.  The hyphens join the more tightly bound phrase.  Inside the hyphenated phrase, the expectation of the postpostive dependent position of "to use" is fulfilled.  As a result, the "I'm modifying the very next word" expectation of the prepositive "easy-to-use" is easy to fulfill. 

This is an easy-to-use app. 

Postpositive modification inside the hyphenation, prepositive modification outside.  The shift between right-to-left parsing and left-to-right parsing is clearly marked.

---

Edit:

There is another word ordering that might be worth comparative consideration: 

This is an easy app to use. 

In this example, "to use" is definitely a postpositive dependent, but the word from which it depends is ambiguous.  In this position, "to use" could modify either "app" or "easy". 

This ambiguity does not result in any word-ordering conflicts.   Regardless of whether "to use" depends from "easy" or from "app", it is in its expected postpositive position.  The boundary between left-to-right and right-to-left parsing does not need to be marked. 

grammar - Why are words such as "that" and "those" not considered articles?

According to Wikipedia (disclaimer: of course I realize that Wikipedia should not be regarded as an absolute authority, but I generally consider it to be a fairly accurate and reliable resource):

Articles specify the grammatical definiteness of the noun . . .

I guess I can understand how the words the, an, and a fit this description. But what about words such as this, that, those, etc.? It seems these serve essentially the same function (specifying definiteness), but unless I'm mistaken, they are categorized as demonstrative adjectives.

I find this particularly puzzling in light of the following two excerpts from Wikipedia:

Every noun must be accompanied by the article, if any, corresponding to its definiteness, and the lack of an article (considered a zero article) itself specifies a certain definiteness.

[. . .]

In languages having a definite article, the lack of an article specifically indicates that the noun is indefinite.

It seems to me that, in light of the above two statements, an expression such as "those boots" should somehow be considered indefinite (since there is no article), but isn't this absurd?

hyphenation - Correct use of endash in range of minutes

I am currently working as a web developer, and will occasionally be asked to update a website. A "client" just send me an update containing this text:

A 15-30-minute waiting-period is required after each injection is given.

Notice the use of 2 hyphens, which I am sure is not the correct style to use. I have been taught to use en dashes to separate ranges of values, such as 15–30, and also to add word spaces if I feel the en dash runs into the words on either side. However, I also vaguely think I was taught to put a hyphen between a phrase like this: "… going on a 30-minute walk."

If I follow both of these "rules", I will end up with a sentence that looks like this:

A 15–30-minute waiting-period is required after each injection is given.

As you can see, this only differs from the original because of the en dash between 15 and 30. However, I still think that looks weird. I think that it ideally would look like this:

A 15–30 minute waiting period is required after each injection is given.

Note: I also removed the hyphen between waiting and period, as I don't think that should be there either.

Questions

Question 1:
What is the proper way of rendering the first part of the sentence? Is it an en dash between the numbers and then no hyphen between the last number and the word minute?

Question 2:
Should the words waiting and period have a hyphen between them?

The reason that this question doesn't answer my question specifically is that while I know the differences between hyphens and dashes, the way the sentence is composed lends itself to confusion. Having an en dash in the word before a hyphen seems rather strange.

Thanks!

Answer

You are right on both counts and I like your version of the sentence the best. There is no need for "30-minute" but it is acceptable and "15- to 30-minutes" is a fine suggestion by @FumbleFingers. I used thepunctuationguide.com as my reference.

grammar - How do I use "will" with tense changes in this sentence?

"The board will not oust him; therefore, he remains CEO."

I'm confused. Should it be: "The board will not oust him; therefore, he will remain CEO."

Can someone explain the grammar rules here?

Answer

Just think of 'remains' as 'is still'. Does that make more sense to you?

grammar - "grew warmer" vs. "became warmer"

Can "grew warmer" be used as a replacement for "became warmer" anywhere? I've started to think of the phrase "grew warmer" and it seems kind of strange. Things can become warm, but it sounds strange to say that some things grow warm. Like for an inanimate object that doesn't grow, how is it ok to say that it grows warm? Can someone explain this?

Answer

Both grew and became are perfectly acceptable.

Grew, as the past tense of grow, may be defined as:

To expand; gain; to increase by amount or degree.

While became, as the past tense of become, may be defined as:

To grow or come to be.

Grew may simply be considered the more figurative of the two.

grammaticality - Past perfect sentence construction

This is an example sentence demonstrating the usage of past perfect:

I checked with the supplier and they still hadn't received the contract.

In this case the timeline rule works out as it should. Now, if I modify the sentence a little bit.

I had just checked with the supplier and they still haven't received the contract.

Is the second sentence grammatically correct? If so, which one of these would one say as verbally pleasant?

Answer

Your first sentence is indeed grammatical, but the second sentence is not.

If you had just checked, that act of checking occurred prior to another past event, and no such other past event is identified in this second sentence. (Of course, the other past event could be identified earlier in the same text.) But the use of Present Perfect in the second clause (haven't received) is ungrammatical here, because the Present Perfect needs to connect to the present, whereas your second sentence, with its Past Perfect first clause and the implied reference to a later--but still past--time, keeps everything connected in the past, not to the present.

The grammatically correct version of your second sentence would be I have just checked with the supplier and they still haven't received the contract.

Your first sentence is focused on the relationship between the 2 events in the past, and my revised version of the second is focused on the connection between the past event in the first clause and the present result/relevance in the second clause.

Plural forms for large numbers

What is the correct way to say:

There are in total 485 devices spread over 46 accounts.

or

There is a total of 485 devices spread over 46 accounts.

grammatical number - "... any change, or addition, is ..." vs. "... any change, or addition, are ..."

In the sentence below is has been used, but there is some disagreement in the office over whether it should be are:

This is necessary to ensure that any change, or addition, to existing
features is communicated to all relevant parties and that approvals
are documented.

If the subject is change and it is singular, wouldn't is be correct? Even though features, parties and approvals are plural, they don't matter for the verb agreement as none of them is the subject. And using or with addition doesn't make the subject two things, it is still one. Am I missing something?

Answer

You are correct. The relevant portion is "change ... is", so you use the singular form. You could also say "any changes or additions to existing features are communicated" to use the plural.

word usage - Any more+comparitive+than

I heard a person saying, “That place is not any more riskier than this place”. (And it wasn’t about time- like how it has changed from earlier to now) I thought it’s grammatically incorrect to say so.

Anymore can refer to any longer as in “I was doing it but I am not doing it anymore”, or it can be any more with a space like “some more” as in “I have already eaten so much. I do not need any more of it”

But in the context I mentioned earlier it is not about time.

And riskier is already a comparitive and adding more before that makes it incorrect.

This is what I feel but I am looking for an expert answer to know if I am right and if yes, I am looking for a solid explanation as to why it is incorrect.

Why is "any" not classified as an article?

Answering the question, Use of articles with adjectives, got me thinking. Why is the word "any" not classified as an article? We learn in grade school that the three English articles are "a", "an", and "the". Later on we learn that articles are part of a larger class called determiners.

Numerous dictionaries, including this one, declare any to be a pronoun and determiner. But look at this sequence:

a --> an --> any

(Should I drop the mic now? Nah, I'll continue in case any of you feel stubborn. 😉)

Whether you agree or not, think about the following:

1. The word a is one of the indefinite articles for singular nouns, used before a word beginning with a consonant sound. A cat is sleeping.


2. The word an is one of the indefinite articles for singular nouns, used before a word beginning with a vowel sound. An owl just hooted.


3. The word any is the indefinite article for plural nouns, regardless of what the next word is. Are there any red shirts? It may sometimes substitute for a and an to force the specific context of "one among many". [e.g., "plural-like"] Any book will do.


4. The word the is the definite article for nouns, both singular and plural, regardless of what the next word is. It supports multiple contexts, but always offers definiteness:
   
   
   
   
   
   • The Mona Lisa smiled at me. [uniqueness]
   
   
   • The black kitten smiled at me! [one among many (definite form)]
   
   
   • The three kittens with white paws were so cute! [some among many]
   
   
   • We found homes for all the kittens. [all]
   
   


5. Neither a nor an can be used with a plural noun. If any is not an indefinite article, a plural form does not exist.

I discern two differences with the accepted indefinite articles. The first is that any can also be a pronoun. Any of them will do. So what? The word a can also be a noun, the first letter of the Latin alphabet. Do we really need the second a of aardvark?

The second difference is that any can force the specific context mentioned in item #3. The (other) articles force a context as well, indefiniteness or definiteness. This is illustrated in the following conversation between two kids:

An ant bit me!
Which one?
I don't know, but it wasn't the one on your arm.
Damn! Any ants are too many. I don't want any ant to bite me.
I know, right? Let's go see if we can find a bandage.

In other words, a, an, any, and the all force contexts. That's sort of their point. So why is any the one left out?