grammar - Can a prepositional phrase starting with "during" work as an adjectival phrase?

A prepositional phrase comprising a preposition and a noun phrase can generally function either as an adjectival phrase or as an adverbial phrase.

The book on the table is mine.
(The prepositional phrase on the table is an adjectival phrase modifying the noun phrase the book.)

Put the book on the table.
(The prepositional phrase on the book is an adverbial phrase modifying the verb put.)

I used to think that this dual property of the prepositional phrase is applicable to all prepositions without exception. But then, here comes this example.

Do you have any plans during the vacation?

Which sounds awkward at best.

I thought about the reason why this sounded awkward.
The reason I came up with is that the prepositional phrase during the vacation cannot modify any plans. It can only modify the verb have, thereby rendering the sentence awkward.

Can "during" ever lead a prepositional phrase that acts as an adjectival phrase?

Omitting articles in front of countable nouns

First off, I'd like to say "hello", as it's my first post here. Nonetheless, you guys have been helping me for quite some time, since I've been an avid reader. It's high time I asked a question that I haven't seen being answered before.

Articles, as we have to admit, might get a little tricky. Especially considering differences between AE and BE. I manage to handle them pretty well, that is until I come across some exceptionts I can not fully comprehend. Case in pont: I'm reading "Yiddish Policemen's Union" by Michael Chabon. The author sometimes uses structures like:

"(...) a faithful person could find encouragement, and a faithless one ample reason to despond"

Or

"(...) his bowed legs and simian arms affixed to his neck without apparent benefit of shoulders."

As far as I'm concerned both "benefit" and "reason" are countable and singular, so why would Chabon omit articles, that, to my eye, should be put before them? Or perhaps I'm the one messing something up?

word order - Does ordering make a difference?

I would like to know whether there is a grammatical or semantical difference between "notion of " and "-notion". I do not know what to search for to answer this question so maybe someone can help me here :-)

For instance "development of a notion of IT-Infrastructure" vs. "development of an IT-Infrastructure-notion". The first one is very long and doggerel, but the second one is maybe wrong/not good style.

In other words: I need a section title where I develop (extract literature, derive facts, ...) a notion or understanding of the term IT Infrastructure. What would be a correct one?

Answer

As an aside on meanings, I'd avoid notion here, because it means a vague sense, or an awareness of something exists or is a possibility, without a deep understanding of it. To have a notion of IT infrastructure, would mean that you have some vague idea that IT systems sometimes need some sort of infrastructure, but no more than that. Maybe that's exactly what you want, or maybe notion is favoured in your field for some other reason, but generally I'd go for the stronger understanding.

To the question of grammar, while the two work slightly different, they end up meaning the same thing. Using understanding as a suggestion instead of notion, then:

understanding of IT infrastructure

And

IT infrastructure understanding

And

IT-infrastructure understanding

Are all acceptable. While one uses a preposition and the other turns "IT infrastructure" to an adjectival use, both are clear in meaning the same thing.

The only difference in the last two is of course the hyphen. This is allowed, but not required. I'd choose on them by trying to judge how likely someone whose eye was caught by "infrastructure understanding" to not realise that the earlier "IT" belonged with the phrase, and hyphenate if I thought it likely. Here, I would judge it unlikely and not hyphenate, but there's no strict rule on this decision (there is in some style guides).

Having decided the non-hyphenated form is the better of the last two (or perhaps disagreeing with me, and favouring the hyphenated), in deciding between that and the form using of, I personally would consider the of form slightly clearer and stronger, and hence use it if the phrase came up once or twice in a piece. On the other hand, the slightly greater concision cohesion as a unit means I would favour it if I was going to end up using it a great many times.

I'd also decide based on things like avoiding repetition of of close together, though I'd probably avoid it here by opting for "Developing an understanding of IT infrastructure" which loses the first of instead. (Not that repeated of must be avoided, it can just scan better if you can do so without twisting into something barbarous).

In all though, while there is strictly a grammatical difference between the two, that difference is in the means, not in the end. They're both acceptable, and both convey the same meaning.

grammaticality - "There is an apple and an orange" or "there are an apple and an orange"?

• There is an apple and an orange on the table.


• There are an apple and an orange on the table.

Which is grammatical?

grammatical number - "BookList" or "booksList?"

Possible Duplicates:
“User accounts” or “users account?”
Is it correct to say “lesson count” or “lessons count”?

I'm wondering whether or not I should use a plural form noun with a collection name. For example, which one is correct, bookList or booksList (obviously they are variables in a programming language)?

punctuation - Commas with nested subordinate clauses both of which are restrictive (essential to the meaning)

I have been grappling with the question below for a while now, so hope that you can shed some light on it.

Do we need the first comma (the one in brackets below) in the restrictive nested subordinate clause (adverbial, noun and relative clauses -- all 3) that is embedded right into another restrictive subordinate clause after a subordinating conjunction and if yes, could you please explain why?

See example sentences below (please ignore the actual sentences; I just want to understand the logic of the punctuation for the 3 types of nested subordinate clauses - so for the sake of argument, recasting or modifying these sentences is not an option):

1) This is the country where[,] if you work hard, you get rewarded. (relative clause)

2) We need to talk because[,] if we don't, we will be in trouble. (adverbial clause)

3) London is where[,] when I was young, I used to live. (noun clause)

4) Give me a call if[,] when you are at the station, it rains. (adverbial clause)

5) It is useful when[,] if it rains, you have an umbrella. (awkward adverbial clause)

6) She is the person who[,] if she is faced with difficulties, can handle them very well. (relative clause)

7) He said that[,] if all goes well, he will call. (noun clause)

The thinking here is that the first (bracketed) comma should be dropped as the embedded subordinate clause is restrictive / essential to the meaning of the main subordinate clause (e.g. in the first sentence, for instance, you only get rewarded if you work hard) and in this case treated as an introductory clause to the main subordinate clause with one following but not preceding comma (just as if the main subordinate clause was in the beginning of the sentence before the independent main clause).

If the comma is retained, however, the embedded subordinate clause is read as parenthetical / non-restrictive clause, which, for the sake of these sentences, is not intended (the clauses are intended to be restrictive on purpose).

The partial confusion lies in the fact that some style guides like Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition in 6.32 says in the cases like this:

6.32 “And if,” “that if,” and the like
When two conjunctions appear next to each other (e.g., and if, but if), they need not be separated by a comma.

They decided that if it rained, they would reschedule the game.

At the same time, many of subordinating conjunctions in the embedded subordinate clause are also relative adverbs or pronouns and fulfil either an object or subject roles in the main subordinate clause, which then makes the embedded subordinate clause interrupt object / complement - subject (sentence 1 and 3) and subject - predicate (sentence 6) relationship in the main subordinate clause, requiring commas on both ends (just as if the main subordinate clause was inserted between a subject and verb, or verb and object of the independent main clause) - in which case it conflicts with introductory clause logic and CMOS guideline above (actually, do subordinating conjunctions in sentences 2, 3 and 5 have adverbial functions, in which case the embedded subordinate clause acts as interrupter as well, in which case commas, again, are required on both ends?).

Hope this makes sense - any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

I am not really after how to punctuate these exact sentences - more just to understand the logic of punctuation (and especially, if it conflicts like sentence 7 that is similar to CMOS example vs other sentences)

Also, would be good to understand if different embedded subordinate clauses are treated differently depending on their relationship to the main subordinate clause.

Thanks,
Paul

Answer

Any expectation of a comma in the examples of the OP has very little to do with the subordinate clauses' restrictiveness, but rather, as the OP suggested, with an interruption of their natural flow. When leading a sentence with a subordinate clause, the comma does not force a "parenthetical / non-restrictive" interpretation. Simply, compare the meaning of two sentences:

• If you work hard, you get rewarded.


• You get rewarded if you work hard.

None of the embedded phrases in the examples were relative clauses, so the concern of imposing a non-restrictive interpretation is irrelevant. In every case, the embedding did put the interrupting phrases in a parenthetical position--even if they are considered "essential" to the meaning of the sentences.

The reference to section 6.32 of The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition established a legitimate exception to a general rule of commas. If omitting an appropriate comma creates no ambiguity, omitting it becomes a matter of style opinion rather than grammar. Moreover, if we believe an appropriate comma introduces ambiguity, our best solution is to recast the sentence to remove ambiguity.

---

Considering the options for each example:

1) This is the country where[,] if you work hard, you get rewarded.
(relative clause)

The relative clause is where you get rewarded, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if you work hard, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conflict between the locative where and the conditional if might be manageable enough, but many would be more comfortable with the extra comma. If the sentence had been written: This is the country where you get rewarded if you work hard, certainly no commas would be needed.

2) We need to talk because[,] if we don't, we will be in trouble.
(adverbial clause)

The adverbial clause is because we will be in trouble, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if we don't, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. With such minuscule conflict between because and if, there is very little risk of confusion in omitting the comma. If the sentence had been written: We need to talk because we will be in trouble if we don't, certainly no commas would be needed.

3) London is where[,] when I was young, I used to live. (noun clause)

The predicative is where I used to live, and the comma would be appropriate, because the embedded adverbial phrase, when I was young, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The locative where and the temporal when are nearly irreconcilable and should probably be separated by a comma. If the sentence had been written: London is where I used to live when I was young, certainly no commas would be needed.

4) Give me a call if[,] when you are at the station, it rains.
(adverbial clause)

The conditional clause is if it rains, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded adverbial phrase, when you are at the station, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conditional if and the temporal when seem to be in deep conflict and would work better with a comma between them. If the sentence had been written: Give me a call if it rains when you are at the station, certainly no commas would be needed. The slight ambiguity could easily be eliminated by recasting the sentence to communicate the true intentions of the imperative.

5) It is useful when[,] if it rains, you have an umbrella. (awkward
adverbial clause)

The awkward adverbial clause is when you have an umbrella, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if it rains, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. This construction is awkward with or without the comma, but would probably be less confusing with the extra comma. If the sentence had been written: It is useful when you have an umbrella if it rains, certainly no commas would be needed. The overall awkwardness still suggest a need to recast the sentence.

6) She is the person who[,] if she is faced with difficulties, can
handle them very well. (relative clause)

The relative clause is who can handle them very well, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if she is faced with difficulties, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conflict between the relative who and the conditional if might be manageable without a comma, but many would find it less confusing to see the comma. If the sentence had been written: She is the person who can handle difficulties very well if she is faced with them, certainly no commas would be needed.

7) He said that[,] if all goes well, he will call. (noun clause)

The noun clause is that he will call, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if all goes well, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conditional in the context of reported speech is the least awkward of the seven examples and fits the exception of The Chicago Manual of Style perfectly. If the sentence had been written: He said that he will call if all goes well, certainly no commas would be needed.

Conclusion:

The ultimate purpose of commas is clarity. Use one if it makes things more clear. Leave it out if it makes things less clear, and in my humble opinion: when in doubt, leave it out. Most importantly, recasting the way we put phrases together can eliminate most of our comma confusion.

grammar - "As a [noun]" followed by mismatching subject

There is one particularly commonly used language construct that I find logically incorrect. However, as a non-native English speaker, I can't decide authoritatively on whether the usage is actually wrong.

Consider the following sentence:

As a web developer, I often help my friends with their websites when asked.

It is clear that I am a web developer and that I, when asked for help by my friends, do the favor for them.

Compare it with the following (disregard the slight difference in meaning — what is relevant is the change of subject):

As a web developer, my friends often ask me for help with their websites.

What does it mean now? I think it means that my friends, who are a web developer (!), often ask me for help. However, in informal writing, this usage is so common that it might actually happen to be correct! Perhaps in my head I'm automatically trying to translate the sentence into my native language, in which it sounds somewhat more ridiculous (it might also be the case that the ridiculousness arises merely from the fact that I am more used to the language I speak every day).

What is your view on this matter? I'd like to hear the opinion of a native speaker or someone who is experienced enough to provide a definitive answer.

Answer

Generally speaking, a dependent clause needs to be as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. The word as used in this manner introduces a clause that modifies the subject of the sentence.

In the first example, which is correct, the phrase as a web developer applies to the immediately adjacent subject of the sentence, I. This makes sense and is grammatically correct.

The second example is ambiguous and grammatically incorrect. The position of the clause as a Web developer suggests that it modifies the subject, but there is a mismatch in number: the clause is singular, but the subject is plural.

Your reader can assume you mean to modify either the subject or the predicate or both, but this leads to ambiguity. Here it might not matter so much: the I of the sentence is probably a Web developer or he wouldn't be asked, and the friends are probably Web developers too or they wouldn't be asking.

But sometimes it matters a great deal. Who's killing whom in this example?

As a mass murderer, his friends sought to execute him.

But good grammar makes another important difference: it rests more musically on the mind's inner ear, which makes for good writing as opposed to mediocre writing in which we know what the writer meant, even if he didn't say it correctly. Or at least we think we know what he meant.

A case on verbs with plural/singular subject

In the following, I believe the first sentence is the correct one as the verb must follow the subject, which is 'A critical aspect' (thought 'nerdy creatures' is plural) Please let me know if I am mistaken.

A critical aspect that might threaten such achievement is the nerdy creatures.

vs.

A critical aspect that might threaten such achievement are the nerdy creatures.

orthography - Should the prefix "re" be added to a word with or without a hyphen?

In science we often invent words, but that doesn't mean we know how to spell them. Most of the time words are invented by adding prefixes. In that case should there be a hyphen or not? Specifically, I need to use

• reexcite or re-excite (reentry is similar and a official word)


• repolarize or re-polarization

The second seems fine in the no-hyphen form, but for the first, the double "e" makes the word difficult to read. I've seen similar use with a diaeresis over the e: ë as in reëxcite, but that looks strange; any pointers?

Answer

It depends on how recent the words are. If you are concerned that your meaning will be unclear, by all means use the hyphen. Words like reentry and reelect have been in usage for a long time and pretty much no one has a problem with them. Reexcite has not, so you would do better to stick with re-excites. If you want to edit something again, you are probably better off to re-edit it if you are worried that reedit will cause the reader to stumble.

Where the prefix is not followed by a vowel, however, you are not honor-bound to add the hyphen. If you want to repolarize something, go right ahead. According to Etymonline, the word repurpose is less than 30 years old, having dropped its hyphen somewhere in the early 1980s. So if you are the first to repolarize something, you are not likely to be the last, and you will probably start a trend. In any case, your meaning will be clear.

single word requests - What is the term for "make more intelligent"

What is the term for "make more intelligent" for example
Reading books will ... you?

Answer

To use a prepositional phrase:

"Smarten you up"
(I just noticed that Josh already thought of that! "Great minds....")

Or to make a noun into an action:

"Intellectualize you."

Remember, language is fun!

grammar - Can 'default' be an adverb?

Consider the following sentence:

Whenever possible, default and explicitly mapped names are honored as written.

It seems to me that default and explicitly both talk about how the names are mapped, and thus default would also be an adverb, but I don't see default listed as an adverb in the dictionary.

But they could also be nouns when written as thus:

Whenever possible, default and explicit mapped names are honored as written.

What would be the clearest way to write this and can 'default' be an adverb as shown above.

Another pass at the sentence might read:

Whenever possible, default mapped names and explicitly mapped names are honored as written.

Answer

Perhaps this works?

Whenever possible, explicit and default mappings are honored as written.

What does definite and indefinite mean in past tense and present perfect respectively

I am reading the grammar book - A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language - these days. I am confused about the meanings of definite and indefinite in Past Tense and Present Perfect.

I know that Past Tense means an action or state started and ended before now. For example:

He died.

From what I think, He died is the event die that happened at some point in the past. So what does the definite time mean here? And I think He died yesterday/last week is a definite time, which I know the exact time He died.

I know I am wrong, please help to point it out.

And Present Perfect has the meaning of INDEFINITE EVENT(S) IN A PERIOD LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT. For example:

He has died recently.

Which means, from an unspecified time(not too long from now) to now, in this period of time, the event die happened.

I think this is an indefinite event since I don't know the exact time when it happened.

Answer

A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (p184) expands its discussion of the use of the simple past in the following extract:

It is not necessary for the past tense to be accompanied by an overt
indicator of time. All that is required is that the speaker should be
able to count on the hearer's assumption that he has a specific time
in mind. In this respect, the past tense meaning of DEFINITE PAST time
is an equivalent, in the verb phrase, of the definite article in the
noun phrase. Just as with the definite article, so with the verb
phrase, an element of definite meaning may be recoverable from (a)
knowledge of the immediate or local situation; (b) the larger

situation of 'general knowledge'; (c) what has been said earlier in
the sentence or text; or (d) what comes later on in the same sentence
or text.

So this answers the question in your comment: Without explicit temporal adverbial, e.g yesterday/last week in He died yesterday/last week, how can I know the definite time of the event? Namely, the definite date or time when the event occurred will normally be recoverable in one or more of the four ways (a-d) outlined above. So, the utterance Byron died in Greece contains the implicit definite past reference: in the time that Byron was living in Greece.

As to your statement:

And Present Perfect has the meaning of INDEFINITE EVENT(S) IN A PERIOD
LEADING UP TO THE PRESENT

I'd be interested in where you have read this, since to me it is the time period that is indefinite, not the events themselves. Nevertheless, you are right that recently is an indefinite time expression which is often accompanied by the present perfect.

That said, the past tense is also used with recently. In fact, Google returns about six times more results for He died recently than He has died recently.

The choice between simple past and present perfect is very complex. For a full account of this grammar issue I recommend the excellent canonical post by StoneyB on the English Language Learners site:

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/13255/canonical-post-2-what-is-the-perfect-and-how-should-i-use-it

dashes - dash to connect two thoughts

How can I use a dash to correctly connect two and thoughts in a sentence? Is the following sentence correct with the dash in from or should I remove it?

An S database allows access from – and can be opened by multiple applications at the same time.

I am not familiar with the English grammar jargon and don't know how to properly call what I am attempting to do with that dash.

Although I still want to learn about the dash, would the following alternative sentence be correct?

An S database allows access from, and can be opened by, multiple applications at the same time.

Answer

Your second example is the correct way to express the concepts in your sentences using commas.

The use of dashes would not be appropriate in these circumstances. You mention joining and thoughts. The connection of equally weighted concepts is not usually joined with dashes, and if punctuation is needed, it is usually commas or semicolons.

Dashes are usually used within a sentence to indicate a side thought, often called a parenthetical phrase, because it could also be put inside of parentheses. An example would be

An S database - the most versatile of storage systems - allows access from,and can be opened by, multiple applications at the same time.

The commas are needed in your sentence because the verb phrases allows access from and can be opened by use different prepositions. If there were no prepositions, you could use and without the commas, such as

An S database can access and open multiple applications at the same time

verbs - What is the difference between "raise" and "rise"?

What is the difference between raise and rise? When and how should I use each one?

Answer

"Raise" when used as a verb is transitive: it requires that you have a direct object, a noun of some kind that you are applying the verb to. For example, "I must raise an objection"—"an objection" is the object that the subject (I) is using the verb to act upon.

"Rise" on the other hand, is an intransitive verb: it does not require a direct object; your sentence can be complete without one. "Please rise" is entirely correct and complete.

grammaticality - Is it grammatically acceptable to start a sentence with "That that..."

This is something that I've recently had someone tell me is not grammatically correct. Now, to be honest, it's not something I would likely ever use in everyday language but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not perfectly acceptable.

So, as an example:

That that you have eaten is poisonous.

This is similar (in my mind) to "That which...".

There are certainly examples of this both in modern usage (if you want to call it that), in the form of a Wikipedia article about ambiguity in a phrase that is missing punctuation:

That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is

According to this article's text, this phrase is grammatically acceptable:

The sequence can be understood as any of three grammatically-correct sequences, each with at least three discrete sentences, by adding punctuation:

• That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is.


• That that is, is that that is. Not is not. Is that it? It is.


• That that is, is that that is not. Is not "is that" it? It is.

But, Wikipedia is not always trustworthy.

This also appears historically, possibly the most noteworthy appearance is in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night and Hamlet, though the latter may not be the same usage.

Twelfth Night, Act 4 Scene 2:

Bonos dies, Sir Toby: for, as the old hermit of
Prague, that never saw pen and ink, very wittily
said to a niece of King Gorboduc, 'That that is is;'
so I, being Master Parson, am Master Parson; for,
what is 'that' but 'that,' and 'is' but 'is'?

This is the fool, speaking in jest, though... one might suppose that poor grammar is used intentionally?

Hamlet, Act 5 Scene 1:

Imperious Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay,
Might stop a hole to keep the wind away:
O, that that earth, which kept the world in awe,
Should patch a wall to expel the winter flaw!
But soft! but soft! aside: here comes the king.

Here, I could see this as being a stand-alone sentence (That that earth should patch a wall...), so it may be applicable here... but I think the first "that" is not a pronoun here, so it may not be the same.

So, is there an explanation of this form? Is it acceptable? As you may expect, this is difficult to look up because there certainly are acceptable forms of "that that" that appear internally in sentences. This is not what I'm interested in.

Answer

It seems like this has been established in the comments, but in the interest of providing an answer, there's nothing ungrammatical about starting a sentence this way.

It's common to start a sentence with a pronoun and a determiner, as in this Confucius quote:

He who has really set his mind on virtue will do no evil.

Grammatically speaking, this is a variation on the same thing. Many writers, out of a belief that repeating a word is improper or just unpleasant, seem to substitute "which" for "that" in these situations. Ralph Waldo Emerson did so in the following quote:

That which we persist in doing becomes easier to do

But by most contemporary prescriptive rules for choosing between "that" and "which," that should be used when the restrictive clause alters the meaning of the sentence. Emerson wasn't merely adding the clause about persistence as additional information:

That, which we persist in doing, becomes easier to do

Contemporarily and prescriptively speaking, a more strictly adhering phrase would be:

That that we persist in doing becomes easier to do.

Just like a contemporary writer would generally prefer

Something that we persist in doing becomes easier to do

rather than

Something which we persist in doing becomes easier to do

But few people will judge Emerson for his stylistic choice of writing "that which," especially in poetry.

Another alternative, if you're interested in avoiding "that-that," is to use "what." "What" by definition can mean the thing or things that.

What is, is.

What we persist in doing becomes easier to do.

As pointed out in the question, using "that that" isn't foreign to talented writers. It is just as grammatical as the alternatives, and in many cases would be an appropriate thing to write. But if you're more interested in style and less interested in adhering to rules, you can rephrase sentences like this, and you'll be in the company of great writers either way.

prepositions - Why at the school not at school

In the following sentence why is it at the school not at school?

They don't have to do their homework today because it's a holiday at the school.

grammar - Case after 'except'?

One can use 'except' as a preposition, as in the following sentence:

I gave everyone except Mary a present.

Changing 'Mary' for a pronoun we get:

I gave everyone except her a present.

Clearly the following is wrong:

*I gave everyone except she a present

So my question is: does except always take the objective case in English?
Consider the following sentence:

All except him agreed

To me, "he" sounds more elegant here, so maybe the noun affected by 'except' keeps the same case it would otherwise have in the sentence. But then:

Except I, we all agreed

sounds definitely wrong compared to "Except me, we all agreed." Perhaps it is not a matter of case at all, but something else? I found this question very hard to google for, so that's all I've got to bring to the table.

Answer

Except can be a preposition, conjunction, transitive verb, or intransitive verb.

The Merriam-Webster Learner's Dictionary has a great page on except.

In your sentences above, you are using except as a preposition, so it should take the objective pronoun.

Probably the reason you dislike

All except him agreed.

is the order of the words--him sounds awkward before the verb, even though it's not the subject. If you change the order, without changing the meaning, you get

All agreed except him.

which you probably will not find awkward.

So the short answer to your question is that when except is used as a preposition, its object, if it is a pronoun, needs to be in the objective case.

The M-W Learner's Dictionary page gives examples for sentences where except is used as a conjunction, where the pronoun later in the sentence is the subject of a phrase, so it is in the subjective case:

I would buy a new suit, except I don't have enough money.

In this situation, except is a conjunction, and the second "I" is the subject of the second statement. So while there are times when the word except will be followed by a subjective pronoun, they are different situations from your examples.

grammar of 'sit perched on'

Is the grammar of 'perch' in the following sentence correct ?

The tower sits perched on a stone structure.

If 'perch' is used as verb in the sentence, should it be as sit perching?
Could anyone please kindly help me to figure out sit perched.

Onomatopoeia for foxes

"What does the fox say?" Onomatopoeia, and Alien Languages claims there's no onomatopoeia for foxes:

But you don't find fox onomatopoeia in this context. Foxes tend to do
one of two things: either they are silent, or they speak like humans
do. It's certainly a testament to the fox's slyness that it's
attributed with human speech, which fits quite well with its trickster

qualities (and of course there are many myths that have the fox
transforming itself into human shape, too).

The article goes on to cite a Wired article claiming that some of the sounds made in the Ylvis song The Fox (What Does the Fox Say?), such as "Chacha-chacha-chacha-chow", are accurate, but it doesn't indicate that they are commonly used onomatopoeia.

Are there any commonly used onomatopoeia for foxes in English?

Answer

Short answer: No - hence the joke.

You can make one up that matches the sound they actually make or use the word "Bark"

Longer answer:

Here are more examples of fox sounds from http://greenmeditations.com/getting-foxy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6NuhlibHsM

• Alarm bark



• Vixen's scream


• Gekkering


• Howl

Literature seems to favour bark

I heard the foxes as they ranged over the snow crust, in moonlight nights, in search of a partridge or other game, barking like forest dogs...
_Thoreau

---

At night when I slept under an oak tree in the yard, when the white clouds scudded across a blue night sky of spring — it was then I heard the foxes bark on the high mountain top. They barked for me. _{Jesse Stuart}

---

I heard the foxes howling near the house these two nights back. They always herald a death in our family. _{Sean O'Callaghan}

---

I heard the fox kit begin to vocalize in a high-pitched, laughing yodel. _{John Ulanich}

grammatical number - Are abstract nouns always singular? Or are there such things as 'plural abstract nouns'?

'Abstract noun' is defined by Oxford as follows:

A noun denoting an idea, quality, or state rather than a concrete
object, e.g. truth, danger, happiness.

Are abstract nouns always singular?
Or are there such things as 'plural abstract nouns'?

Do any of these qualify as 'plural abstract nouns'?

We all want to see this criminal get his just deserts.

Levels of earnings are still rising.

There's a chance it could rain, but odds are that it'll be sunny tomorrow.

The judge awarded her $5,000 in damages.

Please accept my condolences.

When it comes to men, she prefers brains over brawn.

No guts, no glory

EDIT

In no way am I asking about these specific nouns, as the title clearly indicates. So please take these nouns simply possible examples of plural abstract nouns (if there are such things), and try to answer the general question about the existence of plural abstract nouns.

grammatical number - It's one of the best [plural noun] that + has (or) have

In the sentence

It's one of the best films that has/have ever been made

What should the verb agreement be?

Answer

It's plural "have".

A useful way to prove that a plural verb is correct is to front the preposition phrase:

"Of the best films that have ever been made, it's one of them."

NOT "Of the best films that has ever been made, it's one of them."

personal pronouns - Am I right in thinking modern usage of the word "me" is drifting to "I"; Is there an increasing trend?

In reply to suggested duplicate question: It may be that I can find some useful guidance from the earlier Answer (for which thanks), but I'm really asking whether there's a general trend, particularly in the everyday speech of well-educated people, in misuse of "I" for "me", rather than explanations of individual instances.

Nowadays, people often (usually, even) use "I" when my intuition as a native English speaker (physical scientist; by no means a grammarian) tells me they should be using "me" - even not-so-young humanities graduates from top universities are doing this.

If this is indeed ungrammatical, then perhaps people are acquiring a fear of referring to themselves using "me", as if that is somehow betraying a sense of excessive self-regard, even though "I" serves the same function...?

A PhD colleague today wrote: "Having a test available for Julia and I to review would be helpful."

If this is simplified to: "Having a test available for I to review would be helpful." seems quite wrong to me.

Are a great many other people wrong? Or is it "I" who is wrong? (Though I must confess I'm now not so certain about "I" in this latter example.)

Answer

I don't believe that this is a new trend, and introduce as evidence the following:

Sweet Bassanio, my ships have all
miscarried, my creditors grow cruel, my estate is
very low, my bond to the Jew is forfeit; and since
in paying it, it is impossible I should live, all
debts are cleared between you and I, if I might but
see you at my death

• Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, [III, 2], 1600

So then all us 'people who are wrong' are in good company at least. In seriousness, I think that the use of "and I", right or wrong, has been a common usage for centuries; although it is a usage often regarded as incorrect.

The OED provides further insight in this regard:

Entry "I": Used for the objective case after a verb or preposition when separated from the governing word by other words (esp. in coordinate constructions with another pronoun and and).
This has been common at various times (esp. towards the end of the 16th and in the 17th cent., and from the mid 20th cent. onwards); it has been considered ungrammatical since the 18th cent.

The oldest usage they cite is 1582: "So after certaine familiar behauiour, vsed betweene him and I, he..went into the Refectorium"

word choice - Difference between "evade X" and "sidestep X"?

Please consider the following sentences

In the journalist meeting, the politician evaded the questions about riots.
in the journalist meeting, the politician sidestepped the questions about riots.

Do those sentences have the same meaning?

As fundamental rule, no two words would have same meaning at all times. I expect some differences between evade and sidestep, which is why I am asking this question.

The "Dictionary" software which I am using shows these definitions:

Evade = escape or avoid, esp. by cleverness or trickery
Sidestep = avoid (someone or something) by stepping sideways

I am unable to make out the differences between those two definitions.

comparisons - Comparing different (but related) qualities in English

I was recently trying to express a sentiment like the following.

New York is bluer than South Carolina is red.

(For those not familiar with U.S. political jargon, blue = Democratic and red = Republican.)

Although the above phrase is grammatical, it struck me as at least slightly awkward. I can think of numerous variations of this kind of sentence:

Joe is more courageous than Harry is foolish.

Janet caught more fish than I did crabs.

While these phrases can easily be reworked into a longer or different form, e.g. "Janet's fish outnumbered my crabs", I would like to know if there is a more fluent way of expressing this kind of comparison that preserves (more or less) the same structure.

Answer

Context can help.

New York is blue, South Carolina is red. But New York is bluer than South Carolina is red.

Since the blue-red info is no longer new which state is which color is less distracting in the second sentence.

---

An intensifier can help.

New York is more deeply blue than South Carolina is red.

Since the point of the sentence is comparative intensity it helps to have something expressing intensity.

---

To step outside the blue/red example:

Janet caught a lot/a few/slightly more fish than I did crabs.

---

I would be hard pressed to claim these are "more fluent" but they make your point a little easier to identify.

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

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

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

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

Because this looks weird:

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

What if the quote end with a question?

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

I think that I would need a comma somewhere.

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

So under the British rule you would write:

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

Under the American rule:

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

Under either rule:

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

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

adjectives - something full of/ a full something of

Can somebody explain the difference here and give some more appropriate examples on the construction? I sense there IS something, but I can't get to it individually.

1. a bowl full of mush





2. a full bowl of mush

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

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

Whether you are looking to build. . . .

or

Whether you are looking to building. . . .

grammar - Can a word "it" be used to refer to a person as well?

If so, could anyone give an example pls?

Answer

It is almost never appropriate to use it for a person. Sometimes, we seem to use it when asking about somebody's gender. E.g.:

A: My wife's had a baby!

B: Is it a boy or a girl?

A: It's a boy!

but here it is just a dummy pronoun.

If you don't know the gender, you have the following options:

1. Use an arbitray gender and stick to it (usually he).


2. Use he / she.



3. Use they. (This is the most "natural" way for native English speakers, although some consider it a little informal.)


4. Use a descriptive noun. E.g. the customer.

Note that it is very offensive to refer to transexuals, transvestites, hermaphrodites, and so on as it. If the person adopts a male name, use he. If the person adopts a female name, use she.

meaning - "A number of students" vs. "the number of students"

From the grammatical view both are correct, but please explain the difference in meaning:

1. The number of students in the class is fifteen.


2. A number of students were late for class.

Answer

The number of students in the class is fifteen.

The verb is singular because it refers to 'the number'. The subject of this sentence is 'the number'. 'Of students' is a modifier of 'the number'

'A number of' means several, some.

Several students were late for class.

Some students were late for class.

A number of students were late for class.

The subject of these sentences is 'students', and 'some', 'several', 'a number of' are modifiers of 'students'. The verb agrees with the subject.

pronunciation - What syllable is stressed in "complex"?

I've read somewhere that if complex is an adjective, its second syllable is stressed (com-plex), while for noun, the first one (com-plex). But e.g. this link says that adjective can also sound as noun. I also remember that my teacher (many years ago) said "com-plex object", although complex is an adjective here.

I guess stress depends on context of usage. So, what are the cases for stressing first or second syllable in adjective complex? How do I determine which syllable has to be stressed?

For example, how are "complex numbers", "complex object", "complex problem" pronounced?

Answer

The OED has accent on com for both noun and adjective, but accent on plex for verb. What verb, you ask. Well, it is obsolete or rare except in chemistry, where it means "form a complex with".

These hormones must complex with specific receptors in order to...

Here in America, I have heard the plex accent version on occasion. But nothing as simple as the noun/adjective distinction proposed by Ruslan.

My American dictionary has only com accent for the noun, but both possible accents for the adjective or the verb.

My advice: use accent com for the adjective, no one will object (or even notice).

Note: combined forms may accent the plex ... complexity, complexification, non-complex, super-complex.

grammar - Make a choice + what/whether?

Are these correct?

1: They made a choice WHAT to wear

2: They made a choice WHETHER to go to Italy or the UK.

Or should we write "They made a choice ABOUT what to wear" and "they made a choice ABOUT whether to go to Italy or the UK".

Thank you

grammaticality - Is "I already have two stamps drawn" grammatically correct?

Is it grammatically correct and is it the right way to say that I have something already made and I'm still doing it, in this case drawing the stamps?

Because as far as I know, 'have' should be after 'I', like this: 'I have already (but what should go there then?) two stamps drawn'?

Answer

The sentence you write should have a different order of words. It should be:

I have already drawn two stamps.

You can use this structure to say that you have completed something, i.e. drawing two stamps. It can imply that your activity of drawing may continue, but its primary use is that of showing completion of an action in the past with results that are visible in the present.

phrases - Difference between "Excuse me" and "Sorry"

What is the difference between "Excuse me, ..." and "Sorry, ..."? When do we use one or the other?

For example, when you haven't heard the speaker, or stepped on someone's foot or accidentally spilled some sauce.

Answer

Sorry expresses more regret than excuse me does.

If I'm trying to leave the room and you're in my way, I'll say "Excuse me." I recognize that I'm inconveniencing you by asking you to move, but the inconvenience is very small, and I don't expect you to be offended by the request. People often say "excuse me" when they commit small violations of etiquette, such as sneezing loudly.

If I accidentally step on your toe while I'm trying to get to the door, I'll say "I'm sorry!" I didn't mean to step on your toe, and I regret injuring you.

Is there a name for the practice of placing too many phrases/clauses between the subject and verb of a sentence?

I recently had a discussion with a coworker while editing a document, wherein I thought a sentence was hard to read, because the subject was separated from the verb by a large dependent clause describing it.

I was looking for discussion and guidance about this issue, but I don't know if it has a concise name.

Example:

The girl whose mother had brought a fresh tray of delicious lemon cookie bars to class a week ago wrote a book report.

I realize this is an especially rambly run-on sentence, and is purposefully so, as an exaggeration of what I am trying to illustrate. The core meaning of the sentence, "The girl wrote a book report," is so confounded by having to straddle that huge mess in the middle.

So, is there a specific name for this?

grammar - "If you or somebody you know" vs "If somebody you know or you"

The following sentence makes sense:

• If you or somebody you know is an experienced such-and-such, please contact us.

However, reversing the subjects (and choosing "are" based on the proximity rule) makes it sound extremely awkward:

• If somebody you know or you are an experienced such-and-such, please contact us.

The is/are verb choice does not really matter, placing "somebody you know" first makes the sentence difficult to read and awkward to say. However, switching subjects in a compound subject doesn't always "ruin" the sentence, e.g.:

• If your dog or your cat is sick, call the vet.


• If your cat or your dog is sick, call the vet.

My question is: What is wrong with "If somebody you know or you"? Is this violating some grammatical rule? Why is this sentence so hard to parse? I know it doesn't "feel" right but I'd like to know why.

terminology - Is "The trick is to not try to tell yourself not to think about the bad things..." a double-negative used correctly?

An answer to the stackexchange question I've just been bitten by a rattlesnake; how, exactly, do I “keep calm”? includes the following advice:

The trick is to not try to tell yourself not to think about the bad things¹, but instead tell yourself to think about something else. Tell yourself to think about what you need to do now to get proper care and treatment. Tell yourself to think about what you will do to celebrate your recovery. Tell yourself to think about something mundane, like your job or your favorite TV show or that hobby project you've got going.

and has the footnote:

¹Look everyone! A double negative used properly.

Does the term "double negative" have a formal definition? (It seems to have a tag at least.) If so, is this one? If so, is it used properly?

---

From what I recall being taught quite a long time ago, a double negative is the negation of two words in a row, or nearly so, with the intent of a single negative. For example

That's not no proper way to negate.

versus

That's not a proper way to negate.

In my original, quoted snake-bite example above, a negation is used twice, and it is used intentionally both times to arrive at the intended meaning. As helpfully pointed out below, The Oxford Dictionary Online says:

1. A negative statement containing two negative elements...

1.1 A positive statement in which two negative elements are used to produce the positive force...

The first does not specify (to me at least) if the desired outcome is positive or still negative, and the second mentions "positive force" but I don't think it means the double negative is intended to result in a positive result. Rather I think "positive force" means a positive emphasis on the negative statement.

At this point I've gone way past my limits of understanding of the English language in the hopes that it demonstrates an honest attempt at doing research into the question. While I'd love to understand if there is more than one kind of double negative, I'm primarily asking about the quoted phrase.

Answer

For those that might be interested in a traditional understanding of "double negative", here it is:

NEVER use a double negative except to created a positive.

As a boy I was not taught anything about "double negatives" but the above "rule".

I would be satisfied were that rule generally observed.
So

You don't owe me nothing

would mean you owe me something.

This "rule" may well be out of fashion, and, I think, the result can be chaos in reading some things.

In English, I will not allow anyone to present me with any writing that employs a "double" negative" that suggests a negative,

The trick is to not try to tell yourself not to think about the bad thing

The statement above has three actions defining "The trick is": to try, to tell yourself and to think about .

But, the two infinitives to tell and to think are tied to to try. To try is negated by not. and to think about is negated by another not.
So:

The trick is to not try to tell yourself (and) not try not to think about the bad thing

there is no double negative as "not try not to think" are two actions. Both are negated by a single negative.

indefinite articles - Why is it “A president,” not “The president” in the sentence, “Voters re-elected a president who promised to fight for ...”?

The New York Times article (November 9) titled, “The Fiscal Cliff Opener” begins with the following sentence.

“On Tuesday, voters re-elected a president who promised to fight
for higher taxes on the wealthy, for more public investment and for

careful cuts in spending. Three days later, President Obama challenged
Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, right
now, and said he would not accept a deal that does not require the
wealthy to pay a bigger share.”

I think I learned that we should use “the,” not “a” for the antecedent followed by the relative pronoun i.e. "that clause" in English language class of high school – it was more than 55 years ago for me.

Why is it “A,” not “The” in the sentence, “voters re-elected a president who promised to fight for higher taxes on the wealthy, for more public investment and for careful cuts in spending.”

The article sounds like to me saying U.S. voters happened to re-elect a president out of a lot of presidents who ever promised to fight for higher taxes on the wealthy, for more public investment and for careful cuts in spending as well as President Obama.

I don’t think there were so many U.S. Presidents who actually promised a set of agenda for raising taxes on the wealthy, increasing public investment, and cutting spending, and President Obama was just one of them.

Answer

I like this question; it shows that the primary difference between when to use definite and indefinite articles isn't always as cut-and-dried as standard rules might indicate. As is said here often, English is a flexible language, and most rules have plenty of exceptions that apply in certain contexts.

In this case, could the writer have used the instead? Sure. However, if that were my sentence, and I used a definite article, I would punctuate it differently:

On Tuesday, voters re-elected the president, who promised to fight for higher taxes on the wealthy, for more public investment and for careful cuts in spending.

Notice the added comma after the word president.

I like the original wording better, though; it seems to flow better. Although the indefinite article makes the sentence appear to have been written in a general sense, it really hasn't.

For example, if I say:

Voters re-elected a president who promised to fight for higher taxes on the wealthy, for more public investment and for careful cuts in spending.

then that sentence, taken by itself, could indeed refer to any president, of any country, at any time in history, who got re-elected on that platform. It could be talking about, say, former president Bill Clinton, or to Sauli Niinistö of Finland.

What makes it refer to Barack Obama, then, instead of some other president? In a word, context. In this case, that context is provided by a few key facts:

• This sentence was published in a newspaper, not a history book


• The newspaper is a U.S. publication


• The editorial was published just days after the U.S. 2012 election



• The sentence begins with, "On Tuesday..."

Taken together, those four pieces of information make it very obvious that the phrase “a president” refers to Barack Obama, the 2012 incumbent U.S. president. So, the sentence works. Even though the indefinite article would allow that sentence to refer to any president, that particular sentence doesn't refer to any president – context won't permit that.

---

As a footnote, this is why I've consistently praised the way you write questions on ELU. Had you merely said, "In this sentence, who does the article refer to?" then the question might have stirred a contentious debate. Instead, you began with a citation:

The New York Times article (November 9) titled, “The Fiscal Cliff Opener”...

Some might wonder, "Why would I need to exclude extraneous information like that?" No – that information is not extraneous, it's vital to understanding the sentence. Otherwise, the exact same sentence, word-for-word, could refer to something entirely different:

On Tuesday, voters re-elected a president who promised to fight for higher taxes on the wealthy, for more public investment and for careful cuts in spending. On Wednesday, riots had erupted in the streets of Dankoon, leaving dozens of people dead, and over 100 buildings burned to the ground. President LeMonde wasn't going to let that happen this time, which is why, on the eve of Election Day, soldiers had been deployed to every major city across the province. Post-election rioting wasn't going to become a tradition in Denov – not under his watch.

compound possessives - Correct grammar form for two people owning the same object?

Which is correct?
Paul's and Freda's Anniversary or Paul and Freda's Anniversary?

Dangling Participle and Gerund

" Inspiring, informing and celebrating teachers since 1988".
Is this sentence right?
I'm confuse whether all -ing verbs in this sentence act as a gerund as a noun or a present participial as an adjective. Gerund as a noun needs a verb while present participle as an adjective needs a subject, right?

I hope someone could help me verify and explain that sentence above. Thank you.

grammar - Be mindful of using vs be mindful of

I am really confused with these sentences. I don't know the technical explanation for these. I am studying English and I do not understand what's wrong with the sentences.

1. You just have to be mindful of using verbs in your sentences.


2. However, please be mindful of articles and word choices.

I was told that when should be used for the first sentences. Both sentences are grammatically correct, however, the second sentence is okay and parallel. Also, both are non-standard. Is this correct? Are there any other explanations for this? Also, what are the alternatives for mindful? Thank you for your help!

grammatical number - Pluralizing abbreviations where the noun is not the last word

For abbreviations - both acronyms and initialisms - where the last word in the abbreviation is the noun, I'm accustomed to adding an 's' with no apostrophe (e.g. ATMs), as described in the answer to this question: What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym?

But how do you pluralize abbreviations where the noun is not the last word? E.g. 'Point of Presence' (POP)

I can see how 'POPs' could read 'Point of Presences', when the intention is 'Points of Presence.'

Answer

Virtually always, the s follows the full abbreviation even when a word other than the last one is the proper plural. Paul Brians in Common Errors in English Usage cites

POWs, RPMs, WMDs

This style is also recommended in the AP Style Guide, so it is what you will see in most newspapers. But not all.

The other option is to discard the s altogether, as in this news story from the Cleveland-area News-Herald:

Byrd had five home runs and 19 RBI in 34 games.

This is certainly not a typo. Many commentators prefer this, but it is simply that, a preference. As a former editor at ESPN, I had this discussion many times with writers and other editors, many insisting that there is only one right way to do it. Clearly, that is not true. If you prefer the s, use it, but only after the entire abbreviation. Nobody, but nobody, uses RsBI.

grammar - "Dangling Participles"

My case here is that I was writing something for school, and my teacher explained an error which I really can't see.

She referred to articles about "dangling participles", which was previously unknown to me.
I find it hard to relate the examples I've found about it to my situation.

So this is a text I've written and the bold part is where the problem arises:
(You could read only the bold part if you please)

Wandering, and lost in his thoughts, there is a deep despair occupying the mind of this man. He is barely aware of his surroundings, except for those few moments when the loud blissful voices break through the protective barriers, developed by his immense sadness and grave frustration, into his mind. ”How can they all possibly be so happy?” he thinks to himself. Staring blindly, with his head low, as he walks in a slow pace, whispering ”Mary, Mary, my Mary,” over and over again. Yesterday was her funeral. She had passed away from a severe type of cancer, at a relatively young age. It was his wife. They had been together since high school and were greatly attached to each other. Having spent nearly half his life by her side, we cannot but imagine his grief. Indeed, he could hardly picture a life without her. So, alone he roams in the midst of all the seemingly incessant cheering and noises, drowned by his sorrow.

Her comments on that part was:

we is slightly out of place here – see my comment below

These few sentences are about him and his emotions, so ‘we’ seems out
of place. If the sentence starts: ‘Having spent nearly half his life
by her side’, the reader expects it to continue: ‘he’. After all we
have not spent half our lives by her side.

Is she right? If so, could anyone try to explain why?

Answer

The problem is that the modifier clause ("Having spent nearly half his life...") refers to one party (the man), while the subject of the sentence is a different party ("we"). To eliminate the dangling modifier, we could rewrite the sentence as:

We cannot but imagine the grief that he, having spent nearly half his life by her side, must have experienced.

...so that the modifier clause properly refers to the man rather than to us. But beware of revisions like:

Having spent nearly half his life by her side, his grief can be readily imagined.

...which commits the same sin: now his grief is the subject of the sentence, and his grief didn't spend half its life by her side, he did.

grammaticality - "Not having a smartphone ... is more pros than cons." Why is this sentence wrong?

Not having a smartphone in your daily life is more pros than cons.

Should change it to

There are more pros than cons to not having a smartphone in your daily life.

But I don't understand why pros and cons can't be put at the back of a sentence. It doesn't sound wrong to me.

Please help me out, thanks!

word choice - 'betrayal' of expectations

I read a line in my textbook that goes:

Negative effects may arise due to a 'betrayal' of expectations when people involved fail to understand the situational context.

Can the word 'betrayal' and 'expectations' be used together? Does it seem awkward when viewed by a native speaker?

tenses - There was a rumor +..... is/ was

Let's say I'm narrating a past incident in which a sentence goes like --
There was a rumor that Citibank is in debt.

Is the above sentence correct or do I need to replace 'is' with 'was' ?

adjectives - How to Make a Parallel Structure when a Same-Class word is Not Found?

I want to make a sentence, adequately using parallel structures, and can't find a way for that. I couldn't find an adjective for tobacco-relative, like I have for alcohol and automotive, in the following list:

tobacco, alcoholic and automotive goods

In a way I could write a phrase:

The new tax applies to tobacco, alcoholic and automotive goods.

Is there any way to make sentences like this parallel?

*Edited: I think the way I framed the question people would understand it as three different nouns; when I was actually meaning three different adjectives for goods. This is why I have provided an example phrase.

archaicisms - What happened to the “‑est” and “‑eth” verb suffixes in English?

What happened to them, and how were they once used? Straining my mind to sound archaic, I came up with the following:

Dost thou thinkest thou can escape thy sins?

and

Bringeth me mine armor and favorite sword.

I’d like to use these suffixes intelligently, so my questions are:
how are ‑est and ‑eth properly appellated in conjugations, and

when and why did they disappear?

Answer

Verb paradigm in King James English for think

   Singular             Plural
   --------------------------
1  (I)    think         (we)   think
2  (thou) thinkest      (you)  think
3  (he)   thinketh      (they) think


Imperative: think
Infinitive: (to) think

These unfamiliar suffixes are applied in the same context that the -s suffix is applied in Modern English; for example:

• He thinks.



• Thou thinkest.

  
  
  
  

  ---




• He shall go. (no -s suffix on go)



• Thou shalt go. (irregular verb form for shall; but again, no suffix on go)

During the Early Modern English period, the 2nd person singular suffix disappeared and the -th suffix in the third person was replaced by another suffix, -s, which spread from dialects in the northern parts of the country. Other conjugations, such as -e in the first person singular from Middle English, had already been lost.

This sort of change is known as paradigm leveling. There is no particular reason per se that this kind of change happens, but it is not uncommon in the languages of the world.

meaning - What does 'The Thick End Of' mean, and why?

I came across this phrase around 20 years ago, and have always understood it to mean 'most of'. I might complain about having to pay "the thick end of £4" for a coffee, when it cost somewhere between £3.00 and £3.99. That meaning sounds fairly obvious to me. I'm in the UK.

Imagine my surprise when I used it in company recently, and it was interpretted differently. That a "journey would take the thick end of 9 hours" was received as not as the "around 8 hours 45 minutes" that I meant, but as "over 9 hours, possibly a lot over". Is this reasonable?

I have looked on the net, and the best I can come up with was this (right at the bottom, References in classic literature) which has many examples, but still no definition.

Can anyone find a published definition, an argument for what the interpretation should be, or at least moral support for my interpretation?

Answer

You are correct!

the thick end of _OED

It is a British idiom. Oxford dictionary explains it as:

(informal) The greater part of (something)

"he was borrowing the thick end of £750 every week."

Your sentence "journey would take the thick end of 9 hours" in this context, roughly means, it will take almost 9 hours, but not more than 9 hours. In other words, it will take greater part of 9 hours.

When do you use "this is because" in the present tense versus "this was because" in the past tense?

I found this from a blog where the writer used this is because:

Through the experience of the DSCE, I felt like my life goal had finally been achieved, but when I desperately pleaded with God to let me back into that state, I soon realized it was almost impossible to achieve on my own. This is because I had only become partially self-realized.

Shouldn't the author have used this was because because they were
referring a past event? If not, can someone please explain the rule
regarding when to use this is because versus when to use this was because?

Is a comma necessary after an introductory but a main-clause-dependent element?

Very often, I find commas placed after introductory phrases that actually strongly affect the meaning of the main clause and would not be marked with commas in a complex sentence. For example, commas are very frequently being used in: "In Enlgand, the weather is often bad", "In the summer, we get our GCSE results" or "Every year, we go on a family trip". Sometimes, I even find apparently 'introductory' elements that the main clause's verb is dependent on, such as: "From this, we can see that..." or "In my mock, I got...".

What I have come up with is this:

A phrase that none of the main clause's parts of speech are dependent on but that the overall main clause is should be considered a separate dependent clause.

However, this still doesn't explain the latter bit, and, having attempted a research on my hypothesis, I found nothing.

Can anyone explain?

grammar - abbreviation for number neutral?

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this..

But when identifying pronouns, they are often given codes

1ms = 1st person masculine singular

and if a language, e.g. english and many others, don't specify gender in the first person, then C is (common?) gender..

1cs = (I guess) 1st person ("common?") singular

So "I" or "me" in English is given the pronoun abbreviation code 1cs

What about though, if the third letter in the abbreviation (the gender), is "common"? e.g. in English, in the second person "You" can be male or female, singular or plural. It's like 2cc (though i've not seen the abbreviation 2cc) What is the correct abbreviation to describe that neutral gender and neutral number?

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

grammar - Flipping Sentences and Verb Agreement

Is the following sentence grammatically correct in regards subject-verb agreement?

One of the main facets of the soul is the feelings humans treasure
above all: love and compassion.

The sentence seems to retain its meaning when flipped around, revealing that "the feelings" might be the true subject, and indicating that the verb form "is" could be incorrect. For example:

The feelings humans treasure above all -- love and compassion -- are one of the main facets of the soul.

Answer

Yes. What you are referring to is called subject-complement agreement. When you have a subject and complement that differ in number, the conjugation of the verb is determined by the number of the subject, not the complement.

Example 1:

• One of the things is feelings. ("One" - singular subject; "is" - third-person singular)


• Feelings are one of the things. ("Feelings" - plural subject; "are" - third-person plural)

Example 2:

• The States are the Union.


• The Union is the States.

Example 3:

• John and Jack are the first team to arrive.


• The first team to arrive is John and Jack.

grammar - “Who are you staying with” or “Whom are you staying with?”

Which one is correct?

Who are you staying with

or

Whom are you staying with?

Answer

There are not many words in English that clearly tell us nominative or objective case. The pairs he/him and she/her are in the nominative / objective case, and may be used to tell us the answer to your question.

First, one could switch the question around and make it a statement.

You are staying with who/whom.

Then swap in he/him for the who/whom.

You are staying with ?he / him.

(EDIT: The ? notation used on this forum and https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/ indicates questionable usage. A stronger form would be to use *he to indicate that the usage of he is incorrect.)

I suspect it sounds better to most ears to say "You are staying with him," because we use "him" (objective case) with a preposition.

Then swap back the who / whom.

You are staying with ?who / whom.

And then finally back to your original question.

With whom are you staying? or Whom are you staying with?

Grammatically, you need a whom in your question.

But as you can see in the linked question What’s the rule for using “who” and “whom” correctly?, whom may have a stilted or formal feel.

So I'd soften the answer a bit, and say that if you were answering on an English test, use the grammatically correct whom. But if you were asking someone in an everyday situation, use the less formal who.

grammar - “Their Own Pages” or “Their Own Page”

Your images will have their own pages/page.

I want to talk about several images. Each image has one page.

Should I use pages or page?

Why?

Answer

Your images will each have its own page.

Using each here allows us to switch from talking about all the images in plural, to talking about one such image singularly, and hence we then have to talk about its page in the singular.

This allows you to be clear, avoiding the possible misinterpretation of each image perhaps having more than one page.

Conversely, someone else describing a different system where there could be more than one page per image, could do the opposite:

Your images will each have its own pages.

This would serve the opposite case, where your intended meaning would of course be the possible misinterpretation.

grammatical number - Reading mathematical expressions like 4x: four ex or four exes?

When I read out (as a teacher at the board) an algebraic expression where a variable is multiplied by a cardinal greater than 1, eg 4x, shall I use the variable name in the plural or in the singular?

Additionally, is the verb ‘equal’ in the plural or in the singular in such cases?

Which one is a correct reading of, say, 4x + 5y = 6:

• ‘four ex plus five wye equals six’, or
• ‘four exes plus five wyes equal six’?

Thank you in advance.

Answer

You would definitely use your FIRST version: "four ex plus five wye equals six".

To extend it to further concepts, the quadratic equation would be, "ex equals minus bee plus or minus the square root of bee squared minus four ay see all over two ay"

etymology - Where did "sorry" get its vowel sound?

Sorry has two pronunciations in my dictionary: ˈsärē and ˈsôrē. The first is the one I am interested in because, as someone pointed out to me, the or pattern in English is nearly always pronounced as "oh-r" not "ah-r". At the time, I couldn't think of any other words that pronounced or as "ah-r" but overheard someone say "tomorrow" and realized there are a few others:

• tomorrow


• sorrow



• morrow


• horror (the first o and only in some places)

The question is this: Is there a commonality between these words that allow for a är (ah-r) pronunciation? Perhaps a similar history? Does the double-r make the difference?

Answer

The words you list all contain what is called an "intervocalic /r/". As danorton mentioned in his answer, in Received Pronunciation an "o" preceding an intervocalic "r" is pronounced as /ɒ/ (like the "o" in "lot" or "orange"). This pronunciation also occurs in Boston, USA. In Canada, the "o" is pronounced /ɔ/ (as in "cord"). In much of the mid-Atlantic (e.g., New York, Philadelphia, and the Carolinas), the "o" is pronounced /ɑ/ (as in "card"). In the remainder of the US, the pronunciation varies between /ɔ/ and /ɑ/ depending on the word. The words you gave as examples are usually pronounced with /ɑ/, whereas words like "horrible", "origin", and "Florida" are usually pronounced with /ɔ/.

In conclusion, this phenomenon varies by dialect. It is also related to the "horse–hoarse merger," in which the vowels /ɔ/ and /o/ are merged when preceding an /r/, thus making words like horse/hoarse, for/four, war/wore, or/oar, morning/mourning, &c., homophones.