Thursday, March 31, 2016

meaning - A question concerning the use of "as" as conjunction


It was as you said.




When I first heard it, I was almost certain that it is grammatically wrong. But when I searched Google, I realized it is used frequently (at least according to the book section).




"As you said" is a dependent clause that needs an independent clause, for "as" in that case is used as a subordinating conjunction. I just do not understand how that subordinating conjunction can be used WITHIN an independent clause. Also, I think that "as you said" is working as a predicative adjective phrase (though it is a clause) and this doesn't make any sense to me.



Is the usage wrong, or am I wrong? And if I am, why?



Edit:



Well, subordinating conjunction CAN BE used in an independent clause. However, that's only when the subordinate clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction is a noun clause.



Ex: The reason is that I was sick yesterday.




You cannot say the reason is because I was sick yesterday. "Because I was sick yesterday" is not a noun clause.

Subject–verb inversion in a conditional’s protasis: does that mean it happened or not?

Does




Had there been no support from others, I would not have asked him for help.




mean the speaker did ask for help or that they did not do so?

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

grammar - Explanation of the English in this University of Cambridge graduation certificate



I recently came upon this certificate of award of a BA degree at the University of Cambridge, which was written in a strange form of English which I didn't find very grammatical or logical according to Modern English grammar.




enter image description here



Transcript:




I hereby certify that XXX of YYY College in the University of Cambridge was at a full congregation holden in the Senate-House on 24 June 2016 [sic] admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts.



Witness my hand this twenty fourth day of June, two thousand and sixteen





The sentence seems to be rather strange, especially nearing the end of the first paragraph, where the sentence abruptly jumps from the date to "admitted".



How does one explain the meaning of this certificate in Modern English?


Answer



This is simple reversal of clauses: see this question. If it helps, you could imagine a bracket after 'was', and a close bracket after '2016'.



(I also think that using the Free Dictionary to validate the syntax of the University of Cambridge is equally back-to-front, though in a less literal sense.)


How do you answer tag questions with ", right?"?

When you asked "You don't love me, right?":

Which word is used to answer, "Right." or "Yes."?



If the answer is "Right":



--> Does "Right" mean "What you said is right, i.e., I don't love you.", doesn't it?



If the answer is "Yes":



--> Which does "Yes" mean, "Yes, what you said is right." or "Yes, I love you."?

Monday, March 28, 2016

orthography - How can one decide whether to use the compound form of a word when the one- or two-word versions are acceptable?

This question is an attempt to find an abstract answer to every "one word or two?" discussion.



My problem is exemplified by this scenario:
My text editor's spellchecker recently corrected me on my use of "video game" because it felt "videogame" was proper. Searching the Internet, however, led me to feel "video game" was proper, despite there being many credible sources using "videogame". As I'm writing this now, the spellchecker in my browser wants me to use "video game".



Along my search, I found a quote in a forum from a Wired magazine editor saying they always join words whenever possible. That person credited their book, "Wired Style: Principles of English Usage in the Digital Age", for that decision. I thought this was interesting.



It seems it's up to me to decide what form I want to use. How can I make such a decision? What factors should I consider?

phonology - Is the "an" rule applied when a sum of money is in between?











I have recently seen this image:




enter image description here



Should "a" have been used instead of "an" in the "...an $100,000 apartment" part?


Answer



The /ə ~ ən/ rule, like the /ðə ~ ði/ rule, depends completely on the individual sound that follows. What word starts with this sound, or what its meaning or part of speech may be, does not matter at all.



The rules are very simple to state in their entirety:





/ə/ or /ðə/ before Consonants; /ən/ or /ði/ before Vowels




"5" is pronounced /fayv/, and that starts with /f/, which is a Consonant. Therefore use 'a'.



If it were "8" (pronounced /et/) instead, it would start with a Vowel, and one would use 'an'.



Note that this has nothing to do with spelling, and only refers to pronunciation.


Sunday, March 27, 2016

auxiliary verbs - Not your run of the ‘will’ tag question




The following example is from an Italian Quiz book whose aim is to help candidates prepare for English multiple choice tests. In many government run “concorsi” (competitive exams) you might have to answer up to 100 questions in an hour or less. The fact is, you can't afford to spend time figuring out the answer, it's–as I see it–a way of testing someone's fluency without actually doing a speaking test.



So, I'm going through these examples with a private student, who tells me she got question 146 wrong (the answers are at the back of the book)




146 Don't eat all the cherries,…?



A) do you
B) will you
C) shall you
D) don't you





I make the classic mistake of not reading the question properly, and go on auto-pilot mode, the answer, I tell her, is A) because if the verb in the main clause is negative, the auxiliary in the question tag should be positive, e.g.




  • She doesn't like modern jazz, does she? (NB –doesn't she? would be considered a mistake in most English tests)

  • They don't believe in elves, do they?



Similarly, when the verb in the main clause is positive, the auxiliary used in a question tag, is often negative. For example,





  • He writes poetry, doesn't he? (or –does he?)

  • They live in Guatemala, don't they? (or -do they?)



The student then tells me that A) was also the answer she gave but it conflicted with the key. Oops!



I read the complete sentence aloud and my rushed solution sounds all sorts of weird.






  • Don't eat all the cherries, do you?




Technically, it appears to be grammatical a bit like Chomsky's colourless green ideas sleep furiously, albeit a lot less fantastical. The meaning of the sentence is confusing, as it appears the question tag follows the simplified "rule" mentioned above but its meaning is contradictory.



The correct answer, after a few moments of hesitation, is B) I tell my student, which the book confirms.






  • Don't eat all the cherries, will you?




I explain why C) and D) do not work but I falter on A), until I surmise that the question tag -will you? is not really asking the listener to confirm a statement but to comply with the command ‘Don't eat all the cherries,…’ the ‘will you’ is the short version of “Will you do as told/instructed?” It has little or nothing to do with its future meaning, and it sounds passive-aggressive to my ears.



I think I'm right, aren't I?


Answer



A tag after a declarative is checking whether the sentence is true, and that's why you see the same auxiliary used in the sentence. We stress auxiliaries or move them to the front of the sentence when we want to emphatically show a sentence is true or ask whether it is true, respectively. However, a tag after an exclamative is not checking whether something is true. It is checking whether you are going to comply with the imperative, which is why it uses the modal will. The will here is not only about predicting the future it is also about your volition/behaviour/decisions. That's why it can't easily be replaced with a different auxiliary.


word choice - "What I'm looking for is/are [plural noun]"

Which one of these is correct, and if both are correct in certain contexts, which is preferred?






  • What I'm looking for is methods that help...

  • What I'm looking for are the methods that help...




I know this may seem a duplicate of previous questions like Is it “5–6 weeks are a lot of time” or “5–6 weeks is a lot of time”?, but I think this is — not being about collective/mass nouns(?) — a somewhat different question.



(No, I'm not a native speaker of English.)

single word requests - What's an eponymous adjective that is an antonym of Machiavellian?




REVISED QUESTION



Is there an eponymous adjective with equivalent cultural weight and recognition that could be considered an antonym of Machiavellian? I am after the basic idea of an adjective that describes a person who leads or influences others in ways that elicit cooperation and admiration with a Machiavellian person who may use fear as a motivator for desirable outcomes. So, the dichotomy I'm interested in here is **loved leader who elicits cooperation vs. feared leader who wields power in a more ruthless way. The idea is that both people are effective leaders.



In a way, I am interested in the fact that Machiavelli and his eponymous adjective are so poorly understood, but bear such cultural significance and
negative connotation. I wanted to know what the antonym of Machiavellian was from the point of view of people who answer my questions, but also whether the positive eponymous adjectives have similar cultural heft.







Original Question and Addenda




Is there an eponymous adjective, i.e.based on a person's or
literary character's name, that is the opposite of Machiavellian
that refers to a person who behaves unselfishly with good
intention and collaboration in clear, open ways?




Machiavellian is an eponymous adjective used to describe a person or behavior that is underhanded, manipulative, unscrupulous and interested in one's own benefit, despite appearances to the contrary. Merriam Webster has similar definition, provides example sentences and explains the origin of the adjective from Niccolo Machiavelli's name.




I am interested in a word that is not confined to politics, but might be more general. I have consulted lists of eponymous adjectives including this one. I have also searched on EL&U past questions and could not find any that ask or answer my question. I would prefer an adjective with gravitas that conveys a sense of efficacy through open, collaborative, generous behavior. Think of different style of bosses in a small institution or business settings.




Example sentences:



Jesse employs Machiavellian tactics and really fools the team into believing that they have made a group decision for the benefit of all. The team has good success, it's true, but only people with a certain kind of mentality seem to stay.



Alex, on the other hand, displays __________ intention,
honesty and candor in leadership of the team. Most people prefer to work on Alex's team and can point to examples of both team and individual success.





Addendum:



NB: As pointed out in comments, I am using Machiavellian in its contemporary usage. I understand that scholars and many educated people think this is a misrepresentation of Machiavelli.



Addendum 2



While I figure out whether to edit the question to ask for an eponymous adjective that describes behavior that is unselfish, collaborative, open and effective, you have a few choices:





  1. Give eponymous adjectives that make sense to you and are interesting to you. Please post them as answers. All the comments have been good ones.


  2. Continue to educate me on the flaws in my question. Consider me on the way to fuller awareness of my ignorance in relation to the word, Machiavellian, and perhaps a remedy to that.


  3. My emerging understanding is that the main contrast I am after is competitive behavior that is manipulative and hidden vs. collaborative behavior that is more transparently aimed at goals reached by concensus.



Answer



Note, the present nuance of the question is:






Indeed, really the only one I can think of is Churchill, or possibly Gandhi (but Gandhi is just so different, not an "opposite").



I can't really think of any, at all, historical, classical figures who are a trope for "good, decent politics" (which is pretty disappointing!) Maybe Elizabeth 1, and that's a stretch.






Might as well throw in an answer, I'd go with






Obvious, right?



Why is it a good possible choice?



It occurred to me: quite simply, among "negative" eponymous adjectives ... quite simply, the most well-known "negative" eponymous adjective, in the political milieu, is indeed Machiavellian.



So....



among "positive" eponymous adjectives ... quite simply the most well-known "positive" eponymous adjective, in the political milieu, is indeed .... Churchillian.




If you were trying to explain to a 6 year old Machiavellian, you'd really just say ......... "bad". (Subtleties like "scheming", "devilishly clever" etc wouldn't be relevant at the simplest level of definition of Machiavellian.) Similarly for Churchill, plain "good".



So Machiavelli - very basic "bad" trope, Churchill, very basic "good" trope.



On the "good" side, the only other political figures for 5000 years I can think of that are a basic trope of "good" is "Gandi-esque" (but he was just a completely different type of political figure, it doesn't fit), and maybe Good King Wenceslas. (Kind of a damming commentary on 5000 years of leaders!)



(On the evil side you have "Hitler", "Mao", "Stalin" (way to go, 20th century, just lovely) and, really, a broad choice of historical figures :O )






Nicely, Churchill and Machiavelli were the same type of thing ...



They were both "real politicians", both "real operators", both central to Language and writing, both gambled at Monaco, married beautiful Americans, drank Scotch all day, greatest orators, etc - but, nicely, Churchill was a "good" guy (for the six-year old explanation); Machiavelli a "bad" guy (for the six-year old explanation).



Note that, say, "Hitleristic" is not an antonym to "Churchillian" - they're just totally different sorts of things. Churchill was just an ordinary politician, with good and bad speeches; Hitler of course was a despotic madman.



Similarly, for an antonym to "Machiavellian" you wouldn't say "Christ-like" or "Buddha-like" - it's just a whole different thing.



So again - let us say, almost setting aside the very subtle shades of meaning, "Machiavellian" is simply the outright most-used negative ("most infamous") political eponymous adjective; Churchillian is the most-used positive ("most positively famous") political eponymous adjective.




So in many ways it's a good choice - it's the "trope choice" if you will.



Does it pass the sitcom test? Yes; "George is acting rather Churchillian today, Kramer." "More like Machiavellian, Jerry!"


Saturday, March 26, 2016

Adjectives Order




I would like to as about adjectives order.



As I understand there is a rule for adjective order in adj adj noun.



Here is my understanding:
Opinion>Size>Shape>Age>Color>Nationality/Origin>Material>Purpose



I got it for size - purpose adjectives.

But what about opinion?



Does adjective like "hungry", "curious", "playful", "crazy" categorized as opinion?



Sorry if this sounds like very basic question.



Thanks in advance mate!


Answer



Yes, there is a correct word order for adjectives. Hunger is not an opinion. It is a state. A feeling. A sad hungry Man.For grammar purpuses it is an adjective of Quality. Adjectives of quality can be placed after the verbs. The man seemed tired and hungry.




or The tall tired hungry man climbed the massive mountain.
The clever curious cat found a mouse.
That cat is curious. That is a demonstrative adjective followed by noun verb adjective. Just to show you a change in word order.
Normal word order is
opinion, size,physical Quality,shape,age,colour,origin,material,type and purpose.



Your question should be written in the following way.



Do Adjectives .....
not Does Adjectives....

Because you need the plural form
Playful, crazy and curious are adjectives of quality.


sentence ends - Quotations and Exclamation Marks

I am writing an email reply and want to confirm if the punctuation below is correct.



*





In response to your question, if it is available, my answer is “yes!"




*



EDIT: Also, should the exclamation mark be inside the the quotations or after.

etymology - Is there an etymological explanation for the silent ‘g’ in “paradigm”?



Whenever I come across the word paradigm, I have to make a small conscious effort not to pronounce the letter ‘g’.



In Italian, it is spelled paradigma and each letter is individually pronounced i.e. /pa·ra·dìg·ma/. But in English, paradigm is pronounced paradime, which is written phonetically as /ˈparədʌɪm/
(You can hear its pronunciation in this Oxford Dictionary video)



Its etymological roots are Greek; παράδειγμα (parádigma/parádeigma) meaning pattern, model, precedent, example, instance, and from παραδείκνυμι (paradeiknynai) meaning show, present, compare/confront.



However, I could find no explanation as to why the letter ‘g’ is silent nor why the letter ‘a’ was dropped.




I know in English there are many, many words that have silent letters. For example, the silent ‘e’ in minute, mouse, goose, have, etc. is a vestige of Old and Early Middle English when the suffix denoted whether a word was a noun or an adjective, singular or plural, or if it was the subject of a sentence or an object. The ‘h’ was pronounced in the middle of a word in Old English and its spelling changed to ‘gh’ in Middle English when it was preceded by a vowel. Eventually, the ‘h’ sound was dropped but its peculiar spelling still persists in words such as night, sight and thought.



If we look at the etymology of the term phlegm (which also ends with ‘gm’) we find




“Middle English fleem, fleume, from Old French fleume, from late Latin phlegma ‘clammy moisture (of the body)’, from Greek phlegma ‘inflammation’, from phlegein ‘to burn’. The spelling change in the 16th century was due to association with the Latin and Greek.”




Was there a similar change in spelling for paradigm? I didn't find anything. And why the /ʌɪ/ sound and not /ɪ/?




Other words of Greek origin such as gnomon, gnostic, and gnosis the ‘g’ is silent but in prognosis, the ‘g’ is instead pronounced.



Similarly, the letter ‘g’ in paradigmatic is pronounced
/parədɪɡˈmatɪk/ or /ˌpær.ə.dɪɡˈmæt.ɪk/ (BrEng) and /ˌper.ə.dɪɡˈmæt̬-/ (AmEng). Phonetic transcriptions courtesy of Cambridge Dictionary
(I don’t understand what happened to the missing k symbol in the American transcription but you can definitely hear it in the audio.)




  • Why was the last letter ‘a’ in the Greek word parádeigma omitted in English?

  • Why is the letter ‘g’ in paradigm (paradime) silent but not in paradigmatic?




Sources
Why is "night" spelled with "gh"?
Silent "e" at the end of words
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Old_English/Nouns


Answer



With paradigm and paradigmatic, just as with phlegm and phlegmatic, English only allows that g to be sounded when you can split a syllable. (The unassimilated version with a final ‑a technically does still exist, but the OED calls it “rare”.)



This is all because the phonotactics of English (the rules for how one can arrange its phonemes) do not permit a /g/ followed by a nasal at the end the word. You see the same thing occurring with diaphragm, or for that matter with the simpler phlegm, about which the OED writes that:




The g has probably never been pronounced except in disyllabic forms in ‑a.





Indeed, this same thing happens with all the words with a g and a nasal at their end, including
align,
apophthegm/apothegm,
arraign,
assign,
benign,
campaign,
consign,
deign,

design,
diaphragm,
ensign,
feign,
foreign,
hypodigm,
malign,
phlegm,
reign,
resign,

sign,
sovereign,
syntagm
.



None of those is pronounced with a /g/, and probably never has been in English. At most they once had a /ɲ/ sound there way back when they ended with an unstressed vowel that we no longer write, all thanks to French.



When these words came into English, standard spelling did not yet exist. Many passed through French, where they were written with a final ‑e, or were modelled after words that were. French for example has paradigme, diaphragme. And words with a final unstressed ‑e like those came to be written without it once it stopped being said, at which point there was no chance to put the /g/ in one syllable and the nasal is the next.



You might as well ask why the g is “silent” in the Italian city of Bologna, pronounced of course with a geminated or “long” /ɲ/ in Italian or as /nj/ in English. In Italian, just as in French, the wheels of time have ground it down so that the ‹gn› spelling is now a digraph (a two-letter combo) representing /ɲ/, not as two separate letters each with their own sound.




Notice how that same thing happens with the French region of Bourgogne (Burgundy in English). Even when it’s spelled Borgogna in Italian, nobody “says” that g in French or Italian. It’s got a /ɲ/ phoneme there, which is why the Spanish sensibly spell it Borgoña to avoid confusing people.



We tend to keep the written ‹g› in English words like this, even though we “can’t” say it there at the end of the word right before that final nasal. This helps us understand the shared relationship with longer words like paradigmatic that have a vowel after the nasal, which allows the /g/ to “reappear”. But we probably no more ever said it in paradigm(e) than we ever said it in phlegm. Our phonotactic rules forbid it.



This likely also explains why apophthegm from Greek ἀπόϕθεγμα is more often spelled apothegm these days. We can’t say a lot of those letters, so we’ve given up writing them.



In comments, someone asked why aligning doesn’t cause the /g/ to “reappear” in split syllables as it seems to with paradigmatic (cf. French paradigmatique). The answer is that ‑ing is an English verbal inflection not a Classical or Romance one, but align the verb came to us from Middle French alinher, now¹ spelled aligner in Modern French. That means ther was never a /g/ phoneme for anyone there historically the way there was in the Greek παραδειγματικός. Part of the real, spoken language, our ‑ing verbal inflection in English is 100% regular with zero exceptions, so it cannot produce something out of nothing.



In comments, the asker further inquired as to whether the word went through a bunch of different spellings historically the way phlegm did, and why the last syllable has a diphthong:





“Middle English fleem, fleume, from Old French fleume, from late Latin phlegma ‘clammy moisture (of the body)’, from Greek phlegma ‘inflammation’, from phlegein ‘to burn’. The spelling change in the 16th century was due to association with the Latin and Greek.” was there a similar change in spelling for paradigm? I didn't find anything. And why the /ʌɪ/ sound and not /ɪ/?




The answer to these questions is that paradigm didn’t show up in English until hundreds of years after the word we now spell as phlegm did. For paradigm, the first actual English citation (rather than Latin) is from 1493 in Caxton, written paradygmes and translating French.



And the reason it’s today pronounced [ˈpæɹədʌɪm] or [ˈpeɹəˌdɑɪm] with a diphthong in the last syllable is because the Great Vowel Shift² notoriously changed the “long” i sound /iː/ into a diphthong. English spelling was more or less frozen before the GVS, which explains a great deal of confusion compared with the standard Latin values for vowels that everyone else but us uses.







Footnotes




  1. Because the ‹nh› and ‹gn› digraphs represent the same /ɲ/ phoneme under different orthographic traditions. Old Occitan / Provençal, being langues d’oc, used ‹nh› for it, as does Catalan which is also in that group. The Galician–Portuguese language deliberately broke from Castilian orthographic habits and instead adopted ‹nh› during the early 1300s thanks to the famous poet Dinis I, king of Portugal and the Algarve, because of the prestige position which the troubadours’ tongue held in that age. In contrast, the “langues d’oïl” branches of French, of which Modern French is a descendant, used the ‹gn› digraph just like Modern Italian does for this /ɲ/ sound. Castilian and Asturian use ‹ñ› (earlier ‹nn›) for the same /ɲ/ sound in those languages as the ‹nh› and ‹gn› digraphs do in theirs. Uncountably many research papers and scholarly tomes have been written about the origin of the palatalized nasal [ɲ] and lingual [ʎ] sounds during the transition from Latin to Modern Romance, no matter the spelling.


  2. The GVS was a chain shift that reassigned new sounds to all the long vowels in English in a bizarre way that all other users of the Latin alphabet forevermore hate us for. :)



Friday, March 25, 2016

grammaticality - Future tense in conditional clauses




All the textbooks I have ever come across during the course of my studying English emphasize that future tense should not be used in conditional clauses.



For example,




If it rains in the evening, we will not go for a walk. (if it will rain in the evening...)



We decided to go for a walk if it didn't rain in the evening. (...if it wouldn't rain in the evening)





However, in the following sentence I'm really inclined to use the future tense.




Don't implement this feature if it will significantly increase the complexity of the user interface.




According to all the rules I know of, the future tense is illegal here. However, my gut feeling tells me that the sentence is correct. If I am wrong, the question ends here. Otherwise please read on. I find the last example different from my first two because:




  • In the first examples we must wait and see if the condition is true, and then make a decision accordingly, whereas in the last example, we must actually analyze/predict/forecast the future in order to make the decision in the present.


  • (might be irrelevant) In my first language - Armenian - where we have a special mood for conditions, the translation of the third sentence actually uses indicative, whereas the first two use that special mood (the conditional mood, as it were).



Since the second would-be principle is easier for me to experiment with, I noticed that every time a condition uses the indicative mood in my language, I'm inclined to use the future tense in English. As another example:




I will give you the money if it will make you happier.




Am I imagining things or are my examples of the future tense in the conditional clause valid? If they are valid, what rule would you suggest to distinguish the cases when it's OK? (I do realize that translating a sentence to another language and analyzing the translation doesn't really count as a rule).



Answer



I think the difference between the two types of examples that you've exhibited is the relative placement in time of the action in the "if" clause, and the action in the other clause.




  • If it rains in the evening, we won't go for a walk - here, the event of raining occurs BEFORE the decision about whether to go for a walk.

  • My teeth will rot if I eat too much sugar - presumably, I'll be eating the sugar BEFORE my teeth rot.

  • If it will significantly increase complexity, don't implement this feature - here, the increasing of complexity occurs AFTER the implementation of the feature.

  • I will give you money if it will make you happier - here, you becoming happier occurs AFTER I give you the money.




In all the cases where the "if" part happens first chronologically, we use the present tense. In the cases where the "if" part happens second, we use the future tense. However, because sentences of the first type are far more common than sentences in the second type, a good rule for learners to adopt is "don't use the future tense with IF".


possessives - When a name finishes in "s" can you say Jaume Casals's biography?

Is this sentence correct?



Here you can find Jaume Casals's biography.



I think the final " 's " is unnecessary, but I am not 100% sure. Could anyone help?



Thanks.

possessives - "Me and Joey's" or "mine and Joey's"

Which of the following should I use?




Today is me and Joey's anniversary
Today is mine and Joey's anniversary


hyphenation - Hyphens within decades

Should there be a hyphen in the sentence, early '80s or should it be written without the hyphen between early and '80s?

questions - "Which" vs. "what" — what's the difference and when should you use one or the other?



Most of the time one or the other feels better, but every so often, "which" vs. "what" trips me up.



So, what's the exact difference and when should you use one or the other?


Answer



"Which" is more formal when asking a question that requires a choice between a number of items. You can use "What" if you want, though.



Generally speaking, you can replace the usage of "which" with "what" and be OK grammatically. It doesn't always work the other way around, however. There needs to be a context of choice. For example:





Which/What flavor of ice cream do you want?




  • Either is fine, but "which" is better.



Which/What do you want for dessert?





  • "Which" only works in the context of being presented with choices (e.g. a dessert cart right in front of you).



grammaticality - Apostrophe for words ending with the letter S











I always had this difficulty understanding how to depict possessive nature for words ending with s.



For example: Is it correct to say, "James's heart is made of gold"? Or is there any other way to use apostrophes with words ending with S?


Answer



This is up to the writer's style, there are two options:




1) James's heart is made of gold.
2) James' heart is made of gold.



@jsegal the link you posted actually confirms this:




NOTE: Although names ending in s or an
s sound are not required to have the
second s added in possessive form, it

is preferred.



Thursday, March 24, 2016

meaning - "Lemons are fruits which are sour" vs "A lemon is a fruit which is sour"


  1. Lemons are fruits which are sour.

  2. A lemon is a fruit which is sour.




Are these two sentences interchangeable? To me the first sentence looks awkward.
If there is any difference between the two then please explain it.

grammaticality - Is "as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are the current one" correct grammar?

Please consider the question below from the GMAT verbal part. I do understand why the phrase "as ... as" is correct. Yet the use of "they are" at the very end seems odd to me.






  1. Book Question: 702




Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as the current one.




A. equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as



B. equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are




C. equally likely that they will exceed the proposed speed limit as



D. as likely that they will exceed the proposed speed limit as



E. as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are



Explanation



B This also offers a nonidiomatic form of comparison.




C The comparison is expressed nonidiomatically. Also, the drivers will be equally likely should be followed by to exceed rather than by that they will exceed. The resulting sentence is wordy and structurally flawed.



D The resulting sentence is wordy and structurally flawed. The idiomatic phrase as x as y is somewhat in use, but as likely that they is awkward, and the comparison is unclear and not parallel.



E Correct. The idiomatic phrase as x as y is properly used, and the comparison is clear and parallel.




Is "Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are the current one" really grammatical?

grammar - Must I use "their" or "them" in the following instance

Which of the following is correct?



In the case of "their" being granted a bond the deal will go through.



or:



In the case of "them" being granted a bond the deal will go through.

Can someone please tell the Usage of "its" in the following is correct?

Here is a quote from "Ever Wonder Why / the color red angers a bull? " (page 20).





It has been suggested that this reaction to red (my note: of bull which is color-blind to a shaking cape in red) may be due to its being the color of blood.




My question : the above "its" should be "it"?

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

grammar - Dependent clause and use of subordinate conjunction

A subordinate clause—also called a dependent clause—will begin with a subordinate conjunction or a relative pronoun and will contain both a subject and a verb. This combination of words will not form a complete sentence. It will instead make a reader want additional information to finish the thought. (From a grammar website).



Are there any instances which contradict a dependent clause beginning with a subordinate conjunction or relative pronoun as written above.



He arrived late for work again, not that it mattered. (for example).

grammar - Definite and indefinite articles when introducing a person

No article is used when introducing a person.



This ended terribly for Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi; eight years after giving up his nuclear program, the US intervened against him in the Libyan civil war.



A definite article is used when introducing a person.



Thomas Homan, the acting director for ICE, said the first instance is if parents could not prove family ties to the minor.



An indefinite article is used when introducing a person.




Also running in the primary are labor organizer Valerie Ervin, state Sen. Richard S. Madaleno, tech entrepreneur Alec Ross, lawyer Jim Shea and Krish Vignarajah, a former policy director for Michelle Obama.



Does the article difference depend on the sentence structure? Or is there a rule that dictates when to use a definite or indefinite article when introducing a person in writing.



Thank you in advance.

grammar - Question mark or period at the end of "What is your favorite song, and explain why"

Which would be correct?





What is your favorite song, and explain why? (I'm thinking this is right.)
What is your favorite
song, and explain why.




This could be written as, "What is your favorite song? Explain why." But that seems kind of clunky. Looking at similar questions on this site I see that maybe there isn't a great answer to this (or maybe that this question is more straight forward than what I was looking at). I dislike the Chicago Manual of Style format, so ideally one of the two choices above would be correct.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

tenses - "that one consider" or "that one considers"?

I have a question to ask regarding this quote.




In the formation of a marketing strategy, it is imperative that one considers the marketing mix, also known as the 4Ps – product, price, place, and promotion.




Should there be an 's' after consider?



Am I correct in saying that in a sentence like the one below, an 's' should follow the word consider?





It is imperative that the girl considers the marketing mix.




I seem to have seen similar sentences constructed both with and without the 's' after the verb before, e.g.




It is imperative that the girl go to school.



It is imperative that the girl goes to school.





Does this have anything to do with plurals and singulars, or with tenses?



Wow, this seems to be an awfully basic question but for some reason I just don't quite remember what should be done here.



(NOTE: The OP's question involves the mandative construction, one which might involve a subordinate subjunctive clause. -- F.E.)

Monday, March 21, 2016

verbs - Have written and wrote. They mean the same thing?




I have written a letter.

I wrote a letter.



Do they mean the same thing or there is a difference?



If there is a difference then where should I use "have written" and "wrote"? (I'm also talking about every other verbs)


Answer



The tense and aspect are different. "Have written" is present perfect, whereas "wrote" is simple past. This website explains it pretty well.




Present Perfect refers to completed actions which endure to the present or whose effects are still relevant.




Use the past tense to indicate past events, prior conditions, or completed processes.




In these examples, you could say #1 and #3 whereas #2 and #4 are incorrect.




  1. I have written a letter. Would you like to review it?

  2. I wrote a letter. Would you like to review it?


  3. I wrote a letter yesterday.



  4. I have written a letter yesterday.


How to ask a question to get an ordinal number answer





Possible Duplicates:
How to phrase an asking sentence that must be answered with an ordinal number?
Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number






Given that I want to know Barack Obama is the 44th President of U.S.A, how can I frame a question like:





The how manyeth president is Barack Obama?



Answer



I'd go with the following structure:




Q: Where does Obama fall in the sequence of US presidents?



A: [He's the] 44th [president].





This reflects similar usage when discussing, for instance, rankings:




Q: Where did Harvard fall on the U.S. News & World Report list this
year?



A: 2nd.



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



Which of the following two sentences is correct?





He must decide who to be.



He must decide whom to be.




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



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




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


Answer



The Wikipedia link about the accusative case explains that




Modern English, which almost entirely lacks declension in its nouns,
does not have an explicitly marked accusative case even in the
pronouns. Such forms as whom, them, and her derive rather from the old
Germanic dative forms, of which the -m and -r endings are

characteristic.




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



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




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





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



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




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





in the same way as:




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



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




We don't ask,





*Whom is he? or *Who is him?



*Whom am I? or *Who am me?




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



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


Sunday, March 20, 2016

grammatical number - Pumpkin Noodles is a thing or are a thing?

Which of the following is correct?



How come pumpkin noodles is not a thing?



or




How come pumpkin noodles are not a thing?



I want to post one of the above statements to Twitter with a picture of a bowl of pumpkin noodles i.e. the stuff that comes out of a hollowed out pumpkin.

backshifting - Reported speech: unnecessary past tense?



The following is an excerpt from a textbook in Korea. I'm wondering if this is an unnecessary past tense for the reported speech--or possibly wrong.




When I moved to Korea, one of the first things my coworker taught me

was how to say my address. I didn't understand why it was so
important. They explained that I'd often give it over the phone when I
ordered things to be delivered
.




Is the past tense necessary at all? Ordering food over the phone is not a one-time event and there is all likelihood that the writer will order more food in the future--not to mention that I'd never explain it like that. (I'd just say "You'll need it when you order food.)



What do you guys think?


Answer






  • They explained [that I would often give it over the phone when I ordered things to be delivered].




Let's imagine this, that last week your coworker(s) said something like this to you:




  • "Because you will often give it over the phone when you order things to be delivered."




Now you are reporting to us (the readers) what had been said. There are two common choices:




  1. They explained [that I will often give it over the phone when I order things to be delivered].


  2. They explained [that I would often give it over the phone when I ordered things to be delivered].




In #1, the reported indirect speech has not been backshifted; while in #2 (which is the same as your original example), the reported indirect speech has been backshifted. (Note: backshifting involves replacing a present-tense verb with a preterite, which is a past-tense verb.)




Without any surrounding context--that is, just looking at those two versions alone on a white sheet of paper--both versions would seem to be grammatical. I'd think that the #2 version with the backshift would be the default, and there would have to be a specific reason why the speaker would intentionally use the #1 version (the non-backshifted version).



Backshifting in a subordinate clause can occur when either one of the following conditions is true:




  • A.) The tense of the matrix clause is a type of past-tense.


  • B.) The time of the matrix clause situation is in the past time sphere.




In your case, both of those conditions are true--the matrix clause is "They explained X", and it uses the preterite "explained" and it is about a situation that occurred in the past. And so, backshifting can occur.




In general, depending on the purpose of the sentence, there can be a preference for either the non-backshifted version or for the backshifted version. Sometimes the non-backshifted version might be considered to be "much more widely appropriate" than the backshifted version. Sometimes the backshifted version is obligatory.



For more info on backshifting, here is a related post, which also includes pointers to other related posts:




grammar - What is the grammatical subject in these phrases: "what is there to eat?" and "who is at the door"

If I say "there's something to eat, most analyses I have seen seem to imply that the pronoun "there" is the grammatical subject in similar existential sentences (but not all sentences with "there + be", What's the subject of "There is my biscuit!" ? And how about "There is one biscuit left"? is an interesting discussion of this). I also understand that "what"and "who"are the grammatical subject when used to begin questions and that sentences can't have two subjects (compound subjects not being the same thing).



Can someone please explain what I'm missing here?

Is it natural to answer a yes-no question with just yes/no?

Given a yes-no question such as:




Did you call him?





Is it idiomatic to simply answer:




Yes. / No.




As opposed to:





Yes, I did. / No, I didn't.




or just:




I did. / I didn't.




I've noticed that in some languages simply answering yes or no seems to be the common unmarked way of answering (e.g. Spanish), but not in others (e.g. Portuguese).

grammatical number - What is the correct plural form of the word "forum"?




"Fora vs Forums"



I understand that the word "forums" is more acceptable than "fora" because anyone can understand its meaning today and that English is a living language so it's adapting, but except for what opinion each of us have for it, the real question is: What is the correct form to use?



Two points to consider about it:




  1. Why the plural form of this Latin word should be excluded? I.e. why "data" instead of "datums", "bacteria" instead of "bacteriums", "alumni" instead of "alumnuses", "media" instead of "mediums" and so on?


  2. Why people use the plural form when they usually mean their singular one? The word "fora" refers to several places for discussion but usually the people name their web board as "forums", even if they mean just one.




Answer



This lack of respect for the language of origin not a phenomenon unique to English. When a word is borrowed into one language from another, unexpected things can happen.



I would argue that, for many examples you've given in your question, the actual perception of a singular-plural relationship is messy in practice, and the application of the plural is inconsistent.



Data: Using data as a collective noun with singular agreement is more common than using it with plural agreement. More in another thread from this site.



Alumni: I have heard as many people also use alumni for the singular, or even alum, as I have heard use alumnus for the singular. I imagine my experience with this word is typical (at least in the US), though certainly not universal. In any case, it is messy.



Media: The words media and medium don't even seem to correspond in any meaningful way in actual English usage. The word media has forked off and become a different word entirely. The word media is clearly used as a collective singular noun, as shown in newer constructions like multimedia (not multimedium even though we don't say multistages, multicores, multicycles, multistories, etc.). You will find few people who will ever say "Mass Medium". We talk about someone having "media savvy" even though we wouldn't say "computers savvy" (even though they can work with more than one computer). This is because, in English, these sorts of constructions always use the singular noun, whether it is collective or not. The way that media is used is evidence of how the word is actually parsed, perceived, and used by English speakers.




Another example of how foreign language morphology often doesn't mesh well: people try to pluralize octopus and virus as octopi and viri/virii, respectively. Virus was a mass noun in Latin, where we got the word. The word octopus comes from Greek and would take the plural form octopodes in Greek.



My main point is this: there is only a weak, inconsistent application of this -us to -a or -us to -i to begin with. So forums (like statuses and others) is a word even though we also sometimes have this other rule. Our language seems to continually push us towards either dropping the foreign pluralization in some way or another, or reanalyzing the plural as another distinct word. So I see this confusion as the language trying to mash these words around to make them fit our language naturally.



If we hadn't become so darn literate and knowledgeable in the past few centuries, I imagine these plurals would have regularized by now :)


Saturday, March 19, 2016

"Do this" or "Will this" in questions



I have a question sentence:



"Will this set of vectors form an orthogonal basis for the system?".




Is it ok to start with "Will this" or "Do this" is more appropriate?


Answer



You should prefer Does this... ?. (Not Do this... ?.)



In general, Math is about things that are eternally true. It exists outside of time. We use the present simple for talking about such things.



There are circumstances when will is more appropriate. For instance:





If I use this method described to obtain a set of vectors, will it form an orthogonal basis?




But these are exceptional.


grammatical number - What is the correct way to pluralize an initialism in which the final word is not pluralized by adding the letter "s"?

In computer science we discuss an abstract machine called a "deterministic finite automaton". The standard initialism for this term is "DFA". This makes sense in the singular usage of the initialism.




However, the pluralization of the word "automaton" is "automata". One speaks of "an automaton" or "many automata". Consequently, it seems intuitive to form an initialism of the phrase "deterministic finite automata" as "DFA".



This does not seem correct, as "DFA" could be either plural or singular. On the other hand, "DFAs" also does not seem correct because it would seem to expand to "deterministic finite automatons", a phrase which no self-respecting computer scientist would ever utter.



This appears to be a duplicate of the question here
What is the plural of the abbreviation of "multiplicity automaton", "MA" or "MAs"?



But that question was never clearly resolved. What to do?

prepositions - Are these PPs or non-finite clauses – or something else entirely?



I'm wondering about the construction for [NP] to [VP], as illustrated in the following examples:



(1) I waited for you to come here



(2) He arranged for me to go there




(3) For him to do that took courage



(4) For you to apologise is not enough



My questions are:




  • what is this construction from a formal point of view? I can't see how for can be anything other than a preposition, which would suggest that it is a PP – but prepositions can't take infinitive clauses as complements, can they?

  • if it's not a PP, but rather a non-finite clause, then what function does for have in the clause, and what is for from a formal point of view?

  • are we dealing with the same formal construction in all four examples?


  • what are the functions of the relevant construction in (1) and (2)?


Answer



CGEL would say that all four of your boldfaced phrases are to-infinitivals with an overt subject. For CGEL, the for is not a preposition there, but a 'subordinator'.



On p. 1177 of CGEL, we find the following:




[16]  i  I wanted to arrange for Kim to do it.




In [i] we have a chain of three verbs, with for Kim to do it complement of arrange and to arrange for Kim to do it complement of want. We apply the term 'catenative' both to the non-finite complement and to the verb in the matrix clause that licenses it, so that want and arrange here belong to the class of catenative verbs. The last verb in the chain, do, is not a catenative verb as it does not have a non-finite complement.




A bit later on, CGEL explains that



for Kim to do it



is a to-infinitival with an overt subject. According to CGEL (p. 1178),





To-infinitivals containing a subject are always introduced by the subordinator for:



[20]  i  [For them to withdraw now] would be a mistake.                                           [subject]
         ii  It's not necessary [for them to wait any longer].                        [extraposed subject]
        iii  The best plan would be [for them to go alone].                              [predicative comp]
        iv  I can think of no solution except [for them to sack him].        [comp of preposition]



antonyms - Why is the opposite of "greater than" "less than"?



I am confused on why these naming conventions are the way they are. The symbols > and < are usually written as "greater than" and "less than".



The opposite of "less" is "more", isn't it? Though those words describe quantities only, which might not be desired if you're talking about a measure of size instead.



So, sticking with "greater than", shouldn't the opposite be called "smaller than"?



Answer



One possible reason that mathematics might have come to use greater than and less than as opposed to (say) larger than and smaller than might be that they were more natural translations from Latin.



Mathematics was largely done in Latin until the 17th century. The Latin terms were majorem quam and minorem quam, as can be seen by the first definition of the > and < signs in Artis Analyticae Praxis ad Aequationes Algebraicas Resolvendas by Thomas Harriot (see Wikipedia):




"Signum majoritatis ut a > b significet a majorem quam b" and "Signum minoritatis ut a < b significet a minorem quam b."




Major is the comparative form of magnus, which I assume was generally translated as great, since its range of meanings is much broader than large. (E.g., Charlemagne was called Carolus Magnus, or Charles the Great. Charles the Large wouldn't have meant the same thing at all.) Thus, major would naturally be translated as greater.




Minor is the comparative form of parvus, which again has a much broader meaning than small (small, cheap, ignorable, unimportant).
The natural opposite of greater in English that is compatible with this broader meaning would be less or lesser.


Friday, March 18, 2016

grammatical number - What is the correct preposition after “rights”?

This question came up for me within the context of intellectual property rights in a film grant competition.



When “right” is singular, the correct preposition is “to,” such as in the right to free speech.




When “rights” is plural, it’s less clear to me.



Of the following examples, which is correct? If both are technically correct, do they have slightly different meanings?




Who would retain the intellectual property rights to the work?




or





Who would retain the intellectual property rights for the work?




As a bonus, I am almost certain the below is not correct under any circumstance, but will place it here for good measure, in case I’m wrong:




Who would retain the intellectual property rights on the work?


nouns - Is the word 'group' singular or plural in sentence: "My group of tenth-graders is/are so well behaved?"

I have read similar questions on this forum and as per best of my knowledge it should be considered plural because it's referring to every student of class.



I read this sentence in my grammar book: "My group of tenth-graders is so well behaved?"



But my instincts says the word "is" should not be used. I'm confused now. Please confirm whether I'm right or wrong.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Definite Article with Prepositional Phrases



I am trying to learn how to correctly use articles in English. It is a bit hard for me since I do not have this concept in my native language.




I am confused by two rules: the first rule is to use "a" whenever you introduce things, while the second one is to use "the" with prepositional phrases. I am wondering how I can identify when a prepositional phrase makes a noun definite.



For instance, which article shall I use in the next sentence?




I am working on a(the) Web application to assess (the) current performance of traffic companies.



I came up with a(the) solution that was based on my previous experience to solve our current problem.





On one hand, I mention the Web application for the first time. On the other hand, you know what Web application I am talking about (to assess the current performance of traffic companies).



Thanks in advance!


Answer



In contexts like these, use "a". Even if the hearer is familiar with the particular app, they don't know that that is the subject of the conversation until you introduce it.



The only time you might use "the" here is if a collection of which the app is a part has already been introduced in the conversation; eg





My boss let me choose which parts of our new software suite to contribute to. I'm working on the Web application to assess the current performance of traffic companies.




In that context "a" and "the" would both be possible, with "the" suggesting that the hearer already knows something about what is in the software suite, and "a" suggesting that they don't.



I'm not sure what your rule is about 'to use "the" with prepositional phrases': I don't recognise that as a rule of English at all.


usage - When using "an" before a vowel sounds wrong












Consider the following sentence:
"This is a one-time deal" sounds right
"This is an one-time deal" sounds wrong



"One" is pronounced the same as "won", which wouldn't require an "an".



Is it proper/required to use the 'an' before a vowel rule when it just sounds wrong?


Answer



There is no rule that says you must use an before a vowel, only before a word that begins with a vowel sound and takes the indefinite article. University begins with a vowel but not a vowel sound, so it's always a university. The same is true for a one-time deal.


Wednesday, March 16, 2016

adverbs - Can a preposition have the form of superlative?




They had almost reached the door when a voice spoke from the chair
nearest them, "I can't believe you're going to do this.”





I guess nearest is at the place of preposition. Can a preposition have the form of superlative?


Answer



Near is a bit of an unusual 'frozen' word. It was originally the comparative form of nigh (from OE nior). The terms nearer and nearest came later as speakers reinterpreted near as a positive form.



In addition near is rather vague with respect to its word class. The OED Online at near, adv.2 (and prep.2) notes the "difficulty of distinguishing the adjectival, adverbial, and prepositional or quasi-prepositional uses" of the word.



Regarding the comparative and superlative "prepositional" uses, the OED (ibid.) says:





When the noun or noun phrase is the direct complement of near , this
acquires practically the force of a preposition, but differs from true
prepositions in having comparative and superlative forms
.




...(emphasis mine) which is exactly the case here. In short, it looks like a preposition, but it's a sneaky adverb.







Also, at least in etymological origin, the to in "near/-er/-est to them" was actually a later addition to the idiom from Middle English, so it's not well-motivated to regard "near them" as a to-deletion as opposed to retention of an earlier form.




Old Icelandic nær (like Old English nēar ) might be used either alone
or with a noun complement in the dative case. Both usages were adopted
in Middle English, and a further construction introduced by the use
of to before the noun
.



Pronoun question: referring to inanimate objects as 'he' or 'she'



I read the following claim concerning pronouns referring to inanimate objects:





Anything that is meant to contain you, protect you or provide you with something beneficial is [often referred to as] a she; anything that is a perceived threat is a he. That's why cars, boats and some countries are she.





  • Is this really the case, or is it just a subjective claim? (According to the Chicago Manual of Style using he/she for inanimate objects is not recommended and it should be used instead.)

  • Is there a 'rule' for determining whether to use he, she or it based on the impression one would like to express? (I only know the 'rule' for animals: In the case where you know their gender and they are important to you, you refer to them using he/she. E.g. A dog attacked me in the street. It bit me. versus This is my dog Roger. He is 7 years old.)

  • Have these practices changed over time?




Note 1: There is already a similar question (Referring to objects as "she"), but that considers only the feminine case and none of the answers offers an objective discussion of the matter.



Note 2: My native language is Czech, where the gender of the pronoun is based only on the grammatical gender of the noun. E.g. a cat (kočka) is always she, a dog (pes) is always he, a boat (loď) is always she and a car (auto) is always it.


Answer



A few views from usage guides:



From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1994):





A few commentators take note of the conventional usage in which she
and her are used to refer to certain things as if
personified--nations, ships, mechanical devices, nature, and so forth.
The origin of the practice is obscure. The OED has evidence from the
14th and 15th centuries... The conventions are still observed:
[quotations from 1980s and 1970s sources referring to the four aforementioned categories]




The discussion goes on to note that some people object to the usage as sexist, but that it is not generally seen as a major issue compared to other problems of sexism in writing. The general recommendation is to err on the side of avoiding the usage.




The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) takes on the issue more directly:




Some purists object to the use of feminine personal pronouns to refer
to inanimate things--boats, cars, nations, universities, Mother
Nature, the wind and weather, and the like. Some of these uses are
jocular; others are long-established conventions. In Formal language,
all but the most conventional of such uses (the college as she
reflects alma mater) are replaced by the neuter pronoun it, but at
all Conversational levels and in Informal writing, most people find no

problem with an inanimate referent for "She's a beauty!"




Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd ed., 2004) brings up masculine as well as feminine personification. It begins by noting the demise of the Old English distinctions between masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns, concluding that eventually he and she came to mean only male/female persons or animals. However:




At the point of loss of grammatical gender, however, he began to be
applied "illogically" to some things personified as masculine
(mountains, rivers, oak-trees, etc. as the OED has it), and she to
some things personified as feminine (ships, boats, carriages,

utensils, etc.). For example, the OED cites examples of he used
of the world (14c.), the philosopher's stone (14c.), a fire (15c.), an
argument (15c.), the sun (16c.), etc.; and examples of she used of a
ship (14c.), a door (14c.), a fire (16c.), a cannon (17c.), a kettle
(19c.), and so on. At the present time such personification is
comparatively rare, but examples can still be found....




This concludes with recent examples referring to countries and yachts.




In my personal experience, it seems like this usage is no longer common except in three contexts:




  1. She is occasionally used in formal and deliberately archaic oratorical references to abstract large entities, like countries, universities (and other abstract corporate bodies, like "the [Christian] Church"), weather/nature, etc. Many of these are traditionally associated with feminine gender and specifically mothers ("Mother country," alma mater, "Mother Church," "Mother Nature," etc.). She is also used for ships in this manner, but again the usage is old-fashioned. The only time I think I've ever heard he used was in a formal speech when referencing an element of nature after already making an allusion to a masculine Greek god associated with that element of nature -- in other words, a deliberate and explicit personification. People don't generally talk like that anymore, though, even in formal orations. I suppose we could include other personifications in English in this category, such as Death, who is often personified as a (masculine) "grim reaper" figure. It would thus be possible to say, "He [Death] comes for me," but this would generally be archaic usage today.


  2. She sometimes occurs as very casual and informal affectionate references to a personal possession, particularly yachts and cars (and occasionally other machines) owned by men. Other property that is given a name by its owner may be referred to using the gender of the name, but even when people name their stuff, they often still say it.


  3. It seems that some people have a tendency to casually assign gender to an animal of unknown or indeterminate sex and often just say he rather than it (which I think follows the pattern of the virus mentioned in another answer), particularly when ascribing agency or action to the animal. Again, this is mostly in informal speech situations and isn't technically referring to an "inanimate" object.




In general, I'd say to avoid these uses since they tend to be rare in contemporary English. Don't use (1) unless you want to sound very old-fashioned. And reserve (2) for if you're a man at a motor/boat club meeting admiring a car/boat and saying, "Gee, well, ain't she a real beaut'!"


grammar - How do you make the possessive form with "He and I"-style subjects?

Despite being a native speaker of American English, I cannot find a construction that sounds natural when trying to form a possessive from coordinated subjects including a first person pronoun, like "He and I" or "My brother and I." If it's "You and I," I can just use "our." But what is the proper way to form a possessive in these other instances?




The cat which belongs to my brother and me ran away.




  • ? My brother and I's cat ran away.

  • * My brother's and my cat ran away.

  • */? Me and my brother's cat ran away.





Oddly enough, the one which sounds the most natural to me (and which I hear most often in natural speech, is the last: "me and my brother's." My hypothesis is that this is used to avoid the issue with the first-person possessive form, but that could very well be wrong.



However, I'm not sure this is the best answer, either, as it introduces some pretty bad ambiguity in some places.




A person who is a friend to both my brother and me got married yesterday.





  • */? Me and my brother's friend got married yesterday.




I think you can see the obvious problem.



What is the proper way to possessivize coordinated first-/third-person subjects?



Edit: I would much prefer an answer which does not require rephrasing the entire sentence.

word choice - When should we use "and" and/or "and/or"?



What's the difference between "and" and "and/or"?



How do we decide whether to use one or the other?



Note: Also it would be great if someone could explain how do we actually pronounce "and/or" verbally in a sentence...


Answer



Breaking this down:





  • and/or is as official as English gets in the sense that you can use it in extremely formal contexts. There is typically a better way to say whatever is being said but it does convey a specific meaning.


  • You should use and/or when both options are applicable in its place. "I would like cake and/or pie" means "I would like one or both of the following: cake; pie."


  • The main reason for using and/or is to remove the ambiguity of whether and means "only both" and whether or means "only one." And/or explicitly means "it could be one of these or both of these."


  • The confusion is drastically exacerbated by mathematicians, logicians and/or computer scientists who are very familiar with the differences between the logical operators AND, OR, and XOR. Namely, or in English can be either OR or XOR; and/or can only mean OR. As you may have noticed, all of the terms look similar which leads to the confusion in parsing sentences like your title.








EDIT: To strictly answer the question, you should use A and B when you explicitly mean both A and B, and you should use A and/or B when you mean A or B (or both).






In response to a request for pronunciation, I typically treat the / as a hyphen and simply say "and or". This is not always standard for the / symbol, however, and other words or phrases with a / may be different.


grammar - Prepositions at the end of sentence and whom




I believe it's okay to end a sentence with a preposition. That seems to be the consensus here as well.



Now I think that when who is the object of a preposition, it should technically be whom, e.g. "To whom it may concern..."



So, is it acceptable to use whom and have a preposition at the end of the sentence? Which of the following sentences are okay:




  • Who are you talking to?

  • Whom are you talking to?

  • To whom are you talking?



Answer



The difference between the who/whom debate and the preposition-ending debate is that the former has its root in a long tradition of English grammar, while the latter arose from the editorial labours of an extremely picky generation of classicists.



The use of who/whom as distinct subject/object pronouns (like thou/thee) has largely atrophied, but until barely a century ago it was prevalent and common. It was second nature to most native speakers to use them appropriately. The same distinction was made in the Saxon and Norman (Germanic and Romance) languages that contributed to English, and some modern Germanic and Romance languages still employ distinct subject and object relative pronouns. However, since their use is understood but largely ignored in modern English, they are now considered an optional nicety.



As for avoiding ending a sentence with a preposition, there was no such rule in medieval English. It was only the belief of those linguists who were educated in Latin and convinced that Latin is the true root of English (and therefore English grammar should conform with Latin) that caused this phenomenon to arise, in spite of there being no evidence of such a rule in earlier English writings. However, the myth prevailed to the point where it was accepted as "correct" grammar, and the resultant torturous grammatical constructions that have been perpetrated in the name of correctness make one feel ill.



So, in summary:





  • Who are you talking to?
    This is unambiguous and commonly used, and therefore mostly acceptable.

  • Whom are you talking to?
    This is a pleasant nicety, but not necessary. Certainly acceptable.

  • To whom are you talking?
    This is "correct", but will get you a filthy look and possibly a kick in the nuts in all but the most snobbish company.



For a really damning and amusing exposition of the whole issue, I strongly recommend Bill Bryson's excellent book, The Mother Tongue.



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?

grammar - Function of Numbers in a Sentence



A question was recently posed about the sentence



"This is what 51,000 people looks like."




The question was, "Is this grammatical?"



It seems opinions vary on how to handle this sentence. I feel that 51,000 is an adjective describing people and so "looks" should be "look" as in "This is what 51,000 people look like."



These are my questions:



1) What function does 51,000 serve in the sentence?
2) How are numbers treated in general when they appear before nouns? I ask because I have heard people say "Here's 30 Dollars." Should it be "is" or "are?" Seems like people are referring to "30" and not "Dollars."
3) What function does "look" play in the above sentence?

4) Also, it seems that because 51,000 is written as a number (instead of fifty one thousand) people are treating it like a group whereas if it were written, I think it would be harder to do that. Does writing it as a number or as words change things?
5) Also, if the sentence were "Here is what 51,000 people looks like." would the word "here" change the sentence and how we parse the it?


Answer




  1. Quantifiers generally act as determinatives, which define the nouns they modify. This is different from adjectives, which describe the nouns they modify. You can tell the difference because determinatives cannot be inflected for comparison, and they can't appear as predicate adjectives. You can say either




Purple people are here or People here are purple





but you can only say




51,000 people are here.




You can't say





People here are 51,000.





  1. Whether you hand someone a twenty-dollar bill or a two ten-dollar bills, you say




Here is twenty dollars.





Because that's a single amount, no matter the denomination of the bills.




  1. "Look" is a stative verb in your example. It means "appears."


  2. I don't see how numerals or words affect the grammar. Whether you choose a singular or plural verb depends on whether you mean the group as a whole or as multiple individuals. If you say





51,000 people seems small for a protest rally





you mean that it's a small crowd.
If you say




51,000 people seem small




you mean that either they are all midgets or they are being viewed from afar.





  1. "Here" is an adverb of place, telling us where they people appear as they do. Its presence or absence doesn't change the basic structure of the sentence.


punctuation - husband-and-wife team or husband and wife team?








Referring to a sentence from an online magazine:



"Lonely Planet was started in 1975, when the British hippie husband-and-wife team Maureen and Tony Wheeler self-published a guide to cheap travel in Southeast Asia."



I have noticed that in other resources also: that "husband-and-wife" team is used instead of "husband and wife" team.



What is the right usage?

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

writing - Which indefinite article to use if the noun starts with a non-letter character?

In the Perl programming language, symbols in front of variable names are called a sigil. When reading code out loud, the sigil is spoken. $foo becomes dollar foo. The sigil for functions is the ampersand &, but it's mostly omitted because using it explicitly does special things that you mostly do not want.



In the following sentence, does the indefinite article in front of the &foo need to be a, or an when it is written out?




What happens if the package does not have an &foo?





The above looks weird to me, but I believe that's because I'm reading the & as und in my head (which is the colloquial name in my native language German for this symbol), but I think it is correct.



Some people might read this does not have a foo, while others might read does not have an ampersand foo.






I'm aware that I could rewrite this so it's less ambiguous and the sigil can be omitted, but I am curious.





What happens if the package does not have a method foo?


'An' or 'a' when followed by information between commas




In the following sentence, I'm unsure whether to use ‘an’ or ‘a’.





..primarily meant as a, albeit large, donation.




On the one hand ‘an’ sounds more appropriate when read, as the vowel beginning to ‘albeit’ suggests.
Alternatively, one might say ‘a’ is correct; is a sentence not supposed to make perfect sense with the word between the commas removed. If so, it must be just an ‘a’.



I'm tilting towards the latter, even though it sounds odd. Please enlighten me.


Answer




Are you stuck with this very awkward sentence construction? Since you are questioning what article to use, I suspect you are not. Therefore, I suggest that you change the sentence construction:



     ....primarily meant as a donation, albeit a large one.


That gets you around all of your problems.


Monday, March 14, 2016

expressions - Idiom for 'lots of people'?



I think there was an idiom to describe 'lots of people', and the expression was related to truck... like tons of truck? or loaded by truck? I can't remember what it was. Does anybody know? If there is no such thing, is there any idiom to describe lots of people that will make a long line or that will fill all the big trucks?


Answer



You're probably thinking of the word truckload:




3 : a large amount - truckloads of money





merriam-webster.com



It's used in far more situations than to describe people, but "a truckload of people" is an acceptable usage.


grammaticality - "Yes, I will be"

This question was spurred by some comments that sprung underneath an ELL question of mine. The comments have since been deleted.




User 1: There's nothing wrong with "Yes, I will be". (I agree that "*I'll be" is incorrect though.)



User 2: Are you sure? I don't think, "Yes, I will be" is correct. I Ngrammed "yes i will be" and got a result of zero. Also Ngrammed "yes, i will be" and "yes" got positive results, but "i will be" got zero results, too.




User 1: @_______: Yes, I'm sure. Your ngram is wrong - remember the word "I" is always capitalised; if you fix that you do get results. (Most of them are "Yes, I will be xxx", rather than just "Yes, I will be.", but if you keep searching you will find odd examples of the latter.)



User 2: Cont'd from previous comment. I checked the Ngram results for "Yes I will be" and could not find any examples. Ngram results for "Yes, I will be." and "Yes I will be." were also zero.



User 2: @______ And I realize that "I" is always capitalized. But I hadn't turned on case sensitivity, so now I'm confused why "Yes i will be" and "Yes I will be" returns different results.




In light of the various Ngram and Google Books results reported by User 1, it appears that he may be right. Is he?







Why am I asking?



In every grammar and English course book I have ever used with learners or for myself, I have never ever read the short answer: Yes, I will be. These books simply don't "teach" this type of response, the classic short answers to questions beginning with the auxiliary, will, are always given as either Yes, I will or No, I won't. The two questions which I posted were the following:




  • Will you be coming to the staff party on Thursday?

  • Will you be having cake?




In the second question, I offered the following list of short answers:





  1. Yes, thank you.

  2. Yes, I will.

  3. Yes, I will be

  4. Yes, I will do.






  • Why is answer no.3 grammatical?

  • What evidence is there to support it?

  • Is answer number 4 (above) ungrammatical?



An American user suggested that "Yes, I will do" was wrong. (Please refer to the linked question below, for further details)




Thank you






The ELL related questions which sparked the above discussion




  1. Why is “I'll be”, wrong as a short answer?

  2. Will you be having cake?