Pronunciation difference between waist and waste

I played both words on Google translate and they sound exactly the same.
I checked YouTube and there is a video that is supposed to show the difference but nothing that I could notice plus a other video of English speaker saying both sound the same.

So, regardless the context where the words are used, is there a way to notice the difference between those words when they are pronounced?

Answer

They are homophones. They're homophones in my dialect of AmE. They're homophones according to all the dictionaries I have checked (including the OED), which list /weɪst/ as the IPA pronunciation for both words in both BrE and AmE. And they've been homophones for a long time (see this book from 1818).

There are countless jokes out there that rely on the fact that these words are pronounced the same way:

Except for jokes like these that purposefully blur the line, it is almost always very obvious which one is meant in conversation because of context (and also tone of voice, to some extent). Sometimes the two words are confused in writing, and it's still obvious which is meant because of context.

---

I am not sure the point of that video you linked that "compares" the pronunciation. (However, although somewhat implied, it does not actually say that there is a difference.)

british english - Using "them" instead of "those"

Background:

Nowadays, I see this usage a lot. I don't know if it was this common in the past.

For example: "one of them people"

When I did a research about it, some people say it comes from a dialect of British English. And some says it is a "non-standard" usage.

I see this usage in Canadian English also and seems like some people use in a sarcastic way.

Moreover, I saw in a song title as "one of them days". And I saw in the book called "A Broken Promise" as "Now my mother become one of them people."

And finally, Wikipedia says that it is a usage in Appalachian English (a common name for the Southern Midland dialect of American English):

Pronouns and demonstratives

"Them" is sometimes used in place of "those" as a demonstrative in both nominative and oblique constructions. Examples are "Them are the pants I want" and "Give me some of them crackers."

---

Question(s):

What would you say about the usage of this word? Is it correct? Can we use it in daily speech? Can this usage go beyond a specific dialect and be used in other dialects, regions etc.?

Is it really originated from Appalachian English? Why did this usage become popular among other English speakers?

Note: I already saw this question:
What are the grammatical rules for use of "these", "those", and "them"?

But it only says "ungrammatical" there. This question is specific to this situation only and there is more to it.

Answer

In the succinctly named textbook: English Grammar in Familiar lectures. Embracing a new Systematick Order of Parsing. A New System of Punctuation, Exercises in false Syntax, and A System of Philosophical Grammar. Designed for the use of Schools and Private Learners by Samuel Kirkham, dated 1834 we have this example of usage pertaining to Pennsylvania

The author provides further examples and an explanation as to why this construction is considered ungrammatical

I found an even earlier instance from an American textbook illustrating this usage, dated 1803, The Elements of English Grammar: Methodically Arranged for the Assistance of Young Persons, Who Study the English language Grammatically by George Neville Ussher ¹

The above extracts prove without doubt that this form of speech (and writing) was used and heard in the past. I cannot say for certain if this usage of them originated in the Central and Southern Appalachian Mountain region of the Eastern United States. I can only testify that when I attended primary school in North London way back in the 70s this form of speech was very common among children.

---

Aha! I found an even older school textbook The Rudiments of English Grammar For the Use of Those Who Have Made Some Proficiency in the Language

By Joseph Priestley, dated MDCCLXXII (1772) printed in London, England.²

word choice - so+adj+that structure

My question is when you do the so+adj+that structure, do you have to remove the pronoun ? Like in this example, should i leave 'it' out?

The milk is very hot. The baby can't drink it now.
--> The milk is so hot that the baby can't drink it now.

Please tell me if the transformation above is correct or not. Thanks in advance and sorry for the bad English.

Answer

No, you shouldn't leave out the pronoun. Indeed, this is a good example of where pronouns are most useful.

We could have a similar use of so that didn't have a pronoun:

The milk was so hot that the baby was scalded.

We don't need a pronoun because we're not talking about the milk in the last clause, and while obviously the milk was the culprit we just haven't addressed that.

However:

The milk was so hot that the baby couldn't drink.

Is incorrect, because the milk's being hot doesn't make the baby incapable of drinking at all, just of drinking that particular milk. So we need to reference the milk again:

The milk was so hot that the baby couldn't drink the milk.

But this repetition of "the milk" is clumsy, so we use a pronoun to reference the previously stated noun, "the milk":

The milk was so hot that the baby couldn't drink it.

Really, the use of the pronoun has nothing to do with whether or not we use so + [adjective], but whether the following clause needs to refer to the noun again.

orthography - Yours sincerely or Your's sincerely

Yours sincerely or Your's sincerely
which one is correct when yyandou write complimentary close and how?

grammaticality - Is "uplift your life" grammatically correct?

A superior would like me to go with this structure for advertising headlines, e.g. Uplift your life / Uplift your recipe.

I'm not certain if this is grammatically correct and would like to check it with you before I go ahead with the work.

Answer

Thesaurus.com says that these are synonyms for "uplift":

boost, brighten, bring up, cheer, elate, excite, exhilarate, improve, lift up, perk up, raise spirits

so the semantics of the structure are fine.

It's an advertising slogan, so the grammar doesn't really matter unless it gets in the way of understanding. Advertisers have been using deliberately incorrect grammar for decades just to get people to notice them, so it's a strategy for garnering attention where none may be due.

In the airports in Taiwan, there are myriad posters with the slogan "Taiwan. Touch your heart." There's no problem there. The grammar got lost, but people remember the phrase. It's even in the dictionary.

McDonald's uses "I'm lovin' it", and (almost) nobody objects. The meaning is clear. The bad grammar did its work well.

Just do it! I mean, like, Go for it! Don't think so much about grammar but about emotional effect. That's what advertising's about.

grammar - Why some questions are written in this funny way?

There, I did it myself. Instead of asking "Why are some questions written in this funny way?", I produced what strikes me as bad English ever so often: Questions that are formed by starting out with "Why" (or other interrogative words), followed by what seems to be a normal subject-verb-object sentence. A few examples are quickly drawn from some other SE sites (missing question marks included), but this seems to be quite common all across the board:

• “Why we need SELinux?”


• “Why ATM and MPLS are at level 2.5”



• “Why Turn Collate Off”


• “Why BitTorrent uploads simultaneously?”


• “Why the letters in keyboards are arranged like this?”

I do have the impression that the actual article beneath such a question is often written in quite good English, so the writer is not necessarily a beginner of the language.

Therefore my question, mainly aimed at the native speakers of English: Is this considered to be good style? Or do you find it sloppy? What's your impression when you read such a construct?

Answer

My impression is that the phrase was written by a non-native speaker of English, who does not know how to construct questions. (How often that impression is accurate I don’t know.) All of the examples you offer are noun phrases. For example, “why we need SELinux” might serve on its own (sans question mark) as a headline, or as part of a complete sentence:

• Tell me why we need SELinux.


• Why we need SELinux is…

But the terms may not stand on their own. English questions use inversion of word order and auxiliary verbs; noun phrases involving question words do not:

1. *Why Paul went to the concert?



2. Why did Paul go to the concert?


3. Paul went to the concert.

The people writing these question titles are using (1) when they should be using (2), because it more closely mirrors the structure in the declarative version, (3).

Now, “Why turn ‘collate’ off?” is incidentally valid. It poses a rhetorical question using the bare form of the verb (in this case turn), asking essentially “why would you ever bother turning the ‘collate’ function off?”—why here is standing for why ever. Common examples:

• Why bother?



• Why wait?


• Why waste your time?


• Why not?

grammaticality - "Because of our doing something ..." - Is this correct English?

I am a German mathematician. In some research papers I find grammatical constructions like the one in the title, e.g.:

"Because of our ignoring the boundary conditions, the following analysis is easier."

I wonder whether this is grammatically and stylistically correct English. I know there are some original constructs in "mathematical English", so if it is not standard grammar, it might very well be an import from another language.

Can you help me?

grammaticality - "Medal standings" singular or plural?

While chatting with a friend about Rio 2016, I wanted to write the following sentence:

The medal standings you should be looking at is the one per capita.

Is this correct (grammar-wise, of course)? Does the word "standings" in this context hold a singular verb?
What confuses me is the s at the end of the word and the fact that the word translating it in my native langauge is singular.

writing style - Is this use of en dash legitimate?

In the following sentence, how do you understand the en dash?

Our findings are very interesting from an international viewpoint – business tourism.

Is the use of the en dash appropriate here?

Spoiler

By using an en dash, the author of this sentence said he wanted to give just a hint or a summary of what the findings were without having to write too much.

adjectives - Descriptive words and gerunds or present participles

Gerunds and present participles happen to look exactly the same in English, the first acting as a noun and the second as either an adjective, a verb denoting continuous action, or introducing a participle clause. When adding a descriptive word to them, should gerunds get adjectives and participles adverbs, even though they're both created from a verb? Example:

Though Khorrl didn't consider himself a great judge of attractiveness, especially in other species, it was plain enough to him that Zammzt's face was far from noteworthy. The drow was simply too ordinary looking.
Thomas A. Reid, Insurrection, War of the Spider Queen book II, p. 42

I cannot decide whether or not too ordinary looking is a gerund or not. I am assuming it is correct, but if it was, shouldn't I be able to say 'a looking', the same way as one can say e.g. 'a meeting'? If the latter, wouldn't 'too ordinarily looking' be correct? That just sounds wrong, through, as though he stared at something in a boring way.

My apologies if this is a dumb question.

Answer

"looking" is definitely a present participle in this context

In the context of "The drow was simply too ordinary looking", the word "looking" is definitely a present participle, not a gerund, assuming we're working in a grammatical tradition that distinguishes between these two categories. Gerunds are "nouny" and present participles are "adjective-y" and "ordinary looking" in this context functions more like an adjective than like a noun: it's describing how the drow looks.

present participles can be "modified" by more than just adverbs

It's an oversimplification to think that a participle can only be "modified by" or associated with adverbs. Participles are (or at least are derived from) verbs, and verbs can be associated with many types of words, not only adverbs.

If the verb the participle is based on can be associated with other types of words, usually the participle can too. For example, "cake" is a noun; the verb "eat" can be followed by "cake" in a sentence like "He eats cake", and the participle "eating" can be associated with the noun (not adverb) "cake" in a sentence like "A child eating cake sat at the table". As BillJ mentions in the comments, there are also "compound adjectives" that can be made by sticking an appropriate word before a participle, e.g. "a cake-eating child". (I won't get into the details of compound adjective formation because I don't know them, and this topic seems tangential to your question.)

in particular, the verb "look" and its participle "looking" can take an adjective as a complement

The verb "look" can function as a "linking verb" that takes an adjective complement. You would say, and correctly so, "The drow looks ordinary" and not "The drow looks ordinarily".

It's equally appropriate to use "ordinary" with the participle "looking". (Although if "ordinary looking" is considered a compound, as BillJ suggests, it might be better to hyphenate it in the same way as we hyphenate "cake-eater": "ordinary-looking". The hyphenated form can be found online at Oxford Dictionaries.)

"Looking" can be modified by an adverbial adjunct, but as far as I know, it cannot take an adverb for a complement

As far as I know, there are no circumstances where the verb "looking" takes an adverb as its complement, but like any other verb it can be modified by an adverbial adjunct.

The characteristic feature of an "adjunct" is that when it is removed, the sentence should still make sense. So you can say "He ordinarily looks better than an average drow," where "ordinarily" is an adverbial adjunct and "better than this" is the complement of "looks"; the sentence still makes sense if the adjunct is removed ("He looks better than an average drow").

A sentence like "He ordinarily looks" or "He looks ordinarily" is problematic for the same reason that "He looks" is problematic: the verb "looks" lacks a complement, which often sounds unnatural (it can be acceptable in some contexts where it's possible to interpret it as an elision of a longer expression).

Present Perfect and Simple Past in the same sentence

I have a short and simple question for you.
I know that in some circumstances I can use the Present Perfect and the Simple Past in the same sentence, but I am wondering if the following example is the case.

"During my studies I have taken part in several group projects, both in Italy and abroad, which required the use of Office Suite."

Thank you.

Answer

The sentence is correct.
In the first clause there is the Present Perfect Tense because you are still a student and may take some more projects before your graduation. This usage is called 'unfinished Past'.

In the second clause there is the Past Simple Tense because you inform about certain past experiences. This usage is called 'finished Past'.

grammar - Had you had asked

Let's say in this scenario:

Someone asked me for help to do certain thing. I gave a negative response. That person then asked for the reason. I responded with:

"Had you had asked me nicely ...."

What I meant to say was "If you had/have asked me nicely ..."

Question: Does the former have the same meaning as the later?

Edit: Just to make sure there are not any differences: My response was a statement, not a question to that person.

Answer

"Had you had asked me nicely ...."

is incorrect. It should be EITHER:

If you had asked me nicely...

OR

Had you asked me nicely...

which both mean the same thing.

single word requests - Can I use "consistent with" in this way? If not, what can I use instead?

I want to write a sentence like

Consistent with my previous experience, I am interested in pursuing research ~ blah blah.

Here, I know that this sentence is grammatically incorrect and I cannot use "consistent" in the very first part of the sentence because it is adjective.
Is there any other word or way that can produce the same meaning?
Any comments or advice would be appreciated!
Thank you in advance!

articles - 'A' or 'an' before word in parentheses

If you have a word with an abjective between parentheses where you would normally use an instead of a, should you do this in this case too?

It's a little hard for me to explain, so here a concrete example: (acoustic) piano.

Should it be a (acoustic) piano or an (acoustic) piano, since you can choose to not pronounce acoustic?

Apostrophe Placement

Please can you help. Here is my sentence:

For best results, you’d be sensible to ensure they’re songs which are suitable for your voices current skill level.

Where would you place the apostrophe on the word ‘voices’

Thank you

grammaticality - Especially + verb + Subject

I have just found the following sentence:

Especially is this true in the field of psychology.

I know the rule that says that whenever a sentence begins with an adverb that expresses negativity, it should come first the verb and then the subject. However, in this case, it does not seem to be the case for a subject-verb inversion.

Can anyone explain the grammatical reason why this sentence is correct? Does this inversion have to do with the adverb especially?

Answer

It's formally known as "Intro Adverbial" inversion. The "limiting" adverb goes to the front as an introductory to the sentence. Consider:

Never had I met someone so interesting.
Not often will he go to work

Look up the uses of inversion. One of them is emphasis.

Especially is this true in the field of psychology.

This is an example of inversion for emphasis. Especially is brought forward using inversion so as to highlight its significance in the context. Saying "This is true" is simple; "This is especially true" adds significance but still has the focus on true; "Especially is this true" shifts the emphasis to especially, which is an adverb limiting the scope of the verb.

punctuation - Comma and dash introducing a list

Is it right to put a comma before the dash that introduces a series?

As the mentor of the original five interns, — Meredith, Cristina, Alex, the runaway Izzie, and the now dead George — Dr. Bailey...

Answer

Logically, the comma should go after the dashes, since it separates the prepositional phrase from the main part of the sentence, and the names enclosed in dashes are part of the prepositional phrase.

However, to many people (myself included), a dash followed by a comma just looks awkward and inelegant, and it might even cause them to stumble in their reading.

Removing the comma is an acceptable option and a matter of style and consistency; but to me, sentence-initial prepositional phrases as long as yours that are not separated from the main sentence with a comma are just as awkward.

Rather than fiddling with where or whether to put the comma, I would suggest simply substituting parentheses for the dashes. The meaning is almost the same—close enough, anyway—and commas are not awkward following parentheses:

As the mentor of the original five interns (Meredith, Cristina, Alex, the runaway Izzie, and the now dead George), Dr. Bailey was …

possessives - "Doctor's appointment" or "doctors appointment"?

I've looked this up online, but I can't find any explanations from reasonably credible sources, so I'm posting my question here! (Was that a comma splice?)

Should I refer to the appointment that I made with my doctor as a "doctor's appointment" or "doctors appointment"? What if I'm referring to more than one appointment with two different doctors?

Answer

As the doctor also has an appointment with you, doctor's appointment is appropriate in its own right. It is also by far the most common as a set phrase:

Any other plural usage would be entirely subjective.

Graph source: Google Books Ngram

grammar - What is the answer?

This might seem like a simple question, but I'm not sure it definitely is.

What is the Subject, in its most likely reading, of the question:

• What is the answer?

Is it the noun phrase (NP) What, or is it the noun phrase the answer?

How can we tell? In other words what evidence do we have?

---

^{I reserve the right as stipulated in the guidance to ask questions that I know the answer to. I ask the question because a good answer would be useful to point to in other answers and because I think the question of evidence is interesting enough in its own right}

grammar - Not only.... but also

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

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

and if it's wrong, why so?

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

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

punctuation - Using comma to delimit the name of a group and its constituents?

You are probably familiar with this comic which illustrates the possible ambiguity caused by leaving out the Oxford comma:

However, this strikes me as plain wrong. I thought comma would not be used to delimit the name of/word for a group and the listing of its constituents. The sentence given as an example on Wikipedia regarding the usage of the em dash indicates one would use either an em dash or a colon for this purpose:

Colon-like use

Simple equivalence (or near-equivalence) of colon and em dash

• Three alkali metals are the usual substituents: sodium, potassium, and lithium.


• Three alkali metals are the usual substituents—sodium, potassium, and lithium.

(Wikipedia)

So one would think that, in order to convey what is portrayed in the second picture in the comic, the sentence should be:

We invited the strippers: JFK and Stalin.

or

We invited the strippers—JFK and Stalin.

So, with all that said, my question is:

Is the sentence without the Oxford comma considered ambiguous because too many people are not familiar enough with the rules of punctuation of the English language, or are the rules laxer than I thought and it is valid to use a comma in this case as well?

(Bear in mind—English is not my native language, so the latter may well be the case.)

Answer

A comma is used to announce a non-restricting apposition:

My sister, Emily, is getting married next week. [I have one sister.]

but is omitted with a restricting one:

My sister Emily is getting married next week. [My sisters Joan and

Anne aren't.]

If the apposition contains a list (with commas), then the first comma is in danger of being ambiguous (does it introduce an apposition or is the whole thing a list?).

My sisters, Emily, Joan, and Anne, were all at the concert [is that 3
ladies or n+3?]

...

My sisters, Barbara[,] and Amy[,] were at the concert [is that 2
ladies or n+2?]

With the latter sentence, if you say it with its intended meaning, you will hear a pause at each comma. If you leave out the 'Oxford' comma that precedes the coordinating conjunction, you may be judged to be taking a shortcut in orthography, but the pause is still required when Barbara and Amy are additional to your sisters. The shortcut is bad when near an apposition, although alternating orthography can clarify the meaning (dash, colon, etc.); but the pause in speech is still a short one.

american english - "Would you mind and do something" in nonstandard colloquial AmEng

Does Would you mind and do something instead of Would you mind doing something sound acceptable in spoken AmEng, or is it an attempt to imitate or render colloquial speech in not so formal writing?

Would you mind and provide the phone number connected on the account? source

Would you mind and tell us what you've tried. source

Would you mind and not steal my Sig. source

Would you mind and not repeat that to anyone.

Answer

1.) "Would you mind and do something?"

2.) "Would you mind and provide the phone number connected on the account?"

3.) "Would you mind and tell us what you've tried."

According to my ear, there's nothing wrong with those types of expressions. (I'm an AmE speaker, and I've traveled to or lived in most corners of the USA.)

Actually, in my personal opinion, I'd consider those versions to be more polite than these alternatives:

• "Would you mind doing something?"




• "Would you mind providing the phone number connected on the account?"




• "Would you mind telling us what you've tried."

as those last three versions have the speaker sorta already assuming that the other person won't mind hearing a request from him, and the speaker is rushing a request at the other person. (Though others might disagree.)

As for the OP's #1, #2 and #3 examples, I've heard these kinds of phrases spoken often by AmE speakers, and I'm pretty sure I've used them myself. E.g. "Would you mind and do something for me?"

I'd consider these kinds of expressions to be at least of an informal style of standard English. The coordinator "and" has many uses, e.g. "Be sure and lock up", "We always try and do our best". (There might be some related info in the 2002 reference grammar CGEL.)

meaning - Regent and Viceroy: When should I use one over the other?

These words appear to be synonymous, so I checked to see the difference on Wikidiff which gives the following definitions:

One who governs a country, province, or colony as the representative of a monarch.

One who rules in place of the monarch, especially because the monarch is too young, absent, or disabled.

I also checked thesaurus.plus which uses the same definition for each and also notes the following:

Viceroy and regent are semantically related. in director topic. In some cases you can use "Viceroy" instead a noun "Regent"

Despite that, I did not see a clear difference. What exactly is the overlap? Where is the difference? When would you use one over the other?

verb agreement - How to determine the number of the noun phrase 'a world of + plural noun'?

a (or the) world of

is defined in Oxford as follows:

A very great deal of.

‘there's a world of difference between being alone and being lonely’

‘a bit of country air will do her the world of good’

I think the world of should be treated differently, so I'd like to focus on a world of.

Although the Oxford Dictionary says a world of means 'a very great deal of' and the phrase should be singular in that meaning, I've seen a world of followed by a plural noun. And when it's followed by a plural noun, I think it often means 'a great number of'.

The problem is, there is conflicting evidence as to whether a world of followed by a plural noun is singular or plural:

• And with the collapse of those ''walls'', a world of opportunities is opening before us.
  (SADCC at Ten, Address to the Tenth Anniversary Summit, Gaborone, Botswana. 24 August 1990. Published in The Missing Headlines: Selected Speeches, by Emeka Anyaoku)




• You've not yet developed notions of what you can and can't do (or what you should or shouldn't have done), and a world of opportunities is opening before you. (Confined Minds, by Raychelle Meyers, p. 25)




• A world of opportunities are out there for you. (The Strength of a Woman: Transformed for Greater Impact, by Claudia L. Roach)

Since 'a world of' here means 'a lot of', I'd think the plural treatment is more frequent, but the opposite seems to be the case. There seem to be more instances of the singular treatment.

So should 'a world of opportunities' be treated as singular?

How about this case?

This morning saw Jay-Z release his surprise new album ‘4:44‘ across all streaming services except Spotify – and a world of fans take note of the freestyle rap by his daughter Blue Ivy Carter. Check out the best reactions and the lyrics below. ("Fans react to Blue Ivy’s freestyle rap on Jay-Z’s ‘4:44’", by Andrew Trendell, NME Music News)

Here, too, 'a world of fans' I think means 'a lot of fans', but is followed by a plural form 'take'.
Do you think this is incorrect? Or should it be treated differently?
I for one think the plural treatment is correct, because it's the individual fans who take note, not the world itself.

EDIT

This question is not solved by an earlier question, "Is “an ocean of flowers” singular or plural?", where only two answers are provided and no answer is selected.

Moreover, the answer with most votes (2 votes) in that question seems to approve the plural treatment of 'an ocean of flowers', whereas my research about 'a world of opportunities' suggests that the singular treatment is more often than the plural treatment.

Most importantly, the earlier question and answers do not address cases where "an ocean of" is followed by a plural noun denoting people, which is raised as an important point in this question.

Answer

I haven't seen specific guidance on this, but I wanted to make an answer post to address something I think was missed in the list of examples in your question.

And with the collapse of those ''walls'', a world of opportunities is opening before us.

Here, it's not necessarily the case that "a world of opportunities" is just being used as a synonymous expression for "a lot of opportunities". The noun world in English can be used metaphorically to talk about a environment or ecosystem: access to a new
"world of opportunities" isn't necessarily just access to greater quantities of the same kinds of opportunities that were already available.

The interpretation of "world" as a noun with actual semantic meaning beyond "a great quantity" in this speech is supported by the context. Anyaoku's speech continues in the following way:

Opportunities not just to put a definitive end to the "armed peace" and its incalculable wastage of resources, both human and material, but also opportunities to step up the fight against humanity's enemies, old and new; political instability and local conflicts; hunger and disease; drugs and the deteriorating environment. It promises to be an exciting world but it will not be all sweetness and light.

Note that the word "world" occurs again in a context where it is not followed by "of", and where it unambiguously acts as the head of a singular noun phrase.

I think a good first step when analyzing an expression of the form "a world of [plural noun]" is to check whether it makes sense as a noun phrase headed by the noun "world" (which has metaphorical senses that don't just express quantity). This is basically the same as checking to see whether a phrase like "an ocean of flowers" is being used to refer to a literal ocean, in which case it would obviously take singular agreement: it's a bit more difficult for world because its meaning as a noun is more abstract, but I think the same principle applies to both.

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

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

Why does quote unquote precede the quotation?

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

What are the origins of this construction?

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

grammaticality - Which are right choices in: “Can you imagine him/his forgetting his own birthday?”

Which one of the following is correct?

1. Can you imagine his forgetting his own birthday?


2. Can you imagine him forgetting his own birthday?

The question was asked in SNAP 2009 and I can't understand why they said that the only right answer is option 1.

I hear people saying 2 all the time, and I read it that way often enough, so what’s supposed to be wrong with option 2?

Or is the test itself wrong?

meaning - What is the difference between "excuse me" and "forgive me"?

I am hesitated when I use the sentence "forgive my fault, please." instead of "excuse me, please." because the word "forgive" has a religious theme and probably carries some additional meanings. Also it seems the usage of the word "forgive" for apologies depends on the social rank of the people in the conversation too.

Question: What are the differences between "excuse me" and "forgive me" in current and historical meanings and usage? Does the meanings of these phrases change when the social rank of audiences changes? Which one is more frequent among literate speakers?

Answer

While forgiveness is important to some religious views, I do not think it is particularly important in this case.

When you excuse someone, you allow them to escape the consequences of their actions.

When you forgive someone, you cease resenting those actions.

One can forgive someone in your heart, while still holding that they must be punished or not relieved of misfortunes their actions brought upon them. One can excuse someone, but still resent them.

In the overlap, one is often taken to include the other, because the two do often happen together.

It's also more likely to speak of excusing an action that did not have any volition, such as an accident or eructation, and forgive of a deliberate action that led to some harm whether that harm could be foreseen or not. It would not be unheard of for the other to be used.

There isn't really any social rank matter, bar different etiquette rules as to what things one should ask to be excused for. In particular, saying excuse me after breaking wind or burping was once a classic "non-U" identifier, that is an identifier of someone who was middle class trying to pass for upper class (the working class at the time might ask it, and might not, the middle class almost always would, while among the upper class the polite thing was for nobody to pass any comment on it). Such class markers are not as firm as once they were.

adjectives - What do you call a person who requests a service?

I´ve been trying to get some answers on this topic here, here, and other sources. I'd like to know a way to refer to a person who has made a request, but is not my actual customer/client.

Just to illustrate, picture this scenario:

My client is the CEO of a company. A request has been made by his/her secretary, I still need to save his/her details to keep track of the service.

What would you call the secretary on this scenario? I'm aware the word "requestor" is not really used by native speakers, so how'd one call this person in a "not very long" way? (e.g. "person who has booked the service")

ps: i could use "Requested by:" but later i have to collect their contact info such as phone and email.

Should I use who or whom when the subject is plural?

I realise there has been a lot of discussion of who vs whom on these forums, but as far as I can tell none of the previous posts answer my question. Which of these sentences is (more) correct, and why?

"South American footballers, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé whom I have met, are coming to the party."

OR

"South American footballers, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé who I have met, are coming to the party."

Please assume that the writer isn't taking the stance that who should be used all time, but instead wishes to use whom where it would be traditionally appropriate to do so.

Answer

‘Who’ does not inflect for number: it is always ‘who’ as the subject of a clause and ‘whom’ in all other contexts, whether its antecedent is singular or plural.

That said, your phrase is rather ambiguously worded (have you only met Pelé, or have you met all three, or have you met a lot of South American footballers, including Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé? Or have you met all the South American footballers that are coming to the party). It doesn’t flow very well, and there seems to be some kind of determiner missing at the very beginning: if you remove the (I presume) parenthetical clauses, you’re left with the sentence, “South American footballers are coming to the party”, which is not incorrect, but sounds like a newspaper heading where determiners are often left out. Adding ‘many’ or ‘a lot of’ would make it sound more natural. I would suggest:

Many South American footballers are coming to the party, including the likes of Maradona, Garrincha, and Pelé, all of whom I have met.

(Assuming of course that those three were the ones you intended to single out as having met)

grammaticality - Should I use the singular or plural verb in mathematical formulae ("Two and two make/makes four")?

I remember somebody correcting me once when I said, "Two and two makes four", since the conjunction and would imply the use of a plural verb. They would prefer I said:

Two and two make four.

I've been thinking about it and wondering if one or the other is correct, or if both are. It would seem that using the plural verb is grammatical. However, I've heard the singular verb being used more often and feel that it is correct. Is there some exception about using the singular verb in logical statements and mathematical formulae?

Answer

Singular and plural are both correct.

The singular form is also used because "two and two" is an arithmetic formula. The verb agreement in that case is with the formula as a single entity.

• Two and two makes four.




• Two plus two is four.




• Four times four divided by two is
  eight.

In your example in particular, Google indicates that the plural form occurs more often:

"two plus two make four" = 353K results
"two plus two makes four" = 77K results

And while Google hit counts are notoriously, the result is supported by Google Ngrams.

word choice - What's the difference between 'group' and 'grouping'?

I'm not a native English speaker and I was wondering the difference between those two terms.

From what I understood so far 'group' is a generic word used to denote a number of persons/things considered related in some way.

'grouping' is used to denote a group of people sharing a common intent or interest.

Is this the case? It seems that 'grouping' has a more specific meaning and that 'group' can be used always in place of 'grouping' (because it's a more general term).

So in which case do you use 'group' and in which one do you use 'grouping' instead?

Answer

When you use the word group your emphasis should be on the collection of things in the group.

How many people do you have in your group?

When you use the word grouping your emphasis should be on the act of forming the group rather than the group itself.

Which grouping would be better- girls in one group and guys in another, or else adults vs children?

grammatical number - Should “two weeks vacation” be written “two weeks’ vacation” with a possessive apostrophe?

I’ve always understood that the phrase two weeks usually turns into two weeks’ when used as a modifier as in

1. I’m giving my two weeks’ notice.


2. I get two weeks’ vacation. (“two weeks’ holiday” for Brits)

with an apostrophe on the word weeks’, indicating that the vacation “belongs” to the weeks.

One way to explain this is the phrase “two weeks of vacation” being contracted to “two weeks’ vacation” – the vacation is “of” the weeks; that is, it is possessed by them.

But I’ve seen a lot of people omit the apostrophe in casual writing, and thinking about it, it seems plausible that the noun vacation would be plainly modified by the adjectival phrase two weeks.

But on the other hand, shouldn’t adjectival phrases be hypenated, namely two-weeks vacation? Yet that seems wrong, too: the hyphenate should be singular, two-week vacation (like two-tone shoes) because preceding adjectives are not declined for number.

Why is the singular of “week” used in “two-week business trip”? touches on this (and references a good Wikipedia page on noun adjuncts) but doesn’t explain why the plural must be possessive in this case.

Explanation on when the possessive should be used instead of an attributive noun suggests that two weeks might be adverbial rather than adjectival, and thus resists being used attributively. But that still doesn’t quite explain this particular muddle of pluralization, possession, and attribution.

Given all this, why should “two weeks vacation” be written “two weeks’ vacation” with a possessive apostrophe?

Answer

I've always taken the omission here to be or the phrase "worth of". As such, what one means when one says "two weeks' holiday" is actually "two weeks' worth of holiday" and likewise with, for example, notice and imprisonment. The worth in this case belongs to the time, just as the worth belongs to the money when one says "three quid's worth of [insert appropriate noun]".

One can actually then extend this to phrase like "We'll be finished in two weeks' time" which is equivalent to "We'll be finished two weeks from now" but here is like an abbreviation of "We'll be finished in two weeks' worth of time." In all cases, there is some redundancy -- one could simply say "We'll be finished in two weeks." -- but the uses are idiomatic.

Historically speaking, I doubt whether the phrase "worth of" actually ever appeared in using this form of possessive but it may be a helpful way to think about the phrase.

The best explanation to approximate this theory can be found in the Chicago Manual of Style section 7.24. Though not freely available online, you can find it mentioned here where it's claimed the form is inherited from the old genitive case:

Q. Which is correct? (a) He has 15 years’ experience designing
software, or (b) He has 15 years experience designing software. I’ve
seen it written both ways. I believe “years” needs an apostrophe. If
he has 15 years of experience, that would translate to “15 years’
experience.” Right? Please help.

A. You are absolutely right. Analogous to possessives, and formed like

them, are certain expressions based on the old genitive case. As your
question implies, the genitive here implies of. For some examples, see
paragraph 7.24 in CMOS 16.

This line features on the Wikipedia page for genitive case:

Modern English typically does not morphologically mark nouns for a genitive case in order to indicate a genitive construction; instead, it uses either the 's clitic or a preposition (usually of).

So in this argument the possessive/clitic actually stands in for the phrase "of".

This is backed up by one particular line on (unfortunately again) the English possessive Wikipedia page:

The paraphrase with of is often un-idiomatic or ambiguous in these
cases.

I should also add that Alex Chaffee's comment in reply to another answer on this question is useful in pointing to the Wikipedia page on the noun adjunct which cites Fowler's Modern English Usage.

For reference, the following sources mention a possessive apostrophe for this form of sentence as the correct use but do not provide any historical background or justification as to this usage:

...

UPDATE

I have just seen another answer providing some examples as possible objections to this usage. In each example, the phrase in question is preceded by an indefinite article. But this would not make sense if one thinks about the phrase I have suggested above.

For example "Take a two-week holiday" is correct; "Take a two-weeks' holiday is not." But that's because one would never say "Take a two-weeks' worth of holiday." Omit the indefinite article and suddenly, intuitively, all seems well: "Take two weeks' holiday."

punctuation - How to punctuate two quotes within a sentence

Should I put a period at the end of the first quote within this sentence?

We often hear, "That's not me." or "I wasn't raised that way."

OR should it read:

"That's not me" or "I wasn't raised that way."

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

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

For example,

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

Are the two sentences both correct?

Answer

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

grammatical number - How to add a plural to a lower case abbreviation?

The average Arizona home uses 1,129 kWh of electricity a month or
13,548 kWh a year.

kWh is an abbreviation for kilowatt hour. How do I express kilowatt hours? Maybe kWh(s)? It would look strange as kWhs.

Also,

The average retail price for residential electricity in Arizona is
11.90 cents per kWh.

Do I need the "per" kWh? Is the word per already assumed?

Answer

Technically, "kWh" is an initialism for both "kilowatt hour" and "kilowatt hours". The one that applies depends on whether you're referring to more than one, e.g.

1 kWh = 1 kilowatt hour; and
2 kWh = 2 kilowatt hours.

the "per" is not assumed, but you can replace it with a "/", e.g.

10c per kWh; or

10c/kWh.

edit: for what it's worth, I found a similar question in the physics forum of the stackexchange site.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/172039/usage-of-singular-or-plural-si-base-units-when-written-in-both-symbol-as-well-as

Starting a sentence with two subordinating conjunctions

Is it grammatical to start a sentence with two subordinating conjunctions? For example:

Because if it rains tomorrow, I will get wet, I hoped for a sunny day.

It seems wrong to start a sentence with "Because if..." and the last two clauses feel like a comma splice, but I can't figure out what's actually incorrect about it.

Answer

Because if it rains tomorrow, I will get wet, I hoped for a sunny day.

Okay. It's fine-ish.

The tense seems a bit odd. You are talking about a possibility for the future (relative to now?) and of a hope in the past.

That's not wrong. It would make sense for example if someone had just told you (today) that there was a forecast of a strong chance of rain. The rain remains just a future possibility, but the hoping was done in the past, so all the tenses work logically.

It's just not a very likely combination of tenses, so standing on its own, without the context of such a forecast, it strikes me as odd, where it wouldn't just after such a forecast or some other reason for the unusual tense combination.

So let's change the tenses just so I'm no longer distracted by that!

Because if it rains tomorrow, I will get wet, I hope for a sunny day.

Can I follow that? Yes.

Is my understanding of if what you wanted it to be? I'm pretty confident it is.

Do I at any point get tripped up, and have to mentally backtrack to understand you? No.

Can I see any grammatical problems? The first comma isn't wrong, but isn't necessary either, and I think you'd be better of without it, but I don't see any problems.

Can you start a sentence with two subordinating conjunctions? I'd say "yes" as a general point of theory, and I'd accept the above as evidence to back it up.

Is it a good sentence? Ah…

It takes me a while to get to your point.

Now, that's not in a terrible way. I don't get half-way through your sentence, realise I misinterpreted a clause and have to go back and start again.

But it's generally not a good thing either. There's a lot of build-up to just the hope of a sunny day.

But it's not always a bad thing.

It happens with any Because sentence, and the if adds to the effect. Consider:

Because the Origami didn’t work

We gave you dancing lessons

Because the dancing lessons made you bored

We bought you a guitar

Because you said

It made your fingers sore

We found you a pony

Because the pony broke your leg and ran away

We got you drums

Here the fact that putting the subordinate clause first leads us along for a bit before we get to the main clause is the whole reason this song works.

Your "Because if" structure increases the "leading along" quality, but the pay-off doesn't seem to be worth it.

And of course example sentences are rarely those with the best punch. (It's hard enough to think of a good sentence when writing, or a valid example when examining grammar, so doing both together is really tough). The actual form of "Because if…" I'd say is fine, I'd just better get something after it's done leading me through the subordinate clause.

writing - Is it alright to use lowercase "i" or should you always use "I" (uppercase)?

I frequently edit questions on StackOverflow, and I always fix the "i" into "I".
See this edit revision for instance.

When i I start my tomcat, i I am getting this problem.
How could i I resolve this problem.

Am I right to do so?

---

Benjol points out an interesting thread illustrating that debate:

The point of text on a site like this is to communicate.
Why do you want to make it harder to communicate than it has to be?
You may like writing with no capitalization, but I think it's pretty clear that people prefer reading with capitalization.
If you don't care about making life easier for those trying to help you, why do you think anyone will bother helping you in the first place?

Readers of the modern English language have grown accustomed to certain norms. Paragraphs, for one. Punctuation. Consistent spelling. And, of course, capitalization.

Answer

It is the standard orthography of English to capitalize the first person singular pronoun, as well as in contractions like I'm or I'll. This is not a universal property of written language, though—far from it.

Apparently the capitalization of I comes from England sometime before the time of Chaucer. The typographists of the day dictated this change; they thought that i (after being truncated from something more German-like "ich") was simply too small to stand on its own and bear so much meaning. Just goes to show how much of a technology writing really is.

grammar - "If he were" vs "if he had been"

1.if he were my brother,i would have helped him.

2.if he had been my brother,i would have helped him.

Are both of them correct?
What speaker wants to convey is unreal past condition and past result.ao for that we should use 3rd conditional.but first sentence is written in my textbook.
So now, I am confused.

Answer

The key is the sequence of events, and the point to remember is the fact that being someone's brother does not change over time (apart from some specific circumstances).

Normally the second sentence would be correct - the events have happened in the past, and therefore you would use:

If he had been my brother, I would have helped him

However, if he had been your brother he would still be your brother now. Therefore, using the first form is still OK:

If he were my brother (now, and presumably at the time of the events too), I would have helped him

It wouldn't work, for instance, where the events are limited to a timeframe:

If he had been thirsty I would have given him some water

You can easily see that him being thirsty now would have no bearing on giving him water in the past.

grammaticality - I and am

I sometimes find myself writing something like this:

XXX is a project I admire and am very interested in.

The "I and am " feels strange here. It somehow sounds more natural in the third person: "He admires and is very interested in...."

Am I just imagining things – is it OK to use this construction, or should I use something completely different?

Answer

This sentence is an example of Conjunction Reduction, the syntactic rule that deletes repeated material in conjoined constituents, for example

• Bill washed the dishes and Bill swept the floor. ➝
  Bill washed the dishes and swept the floor.


• Bill washed the dishes and Bill dried the dishes. ➝
  Bill washed and dried the dishes.

The relative clause modifying project in the original sentence is the focus, so let's get it out of a subordinate clause and see what it looks like:

• I admire and am very interested in the project.

which comes from

• I admire the project and I am very interested in the project.

by a perfectly normal application of Conjunction Reduction.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with this sentence.

One thing that may make it feel wrong to some -- but not others; there's a lot of individual variation here, since everybody makes up their own internal rules, for their own reasons, about what "sounds right" -- is that the first verb of the conjoined VP (admire) is uninflected for person and number, while the second verb (am) is inflected, for first person singular present tense.

Both verbs agree of course with the same subject, but morphologically instead of syntactically, which may produce some distress to those who require more grammatical parallelism between conjoined verbs.

Another related difficulty might be that the inflected form am is so closely linked to its subject pronoun I that it is difficult to separate them, and indeed most of the time they're contracted to I'm. This makes am feel rather isolated out there.

Again, this isn't a grammatical problem per se, but it can occasion some distress in some readers.

I say "readers" because nobody would say such a sentence, of course. We'd say I'm instead of am, by repeating the subject -- and adding no new syllables, so timing isn't affected. This is allowed syntactically because Conjunction Reduction is an optional rule applied to reduce unwelcome repetition, and in any given case this repetition may simply not be unwelcome.

verbs - Which is correct? If I was or If I were for this particular sentence

Which is correct?
1) If I were a little taller, I would be able to reach the top of the shelf.
2) If I was a little taller, I would be able to reach the top of the shelf.

grammaticality - Correct vs. incorrect usage of "there were + [number] noun + verb" patterns

I am having a problem figuring out what exactly makes the following sentences incorrect, and what is different in comparison with the correct sentences below. (I am not a native English speaker, but I believe these are incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Incorrect:

• There were two data prepared


• There was a big group of people stayed
  for chatting


• There were four types of behavior prepared as follows



• There were XX% of visitors who did not comment

Correct:

• There were 10 sensors attached on ceiling


• There were typically multiple shops associated with the keyword

I live in Asia and I am often checking scientific papers for my colleagues, and I find them making this type of mistake very often. The above are all examples taken from papers I checked. I would like to explain the correct usage to my colleagues but I could not find an easy way to do it (besides simply saying something like "avoid using there were whenever you have a verb after the noun").

Can someone provide an explanation or point me to some page which explains the rules concerning this?

---

[An edit, proposed by the OP, but which was rejected in the review queue.]

EDIT: I am late to reply but many thanks to everyone who answered or commented! @FumbleFingers: Yes, I know there are other errors in the sentences, which are seemingly not relevant to my question. I had copied the examples exactly as they appeared in the papers before correcting them. But it is exactly some of these errors that could give an idea on how people misunderstand the usage of "there is/was" and what makes it hard to explain what is the correct usage. For example, sentence 3 can be changed to: 1. There were four types of behavior, which were prepared as follows, or 2. Four types of behavior were prepared as follows. But I couldn't come up with an easy to understand explanation why this is so. I think Jim's answer gives a simple way to explain the usage to my colleagues. So @Jim, thank you! (I would vote you up but don't have enough privileges...).

grammar - Victory in the face of defeat - - what does this phrase mean?

I have seen this phrase being used multiple times, mostly in the written context. But I am unsure what exactly it means to have

Victory in the face of defeat

I am confused between these 2 interpretations

1. To gain victory even when defeat was close?


2. To be victorious in some broader sense, in spite of the defeat?

Thanks.

nouns - What is the plural of the abbreviation of "multiplicity automaton", "MA" or "MAs"?

The "multiplicity automaton (MA)" is a model in compute science and its plural is "multiplicity automata". Should the plural of the abbreviation be MA or MAs?

---

What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym? is not a duplicate as it is focused on cases like "ATMs" where the expanded form "automated teller machines" has a regular plural ending in "s." Unlike "machines," the word "automata" has an irregular plural that does not end in "s." It's unclear from the linked answers how abbreviations that end in words like this should be pluralized. A high-ranking answer by Neil Fein mentions "VIPs," but a high-ranking comment by oosterwal says

VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym,
when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very
Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a
singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have
arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though.

grammar - Using Past-tense or Present-tense for verbs

I found a perfect example on the internet about what I am trying to ask. Take a look at this:

1. "Mr. Dilger wants to see you." Mr. Bruce went on to say. "It's about the same thing. I thought I'd tell you before you saw him. A little bit easier facing the Big Boss if you're wised up beforehand, you know." I thanked him and went down the long aisle of desks to Mr. Dilger's office, the directory manager.

and this:

2. “I thought I'd tell you before you get to the office tomorrow."

Do you see the difference? The first quote and the second quote are both talking about the present time, yet the first quote has the verb "see" in past tense, while the second one has "get" in present tense. They both seem to be okay, but how?

The first quote is obviously taking place before the main character "sees" Mr. Dilger. So why would it be in past tense?

Does the English language not specify which tense that we must use when sentences are constructed like this?

I'd love everybody's opinions.

grammar - Is this grammatically correct? “Thinking of you and I”

http://vaadin.com/ makes a tool for User Interfaces (UI). Their tag line is “Thinking of U and I.” A play on words, I suppose, for UI, and “you and I.” It bothers me, though, because I think both pronouns should be in the objective case, i.e., “you” and “me.”

Is “Thinking of you and I” grammatically correct?

Answer

The phrase ‘Thinking of U and I’ is not ungrammatical because of the use of I. It maybe ungrammatical because of the use of U, although this is rather common today also.

I would like to say that I would never write like this as it would cause me too much distress.

It is important to note that what one means by ‘grammatical’ differs. The CGEL is a descriptive grammar and thus, when it says something is grammatical, it means well represented in the language.

In the following, ^% means grammatical in some dialects only and ^! means non-standard.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language says this:

Because these coordinate nominatives are perceived to be associated with avoidance of stigmatised accusatives in subject coordinations they are often described as hypercorrections. This is to imply that they are ‘incorrect’, not established forms in the standard language. Construction [^%The present was supposed to represent Helen and I, that was the problem] with I as final coordinate is, however, so common in speech and used by so broad a range of speakers that it has to be recognised as a variety of Standard English, and we will reserve the term hypercorrection for examples like [^%They’ve awarded he and his brother certificates of merit].

Here’s the context of that paragraph:

For one variety of English, coordination has no bearing on case: the case of a coordinate pronoun is the same as that of a pronoun that could substitute for the whole coordination. Some examples conforming to this rule are as follows:

1. At 4 pm this afternoon my ministers and I formally took office.



2. He and Luckman were sentenced to life imprisonment.


3. He and I have some of our biggest arguments over Conservative social issues.


4. You know you can trust Andrea and me.


5. I saw them and their children in the park.


6. There has always been pretty intense rivalry between him and me.

Compare [1–3] with the non-coordinate nominatives I took office, They were sentenced …, We have …, and [4–6] with the accusatives … you can trust us, I saw them, … between us. This is the pattern advocated by the usage manuals, but for many speakers the case-assignment rules are sensitive to the syntactic distinction between coordinate and non-coordinate pronouns.

Coordinate nominatives corresponding to non-coordinate accusatives

1. a) ^%The present was supposed to represent Helen and I, that was the problem.
   b) ^%Any postgrad who has any concerns about working conditions or security in shared offices is welcome to approach either Ann Brown or I with them.
   c) ^%It would be an opportunity for you and I to spend some time together.
   d) ^%He had intended to leave at dawn, without you or I knowing anything about it.


2. a) ^%They’ve awarded he and his brother certificates of merit.
   b) ^%There’s a tendency for he and I to clash.

Single pronouns replacing the coordinations would have to be in accusative case: us in [1] and [2b], them in [2a]. One particularly common use of this construction is in the expression between you and I, and indeed usage manuals often discuss it under that heading. It must be emphasised, however, that these nominatives are found quite generally in coordinations functioning in positions where single accusative pronouns are used. The pattern shown in [1], with the nominative as final coordinate, is much more common than the one in [2], where the nominative occurs at first (or both first and final) coordinate.

There can be little doubt that the quite common use of this construction is related to the stigmatism attaching to accusatives in subject coordinations like those in [the first set of examples]: people are taught that Me and Kim will do it and Kim and me will do it are incorrect, and many generalise their avoidance of such coordinate accusatives to other functional positions. The schoolteacher’s strictures focus primarily on the 1st person singular pronoun (since this is where children most commonly depart from the standard variety), and in [the second set of examples], with final-only nominative, I is overwhelmingly the most frequent form that is found.

Because these coordinate nominatives are perceived to be associated with avoidance of stigmatised accusatives in subject coordinations they are often described as hypercorrections. This is to imply that they are ‘incorrect’, not established forms in the standard language. Construction [1 above] with I as final coordinate is, however, so common in speech and used by so broad a range of speakers that it has to be recognised as a variety of Standard English, and we will reserve the term hypercorrection for examples like [2 above].

grammar - Is "strictly" in the right place in this sentence? ("will strictly be dealt with")

Those who do not reach the venue by 9 AM, will strictly be dealt with a penalty.

Is the above sentence grammatically correct? Specifically the positioning of 'strictly'

present perfect - "have been working" vs. "have worked"

What is the difference between the following two sentences?

1. I have been working here for 20 years.


2. I have worked here for 20 years.

The present perfect tense is used for repetitive or constant actions that began in the past and continue to the present. The perfect progressive tense is used for continuous actions that began in the past and continue to the present. But I really don't see the difference here.

Tenses - Reported speech WITHIN a conditional clause

If we would like to express a conditional statement about a present fact

as in "Can you go outside today? - I don't know yet, I need my parents' approval first"

Are these sentences correct?

1. If James asked his friend if she could go outside, she would tell him she needs her parents' approval first.




2. If James asked his friend if she can go outside, she would tell him she needs her parents' approval first.




3. If James asked his friend if she could go outside, she would tell him she needed her parents' approval first.

1: It sounds ok.

2: To me it is acceptable (no backshifting). However it may sound more like a general statement rather than a one-off invitation.

3: Now it's the tricky one. Couldn't it be interpreted for example as a related past event?

"If James asked his friend if she could go outside when she was 13, she would tell him that back in the day she needed her parents' approval first."

---

Reported speech usually triggers a backshifting when the introductory clause is in the past. Using the same examples as in the beginning:

John asked if she could go outside today.

She told him she didn't know yet and that she needed her parents'
approval first.

What if the introductory clause is a conditional sentence?

(If he liked her) John would ask if she can go outside today

vs

(if he liked her) John would ask if she could go outside today

Answer

Your third sentence

If James asked his friend if she could go outside, she would tell him she needed her parents' approval first.

is full of unspecified and therefore ambiguous options -

1. If James asked his friend now if she could go outside now, she would tell him now that she needed her parents' approval first.





2. If James asked his friend last week if she could go outside now, she would have told him then that she needed her parents' approval first.




3. If James asked his friend last week if she could go outside last week, she would have told him last week that she needed her parents' approval first.




4. If James asked his friend now if she could go outside last week, she would tell him now that she had needed her parents' approval first.

Ambiguity is easy. The goal is clarity.

meaning - Any differences between "slander" and "libel"?

Are there any differences between slander and libel?

Answer

Slander is spoken defamation, libel is written or published defamation.

articles - Should "an" be used before words beginning with "h"?

Should an be used before words beginning with 'h'? What about when the 'h' is silent and is followed by a vowel?

grammaticality - Which is correct: "has died" or "died"?

To me, using Present Perfect form means the event can occur again. So, saying

someone has died

may not be grammatically correct.

Also, I noticed (it might be just coincidence):

passed away

is used more often than

has passed away

Is using Present Perfect correct here?

Answer

The Present Perfect Construction in English has the following uses (cf. McCawley 1971):

• (a) The Universal sense of the Perfect, used to indicate that a state of affairs prevailed throughout some interval stretching from the past into the present
  • I've known Max since 1960.




• (b) The Existential sense of the Perfect, used to indicate the existence of past events,
  • I have read Principia Mathematica five times.




• (c) The Stative/Resultative sense of the Perfect,
  used to indicate that the direct effect of a past event still continues
  • I can't come to your party tonight - I've caught the flu.




• (d) The Hot News sense of the Perfect, used to report hot news
  • Malcolm X has just been assassinated.

This, coupled with the prohibition on the use of Present Perfect with subjects who are dead

• Madonna has visited Chicago.



• *Einstein has visited Chicago.

means that X has died is only appropriate in a context in which
the speaker believes that the addressee would not yet know that X is dead.

Executive Summary: If it's Hot News, use the Present Perfect; but if it's Old News, simple past.

---

McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English.
In C. Fillmore and T. Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp 96-113.

Usage and order of "galore": an adjective, but looks like an adverb

It is common to put adverbs of manner after a direct object. But is it grammatically correct to put an adjective after noun? As in:

1. Since then there have been reports, inquiries and guidance galore.

Why can't it be like this, if it's an adjective modifying a noun:

1. Since then there have been galore reports, inquiries and guidance.

Also, I am not sure whether this is a postpositive adjective or a reduced phrase adjective.

I have Googled and but couldn't get the actual answer of it.

Answer

Galore is an interesting word, an example of postpositive adjective.

Usage:

The Irish phrase go lear literally translates as “to sufficiency.” If there are sufficient enough bananas to build a house with them, you’d say that there are bananas galore.

The word is an example of a postpositive adjective, which means it comes after the word it describes. So when you go to a circus and 700 clowns surround you, don’t say “There are galore clowns,” because the correct way to express your terror is this: “There are clowns galore. Help!”

(Vocabulary.com)

grammar - The time before place mantra

As a Dutch schoolboy, during English grammar lessons (long ago...) I got one rule hammered into my head like a mantra: time before place:

In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war.

But as I gradually got more fluent in English I started to wonder whether this "rule" really made sense. Let me change the sentence a bit:

In the 1930s, in England, nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and 18th centuries everybody did.

Correct grammar, right? (Let history.stackexchange challenge the historical truth). But I think it makes sense to say

In England, in the 1930s nobody prepared for war, whereas in the 17th and 18th centuries everybody did.

because it emphasizes the contrast between the time periods better than in the former sentence.

And when I just say

In England, in the 1930s, nobody prepared for war.

does that sound warped to a native speaker?

So: how valid (or natural) is this rule?

(By the way, later I learned that the full rule is manner before time before place, but let's not go into that — yet).

Answer

You can bring more or less anything to the front of a sentence to give it prominence, so your examples are not the best way to illustrate a fairly solid "rule" in English, namely that time usually occupies the last position. [This is the opposite of what you seem to have learned.] So, we would normally say:

• I went to the bank yesterday.



• She usually dines at home on Sundays.


• We are planning to visit Prague next week.

not:

• I went yesterday to the bank.


• She usually dines on Sundays at home.


• We are planning to visit next week Prague.

If you add manner into the mix, you have a fairly solid rule: manner - place - time:

• I walked leisurely along the beach all day yesterday.


• She played very well in the chess tournament last night.

punctuation - What is the proper use of [square brackets] in quotes?

I sometimes see square brackets used while quoting. My assumption is that they are replacing a pronoun with what the object of the pronoun, but I never know for sure because I don't usually get to see what the original quote looks like before the modification. What are these called and what are the rules of use?

Answer

These are used to indicate that a direct quote has been edited — to fit the surrounding information, or to add context that does not show up within the scope of the quote. This page has a more detailed description:

Square brackets are used around words that are added that are not part of the original quote. For instance, you might have a source that says "Brenda and David went to the store," but you only want the quote to refer to David as a pronoun in your quote. So you should change it to "[He] went to the store."

Brackets can also be used with quotes for explanation for how you changed the quote from the original source. For example, you might write "Brenda and David went to the store [emphasis added]."