Difference in meaning between did you speak to... and have you spoken to...?

What's the difference in meaning between "Did you speak to the landlord this morning?" and "Have you spoken to the landlord this morning?"

grammar - A since-clause in present tense marking off a period of time

Question:

In English, can you use a present tense since-clause to mark off a period that starts at some time in the past and continues to and includes the present?

Background:

Unfortunately, my paradigm of the clause in question is a German seit clause. Consider, for example, a widow speaking of her living arrangements since her husband's death.

(D) Seit er tot ist, lebe ich allein.
(E1) Since he died, I have lived alone.

It seems to me that D has two clauses which are in present tense and imperfective (present) aspect while E1 has a since-clause in past tense and perfective (aorist) aspect and a main clause in present perfect tense and resultative aspect. (If any of this is wrong, please feel free to point out.)

The kind of since-clause I have in mind would have the same meaning (i.e. a period of time, not e.g. a cause) as that in E1, but go as follows:

(E2) Since he is dead, I have lived alone.

The question is not confined to present day English. An example from any historical period of a since or other subordinate clause in which a verb in present tense and imperfect aspect marks off a time period that continues to the present will do.

I want to add the following as forming a (sort of) continuum from (E2).

(E3) Since he is gone, I have lived in the house.
(E4) Since he has gone, I have lived in the house.
(E5) Since he has lived in the house, I have kept out of it.

E4 and E5 seem to have the same tense and aspect in both clauses (be they present perfect and resultative, or otherwise) and sound acceptable to me.

The since-clause in E3, it seems, can be assimilated either to that in E2 or that in E4 and E5. E3 sounds strange to me or at any rate not as likely in today's speech as "since he's been gone" or "went away."

Anyway, any historical or literary precedent for the seit-like usage of since in English is what I am looking for.

What is the most appropriate pronoun for humanity?

Humanity lived thousands of years in the environment without any source of electric power, but in the environment with radiation they will be dead in a few days.

grammar - When to use "the eldest"

Somebody please help me with this question. I know the answer but not sure why we have to use the definite article "the" here. The answer sheet says option "c" is the correct answer. But I am not sure why?

Q.Of my two daughters she is ———.

(A) elder (B) eldest (C) the elder (D) the eldest

Thanks.

questions - Must (Past Obligation Interrogative) "Must you have eaten all the food?"

Is the question "Must you have eaten all the food" correct when used in the past obligatory sense?

The best examples I can find are quite ambiguous.

"Must He have been less than perfectly kind to one of His creatures? I do not think it can reasonably be argued that in such a case God must have wronged one of His creatures."
-Kopelman, ‎L.M. and Moskop, J.C.; Ethics and Mental Retardation, 1984 [pg. 130]

If you change the question to read as follows it seems to share a similar intent:

"Did He have to be less than perfectly kind to one of His creatures? I do not think it can reasonably be argued that in such a case God must have wronged one of His creatures."

I am looking for solid references or consensus as to why "much" can't be used in the past deontic sense.

american english - Expression for becoming homeless, which has the word 'street' in it? How about "pushed to the streets"?

If I lost all my money and became homeless, what standard expression can I use which has the word 'street'? Would it sound perfectly okay to a native English speaker if I said "I was pushed to the streets"? What would a native English speaker say?

Answer

It sounds like the phrase you're looking for is "kicked out on the street", which typically implies homelessness or unemployment.

grammar - Past perfect progressive and past perfect

When is it possible to use past perfect instead of past perfect progressive to show that the action is still in progress?

I was just looking for more examples like the one below where either form can be used.

When the action began before the time of speaking in the past, and continued up to that time, or stopped just before it, we can often use either form. ^SOURCE

It was now six and he was tired because he had worked since dawn＝It was now six and he was tired because he had been working since dawn.

I think in my examples they can't be used interchangeably.

I had been eating dinner, when the doorbell rang. (The action is still in progress now, or has just ended)

I had eaten dinner, when the doorbell rang. (A finished action)

I had been cleaning my place when she arrived. (The action is still in progress now, or has just ended)

I had cleaned my place when she arrived. (A finished action)

I had eaten and I had cleaned imply that the actions have finished, but I need to show that they are still in progress.

I think I should remove 'now' and write that the action was still in progress at that moment in the past and it didn't finish or finished just before it or just finished.

Answer

The short answer is that you may employ the simple past perfect to express a continuing action only when the expression is atelic or bears in context a reasonably natural atelic interpretation.

A telic expression is one which has a goal or ending point "built in" to its sense—finish, for instance. Employing the test suggested in the article linked above, it makes perfect sense to say He finished in an hour, but not (normally) He finished for an hour.

Expressions which do not have such a goal are atelic. In your first example, work is an atelic expression: using the same test, He worked for an hour is acceptable, but not (normally) He worked in an hour. Atelic expressions are, so to speak, inherently continuous. Consequently, a simple past perfect construction use supports a continuous sense; this is why the two are "interchangeable".

Your other examples, however, are telic. Eating dinner and cleaning a room are not (normally) protracted indefinitely, they come to an end when the dinner is consumed and the room is clean. Consequently, using simple perfect constructions implies completion, and if you want to convey that the action continues you must employ a progressive construction.

Note, however, that "telicity" is a very subtle matter in practice. As the linked article tells you, grammarians are in some disagreement over just how it works; and I have been careful to qualify all my analyses with the (normally) tag.

Note, too, that there is an alternative to the two constructions you illustrate. The past progressive ("I was eating dinner when ... " and "I was cleaning my space when ... ") is more natural to my ear than the past perfect progressive. You want the past perfect progressive only if you employ a qualifier like since dawn, which removes the focus from the present-in-the-past to the past-in-the-past, the stretch of time which preceded the present-in-the-past.

grammaticality - “To enable him to escape” vs. “to enable him escape”

I have been coming across this kind of sentence more and more:

She gave him a key to enable him to escape capture.
She gave him a key to enable him escape capture.

Which sentence is correct? My understanding is that the preposition should be repeated as both enable and escape are verbs.

grammatical number - Is it a big mistake if I say "The thing I love are flowers"?

So I was wondering if both forms are correct

The thing I love is flowers
and
The thing I love are flowers

Grammar of nouns preceding names

For example:

• Billionaire John Smith purchased a new yacht last week.


• ACME Corporation says it treats workers well, but protestor Jane Doe believes otherwise.

What role do the nouns "billionaire" and "protestor" play here? They seem to be acting as adjectives. They don't seem like noun modifiers to me, as the names are not really being modified.

Answer

The usage is as a noun adjunct. A noun adjunct is a noun that is used to modify another noun. In each of these instances, a noun is being used to modify another noun. The noun adjunct is functioning appositively as a false title.

expressions - Usage of "ladies and gentlemen" to address two people of different sex

It seems to be not quite logical to use the traditional address "ladies and gentlemen" when there are only a single lady and a single gentleman in the room, not counting for the person who is speaking.

What an address (in a similarly traditional style) would it be better to use in such case? Does it depend on the speaker's gender or any other circumstances?

Answer

"Ladies and Gentlemen" is a common expression used to address an audience or crowd. While a crowd may consist of only gentlemen or only ladies, or possibly even just one gentleman or lady, it's entirely acceptable to address them as such anyway, as they will 'get' what you mean.

If you want to be 'correct', you could welcome them as "Sir and Madame" if it is one man and one woman. For a room of all one gender "Gentlemen" if it is all gentlemen and "Ladies" if it is all ladies, though you should only do this if you are certain that this is the case. Even then, it is unlikely that "Ladies and Gentlemen" will be objected to.

From related Wiktionary entry:

ladies and gentlemen pl ‎(plural only)

(idiomatic) Used to address an audience.

• Use is so idiomatic that even unisex audiences are sometimes addressed this way, though "ladies" or "gentlemen" would be more correct.


• The forms "lady and gentlemen" and "ladies and gentleman" are rarely used even when strictly correct.


• Nearly always used with "ladies" before "gentlemen", as opposed to "gentlemen and ladies".

terminology - Is there a distinct term for acronyms with multi-letter parts?

Is there a distinct term for acronyms with multi-letter parts, particularly in title case?

My motivating examples are:

Technical linguistic terms like "clipping compounds" are acceptable parts of answers, but I think this has already been covered on ELU[1][2], and I'm not really looking for the linguistics answer. I'm really interested in popular jargons or slangs for this kind of naming from any groups (current or historical) that have done it. For example, in computer programming culture the jargon for the similar practice of textWithCapsAndNoSpaces is called "camel case."

Both "_Con" and "Na__Mo" seem to be meme-like, almost like snoclone "phrasal templates." They both use the same partial-word, initial caps (ParWorInCap!) style of abbreviation.

Does this style of naming itself have a name?

Research:

I know that abbreviations, contractions, acronyms, and initialisms are already much discussed on ELU and elsewhere, and (non)distinctions are sometimes contested. To sum up common distinctions:

• abbreviations are any shortening of a word
  (Dr. <- Doctor)
  
  
  
  
  
  1. contractions are abbreviations that combine words by ommitting first/last
     (don't <- do not)
  
  
  2. apocopations are abbreviations that drop the end from a single word or separate words in a phrase [*]
     (photo <- photograph)
     (po-mo <- post-modern)
  
  
  3. acronyms are abbreviations from each initial letter or letters
     
     
     
     
     • ...each initial letter:
       (NASA <- National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
       
       
       
       
       
       • initialisms are acronyms in which letters are pronounced:
         (NSA <- National Security Agency)
       
       
     
     
     • ...initial letter groups, sometimes called clipping compounds [*][**]:
       (Nabisco <- National Biscuit Company)
       (ampersand <- and per se and)
     
     
  
  

Answer

They are known as camel case words or abbreviations (at least, they are in the software industry).

Wikipedia: Camel case

pronunciation - Why is "medicine" pronounced differently?

British English drops the unstressed second syllable to make it sound like med-sin /ˈmɛd.sɪn/.

American English keeps it as a 3-syllable word meh-dee-sin /ˈmɛ.dɪ.sɪn/

In Australia I've only ever heard meh-dee-sin /ˈmɛ.dɪ.sɪn/ except by British ex-pats.

But I think globally every English speaker pronounces all the syllables in "medicinal". Well maybe not the Welsh (I can't find a Welsh pronunciation).

American pronunciation pre-dates a shift in sound of British English in the late-18th and early-to-mid 19th centuries. See Grammarphobia's When did those upper lips stiffen?

This applies to many words like secretary, inventory and accidentally - but reversed for caramel family, chocolate and camera where Americans seem to drop syllables.

I then realised that I've even used the British vs American answer here on accepted answers.

I've just found Why do North Americans pronounce "caramel" as "carmel"? where the accepted answer explains the phenomena well.

But why is there a difference?

Clarification: "Why?" as in, "how come?" or "most plausible". Otherwise the correct answer is "because that's how it is".

Answer

Disyllabic pronunciations of the word "medicine" are quite old, and have in fact at times been considered more proper than trisyllabic pronunciations (I mean "proper" in terms of the concept of "RP" or "Received Pronunciation", as Mick pointed out). It may be relevant that the modern French word, "médecine", is also often pronounced with only two syllables—that's just my speculation, though.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) entry for the word records spellings like "medcoyne", "medcyn" and "medsin" that it says occurred as early as Middle English, and includes the following note about the pronunciation:

The disyllabic pronunciation (recognized by Johnson 1755) has existed at least from the 14th cent., as the forms occasionally indicate. N.E.D. (1906) stated that the trisyllabic pronunciation was less common in England, but that in Scotland and in the United States it was apparently the prevailing usage, and that examples of it occur in verse of all periods, from the 14th cent. onwards. N.E.D. also stated that the trisyllabic pronunciation was by many objected to as either pedantic or vulgar. The trisyllabic form still predominates in Scotland and in North America; H. W. Fowler Mod. Eng. Usage (1926) recommends the disyllabic pronunciation, while subsequent editions note the increasing frequency of the trisyllabic pronunciation in England.

In the word "medicinal", the first "i" is always pronounced because it occurs in a stressed syllable, unlike in "medicine". But there is some evidence that in the past, some speakers used an alternative stress pattern for the word "medicinal" that resulted in the first "i" being unstressed and possibly left out. The OED entry for that word says

Johnson gives pronunciations with stress on the penultimate syllable as well as the antepenultimate. Walker adduces a number of authorities in favour of the latter and casts much doubt on the former. A trisyllabic pronunciation, with elision of the second syllable and probably with stress on the first syllable, is attested by 17th- and 18th-cent. spellings such as med'cinal, medcinal.

(You can see Walker's dictionary entry in the scanned copy of his Critical Pronouncing Dictionary (1791) on the Internet Archive.)

As far as I can tell, both pronunciation variants existed already before American English and British English split. The present-day difference doesn't seem to have any clear cause. By the way, the idea that "American pronunciation pre-dates a shift in sound of British English" is an over-simplification: both varieties have changed (although not necessarily by the same amount) from their common ancestor, like how humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor that is identical to neither of them. (The “common ancestor” of American and British English wasn’t homogeneous.)

grammatical number - Using apostrophe for plural with names

Let's say the phrase I want to write is "all of the Mike Tysons, Donald Trumps, and Morpheus's in the world." I'm guessing that the first two names do not need one and the third does. Is this correct?

questions - Simple Past vs. Present Perfect for recently completed actions

In the following dialogue:

A: Look! I have bought a new hat.
B: Nice! Where did you buy it?

or

C. Nice! Where have you bought it?

Which is correct, b or c? Or both?

word choice - What's the difference between "arguable" and "debatable"?

I have noticed that people use 'debatable' a lot, while 'arguable' is used quite less.
What's the difference and when should one use one or the other?

Answer

According to Merriam-Webster, both these words can be used to refer to something the truth of which is in doubt:

Debatable:

2a : open to dispute : questionable

Arguable:

1 : open to argument, dispute, or question

However, a second meaning for arguable is

that can be plausibly or convincingly argued

That is, arguable can be used to describe a proposition which someone wishes to present as true. Debatable, on the other hand (especially in light of the apparent synonymy of questionable), is often used to describe a proposition which someone wishes to present as false or at least unlikely; see for example Merriam-Webster's sample phrase

the debatable wisdom of going back for another helping from the buffet

which, it seems, would indicate that going back is presented as unwise.

grammar - Adjective with proper noun

Rephrasing the entire question:

Do we use the article "the" when we use an adjective with a proper noun? Which of these is correct, and why?

The terrible Mr. Brown set my boat on fire.

Terrible Mr. Brown set my boat on fire.

The US-based Galacto, Inc., takes care of its customers.

US-based Galacto, Inc., takes care of its customers.

Do we use the article "the" when we use an adjective with a proper noun? Which of these is correct?

The Switzerland-based ABC Fund operates in most countries of the EU.

Switzerland-based ABC Fund operates in most countries of the EU.

I have a feeling the first sentence is correct but that it sounds a little old-fashioned.
What about phrases like, "The terrible Mr Brown"? You could argue that we're actually saying, "The terrible man Mr Brown". Said like that it sounds like an appositive, but is there something else going on here? Is there a term for this kind of phrase?

EDIT: By using the noun fund in my example, I have not made it clear what the question is. How would "the" work in "The US-based XYZ, Inc."?

Answer

I believe both of these sentences are correct, but that they convey slightly different shades of meaning.

Terrible Mr. Brown set my boat on

fire.

Mr. Brown set my boat on fire; I think he's terrible.

The terrible Mr. Brown set my boat on
fire.

Mr. Brown, who is infamous in these parts for being terrible, set my boat on fire.

When the adjective is "US-based" rather than "terrible", there is really very little difference in meaning between the two sentences. Putting "the" in might make the company sound a little more well-known.

capitalization - Capitalize after slash at beginning (e.g. Risk/Issue management)

Should a word after a slash at the beginning of a sentence be capitalized?

E.g.

1. Risk/Issue management



2. Risk/issue management

I would guess the first one is correct because "Issue" would be an alternative beginning due to the slash.

What case is used for pronouns in the vocative?

A coauthor and I are drafting a letter, and we're not yet sure whom we're going to be sending it to. So I sent a draft to my coauthor, which started

Dear [whomever]:

Now, that line in a letter is in the vocative case (or would be, if English really had cases). I know that who is used in the nominative case and whom in the accusative/dative, but what about the vocative? Should I have written

Dear [whoever]:

instead?

---

---

Obviously, my question is only about such dialects as use who and whom. But it could be just as well asked about he versus him: had we been authoring a letter with a known male recipient we didn't want to bother writing out the name of, we could have used

Dear [him]:

or

Dear [he]:

and the same question would apply.

---

Equally obviously, because this is a draft letter and the word in question won't appear in the final copy, it really doesn't matter which word we use. I wish to know anyway.

Answer

One relevant piece of data (although I wouldn't say it's conclusive) is the case of the singular second person pronoun thou/thee in archaic English, since this pronoun had distinct forms for the subjective and objective cases and was used in the vocative fairly often.

When it was used in the vocative, the nominative form thou seems to have been used, as demonstrated by this quote from Shakespeare:

Kent. Thou whoreson zed! thou unnecessary letter! (King Lear, 2.2.35)

Similarly, back when ye was still used as the subject case form of you, the sources I have found indicate it was also used for the vocative (The English Language; Its Grammar, History and Literature, by John Miller Dow Meiklejohn), although as ye passed out of use the situation seems to have become less consistent (An English Grammar, by Eduard Adolf Maetzner, mentions some grammarians who describe ye being used in the nominative and you in the vocative).

I think it's fairly unnatural to use a non-second-person pronoun in the vocative, so I don't have any strong intuitions on "dear he" vs. "dear him" and I'd guess that different people would have different preferences here. Guifa has left some comments suggesting "Dear me" sounds better than "Dear I"; I guess I'd agree, but I can't think of a situation where I'd use either and both of these options sound awkward to me (I think people normally use second-person pronouns to talk to themselves, as in "You've got to keep going!")

I'd recommend going with the nominative "Dear [whoever]."

---

Another piece of data may be that in present-day German, which has retained case to a greater degree than English, the adjective corresponding to "Dear" is put in the nominative singular form when addressing a letter: one writes "Lieber [name of a male]" at the start of a letter in German rather than using dative "Liebem" or accusative "Lieben".

Not all languages with cases deal with such situations the same way: in Ancient Greek, it seems that the receiver of the letter might be given in the dative case at the start of the letter (according to Alexandre Daubricourt's answer to the following Latin SE question: Are there any surviving Ancient Greek letters (epistolary)?).

English is more closely related to German than it is to Greek, but even closely related languages can sometimes use cases differently, so the German data is not conclusive with regard to English—it only suggests that the nominative case is a plausible candidate in this kind of context.

grammaticality - Correct usage of "was passed"

Recently I came across a phrase that sounds wrong to me as a native speaker (New Zealand English), but I can't find a rule that explains whether this is correct or not.

"The submitted build was passed."

The context of this statement is in submitting code to a build server, which runs tests on the code and the outcome is a pass or a fail.

I naturally want to correct it to "the submitted build passed", or "the submitted build has passed".

I know that "he was passed by another pedestrian" is correct, but I don't understand what about the above sentence makes me think it is incorrect.

Is this correct English? Which rule explains why it is correct or incorrect?

conjunctions - Use of "and" in a list followed by "as well"

Do you need an and after wife in this sentence?

The husband, wife, mother as well as the sister are coming.

single word requests - Compound adjective or short phrase to describe something that is affected by an issue

I'm looking for a word, compound adjective or very short phrase that could be used to describe something, such as a parcel delivery, that is affected by an issue. What I'm looking for is supposed to sound formal or "technical". The only thing I could think of was "issue-affected" but Google showed me I had just made that up or "under issue" but the meaning of that (if it actually has any) is not what I'm looking for.

An example of use of the word would be:

Deliveries which are complete, pending or issue-affected

Thank you very much

prepositions - Who/Whom do you want to be?

Which is correct,"who/whom do you want to be?" In one book I found that "to be" follows who and not whom, but the sentence should have an objective pronoun whom if we go by the normal rules, as it is the object here.

indefinite articles - A XHTML document or An XHTML document

When writing this sentence:

So it's possible to do an XHTML quine, but not a HTML quine

I noticed that I used an for XHTML but not for HTML. In the discussion on this thread, I've picked up on a few points:

Use an when the following sound is a vowel-sound. The letter X is
pronounced eks ... so an eks-em-el code.

And,

XML code, by the way, is not singular. "An XML code" sounds as odd as
"a C code" or "a Visual Basic code". You could say "an XML tag" but
"XML code" refers to any quantity of code written in XML.

As well as,

1. XML stands for "Extensible Markup Language." (not "extended")

Therefore it seemed more natural to type an for something that's singular (document) and begins with an x. It seems like the "ex" in "extensible" is similar to the "ex" in "extra", since you pronounce the consonants in the XML acronym. Is it incorrect to use an in this case?

Answer

Generally, you use "a" or "an" based on the way you pronounce the acronym (and not its expanded form). The fact that "ex" is the start of either "extensible" or "extended" has nothing to do with the way the letter X is pronounced (which also turns out to be "ex").

So if you pronounce it "ex-aitch-tee-em-ell document", prefix it with "an" (an XHTML document).

Similarly for HTML, "aitch-tee-em-ell" still starts with a vowel, so you'd use "an" for it as well.

So this form:

So it's possible to do an XHTML quine, but not an HTML quine

would be correct.

---

Now, an acronym like SQL is more contentious, because "ess-cue-ell" and "sequel" are two ways to pronounce it, one with a vowel and one without, so "a SQL database" and "an SQL database" are both valid depending on how you pronounce it.

grammar - Two verbs of present perfect

I just read an article on Newyork times and I found a sentence having 2 present perfect verbs :

After more than a year of speculation, Mr. Draghi, the never-predictable head of the European Central Bank, has given global investors what they have clamored for, with an extra twist: an open-ended commitment to buy eurozone government bonds in bulk.

The first verb "has given" is used because the action happened in the past but has results in the present which is an open ended commitment

The second one " have clamored" is used because they clamored several time in the past up to the present

Am I right? if no, can anyone give a correct answer?

Thank you

past tense - Why is the present perfect used in headlines?

In news reports, we often read or hear events introduced with the present perfect, and then the past simple like this:

The film star Jim Cooper has died of cancer. He was 68 and lived in Texas.

What's wrong if we use both first and second sentence in past simple?

The film star Jim Cooper died of cancer. He was 68 and lived in Texas.

word choice - Is "respectively" correct in this sentence? Can it be replaced by "correspondingly"?

I have seen several questions dealing with the use of "respectively" but still I am not sure how to use it.

Example:

We saw two persons, standing on the hill and near the tree, respectively.

I need a word to clarify that not both persons are standing both on the hill and near the tree, but that one person is standing on the hill and the other one near the tree.
While this sentence is easy to rewrite (e.g. We saw one person... and another person...), this becomes more difficult in more complicated sentences and when I don't want to repeat longer words.

I was told that "respectively" can only be used in lists and I am not sure if "two persons" can be seen as a list (while "Person A and person B" would be a list). Moreover, I was told to use "correspondingly" instead.

Is "respectively" used correctly in the above sentence? If not, can I replace it with "correspondingly"?

Answer

The term respectively is used in technical-style writing to indicate correspondence between lists, as noted in a comment to your question.

For example, A and B went to C and D respectively means that A went to C and B went to D.

However, the definition of the term (see below, especially the example listed in the dictionary entry) indicates that it can also be used in the manner you describe, where you have a group and associate the members with elements of a list.

Respectively adverb
Separately or individually and in the order already mentioned (used when enumerating two or more items or facts that refer back to a previous statement): they received sentences of one year and eight months respectively
- ODO

In the dictionary's example, the people referred to collectively by the word 'they' are associated with separate sentences, and the sense is that a different individual is associated with each sentence.

idioms - The meaning of "Have been around"

In the following context (excerpt from this answer):

They're examples of the double genitive/possessive, which is perfectly valid and has been around in English for centuries. The "of" already denotes "possession", but we do this again when we use mine/his instead of me/him.

I think has been around means exists in this context, but I can't confirm it. I tried to look it up in the dictionaries, but with no luck except as follows:
From Wiktionary, have been around the block is an alternative form of verb phrase to have been around, which idiomatically means "To be experienced in worldly matters; to be seasoned, not naive."
From Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, the 13th entry for around (have been around, informal) is

a) to have had experience of many different situations so that you can deal with new situations confidently : [eg] You could tell this guy had been around a bit by the knowing way he talked.
b) to have had many sexual experiences – used humorously

Can anyone help me to confirm that has been around means exists in the context I quoted?

grammar - Is it possible to "revenge" a situation?

From the usage I am familiar with, it sounds strange to use "revenge" as a verb by itself. I am used to hearing it together with another word, such as "get revenge" or "take revenge". My dictionary lists revenge as being both a noun and a verb though, so is it correct to say "I wanted to revenge my first experience traveling abroad and do it right the second time"?

I corrected someone who is a non-native English speaker, advising that it's more natural to say "get revenge". However, I could not say with confidence that it is wrong to "revenge" something or someone.

On a related note, I have heard the synonym "avenge" being used in this way: "I will avenge his death". So are "revenge" and "avenge" sister words that have been adopted with different usage? Or perhaps their usage follows the same rules but it has become more popular to use "revenge" together with another verb?

Thanks

Answer

This is unusual for an English verb in that it is reflexive.

Example

"I hear you are very angry about what happened"
"Yes, and I intend to revenge myself."

The same is true for 'avenge.' In fact they seem to be used interchangeably as this ngram shows:

Google ngram: revenge myself,avenge myself

However it makes little sense to say, "I wanted to revenge my first experience traveling abroad and do it right the second time"

Revenge is a way of inflicting punishment on a person. Who are you punishing by travelling abroad?

Maybe you want to redress the past experience?

Active Passive Voice

My niece had to change the following to Passive Voice:

Who broke the vase?

She answered:

The vase was broken by whom?

The teacher says this is ungrammatical and the answer should be:

Whom was the vase broken by?

Can someone explain the difference between my niece's answer and the teacher's and exactly why is it incorrect.

Thanks in advance

word choice - "Recommend to have" vs. "recommend having"

I am writing my bachelor dissertation and several times Microsoft Word has corrected me from "to have" to "having". One of the sentences, for instance, goes like this:

The author recommends to have ‘(...)'. Bugeja further recommends having a student blog where prospective...

Can anyone enlighten me?

subjects - Can anyone help me to understand if the following sentence requires 'who' or 'whom'?

I am writing a story and would like to know which one is correct:

a) "...and it was impossible to know who was sheltering whom."

b) "...and it was impossible to know who was sheltering who."

I tried to apply the 'replace who by he/him' method, but I didn't figure out yet.

I appreciate your help.

One or two apostrophes for two subjects in the possessive case?

Which is correct: [Bonus question: should there be a question mark here instead of a colon?]

The book contains Marx and Engels' theories about the nature of
society and politics.

or

The book contains Marx's and Engels' theories about the nature of
society and politics

It seems to me that the former is more common, but I am confused here since the latter seems more logical to me (and matches what you would see in my native language Icelandic).

past tense - Why “can” not “could” in “She was one of those people who can. . . .”?

The following sentence is from George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, occurring in chapter 5 of part 2:

She was one of those people who can go to sleep at any hour and in any position.

Why is who can grammatically correct when used with was? Shouldn’t it be who could?

Answer

The description is taken from a novel; in that context, it is usual to refer to people using the past tense.

Who could relates not to the character just mentioned, but to the generic referent one of those people, whose characteristics can be described both by who can and who could.

etymology - What is the origin of "GO + VERB + ING"?

The construction GO + V + ING is among one of the first things a learner is taught. Take for instance the verb swim, very often English expresses the activity in the present simple like this:

I go swimming twice a week

This construction is used with any ‘outdoorsy’ or sport activity that employs a verb, such as:

He goes skiing whenever he can
She goes dancing with her friends.
We go walking every day
They go surfing at/on weekends.

The verb GO is inflected to express different tenses such as

He didn't go swimming.
She's going fishing in the morning.
We went bowling last night.
He'd gone hunting before.
They've just gone rock climbing.

Shopping and drinking seem to break the mould, they are neither sports nor games, but you can think of them as being “outdoor” or pastime activities. You can go drinking with your mates, and while many Italians believe lo shopping is only the activity that young girls do in boutiques; people also go shopping for food etc. And nowadays, we go shopping online.

They've gone shopping.
Let's go drinking.

But GO + V + ING for the following activities is “ungrammatical” or dubious at best:

1. *I go playing tennis regularly. (maybe this one's OKish)



2. *You go working twice a week.


3. ?Let's go criketing/baseballing/basketballing (etc.)


4. *He goes cleaning his car at/on the weekend.


5. ?She goes painting outdoors every Sunday.


6. *You go washing up after dinner.


7. *Let's go eating out.


8. *Let's go seeing a movie.

---

Questions

• What is the origin of GO + V + ING? When was this construction first noted?


• Is this construction becoming increasingly flexible in English speaking countries?


• Are the expressions go shopping and go drinking considered isolated/unique cases? I am particularly interested in hearing about activities that are unrelated to sports/games/outdoors but use GO + V + ING.
  For example, @pazzo's suggestions: gamble and window shop.

Answer

The origin goes back to Old English, as far as the year 1000 or earlier (according to OED). OED gives OE (Old English) for the date section of the two earliest citations.

Definition:

With participle indicating a concomitant action or activity.

Earliest citation:

Þa eodon hi sprecende ymbe þæs hælendes þrowunge him betwynan.

_{Ælfric of Eynsham, Catholic Homilies}

Other examples in chronological order are: (OED)

• eodon biddende, OE



• eode singuynde, c1300


• go wryȝinge, c1380


• go hippinge, c1430


• go walkyng, 1483


• went preachyng, a1535


• wente askyng & serchyng, 1548


• go begging, 1615


• went looking about, 1658


• Went prancing, 1719


• went mumping, 1775



• went dancing, 1841


• went sailing, 1895


• went rushing down, 1930


• went sprawling, 1988


• went sniffing, 2013

OED mentions that the above definition is the formally similar sense of the following definition:

intr. To move, travel, or proceed (to somewhere) so as to perform a specified action, or for the purpose of a specified or implied activity.

    f. With verbal noun or gerund.

        (b) Without prefixed particle.

The earliest citation is from a1500:

Euery-on an hauke on honde ber, & went haukyng [c1330 Auch. riden on haukin] by þe ryuer.

Sir Orfeo, Harley

Other examples in chronological order are: (OED)

• went hunting, 1658


• have gone hunting and hawking, 1672



• go Hunting or Hawking, 1707


• go shooting of Birds, 1749


• goes gunning , 1846


• went gambling, 1861


• ‘go clamming’, 1887


• went automobiling, 1915


• went fishing, 1933


• going camping, 1960


• go clubbing, 2003

OED also gives:

(a) With prefixed a (also †on) Now arch. and regional.

The earliest citation is from c1300:

Þis child scholde wende An hontingue.

_{St. Kenelm (Laud) 148 in C. Horstmann Early S.-Eng. Legendary}

Conclusion:

It looks like this construction was first being used for actions, and then extended to activities. In OED, the earliest example with an outdoor activity is "go walking" (if we exclude the constructions with prefixed a). Then, we start seeing examples like "go hunting" starting from 1500s as sport-like activities. Although, the earlier form is with prefixed a. (go a hunting).

We are more familiar with this construction for sports and outdoor activities but it can be used with other leisure and indoor activities like bowling, shopping, dancing, clubbing etc.

grammaticality - perfect tense to refer to the future

Some events are happening from time to time and I'd like a colleague of mine to notify me about the occurrence of those events next time they happen. So, I'm writing to that colleague:

I'm looking forward to hearing from you about an event having happened again.

In response I'm expecting to receive a message of the following sort: "Hey, finally the event has happened again, log into the system and look at the consequences. "

My question is whether my message to the colleague is OK or not? What's wrong and how I could ask about the same in a grammatically correct way?

Answer

Your message is ungrammatical because it uses a present perfect, which refers to a past interval of time, to refer to a future event. You could say "... about a recurrence of such an event."

word choice - When to use "nowhere" and when "not anywhere"

What is the difference between "nowhere" and "not anywhere"; both means the same thing, I guess. Is one of them more polite or more formal?

What is the defining factor to decide which one to use?

Answer

Nowhere would be the normal usage. However, it might be appropriate if you had done a search of a house for something or someone, to shake your head in despair, and say "It's not anywhere". The implication is that you have looked everywhere, and it is not in any of the places you have looked.

It is slightly idiomatic, though, so it is not for use in formal writing.

differences - Does the word, ‘peruse’ have a single meaning of ‘attentive reading,’ or double, contradicting meanings of ‘attentive’ and ‘cursory’ reading?

I’m confused to find opposite definitions in the same word, ‘peruse’ in Readers English Japanese Dictionary published by a leading foreign language dictionary publisher in Japan.
It defines ‘peruse’ as:

vt.

1. Read carefully and attentively. Examine carefully.





2. Read cursorily, quickly.

As I thought ‘read carefully’ and ‘read cursorily’ are contradicting definition, I checked OALED. It defines ‘peruse’ singly as:

vt. to read sth. especially in a careful way.

Oxford Online English Dictionary single-mindedly defines ‘peruse’ as:

1. read (something), typically in a thorough or careful way:


2. examine carefully or at length:

with a specific note:

Note that peruse means ‘read’, typically with an implication of
thoroughness and care. It does not mean ‘read through quickly; glance
over’, as in documents will be perused rather than analyzed
thoroughly.

Cambridge Online English Dictionary similarly define ‘peruse’ as:

to read through something, especially in order to find the part you are interested in:

However, Merriam-Webster English Dictionary comes with dual meanings of ‘attentive reading’ and ‘cursory reading, or skimming.’

a: to examine or consider with attention and in detail.

b: to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner.

Obviously, both Oxford (including OAELD) and Cambridge English Dictionary give a single meaning of ‘attentive reading,’ and both Merriam-Webster and Readers Dictionary give dual meanings of “attentive and casual reading.”

What is the absolute interpretation of the meaning of ‘peruse’? If it has a single meaning - only attentive reading -, there’s no problem. But if it has dual meanings as seen in Merriam-Webster and Readers Dictionary, how can I find which way the word is used in mutually conflicting meanings of ‘deep-reading’ and ‘quick-reading’ in the context?

In other word, how can I tell whether the sender wants me to make a thorough and meticulous study of his writing, or to have just a quick run-through when he sends it to me with a note, “for your perusal?”

Addendum:

I checked American English dictionaries at hand, which again come in both a single and dual definition(s).

Oxford American English Dictionary (1980) defines ‘peruse’ singly as to read or examine printed material, especially with great care.

Webster’s New World Basic Dictionary of American English (1998) defines the word separately as;
1. to read through carefully as in peruse report on employment.

2 to read in a casual way as in peruse the Sunday paper.

In net, four English dictionaries provide a single definition purporting ‘attentive reading,’ and three other dictionaries provide dual meanings of ‘attentive’ and ‘cursory’ reading.

However, all three Oxford brand dictionaries adopt uniformly a single ‘attentive reading’ interpretation.

Answer

To follow up on FumbleFingers's OED quote, I note that the "to look over or through in a casual or cursory manner" definition is a relatively recent addition to the Merriam-Webster's entry for peruse. That definition first appears (in the Collegiate series) in the Tenth Collegiate Dictionary (1993). The Ninth Collegiate Dictionary (1983) has a substantially shorter entry for peruse:

1: to examine or consider with attention and in detail: STUDY 2: READ

Perhaps the most ambiguous definition of peruse in the Tenth (and Eleventh) Collegiate Dictionary is the revised form of the older definition 2 ("READ"):

2: READ; esp., to read over in an attentive or leisurely manner

To me, "an attentive or leisurely manner" is a bit like "a hard-working or indolent manner"—it covers a lot of ground in two places with very little overlap between them.

Because the word can mean quite different things nowadays, I wouldn't assign a more specific meaning than "read" to any contemporary occurrence of it unless I had contextual clues to help me interpret the speaker's (or writer's) intent.

FOLLOW-UP: Various grammar and usage commentators have addressed the proper usage of peruse. For example, Eric Partridge, Usage and Abusage, Fifth Edition (1957) offers this entry:

peruse is not synonymous with 'to read', for it means to read thoroughly, read carefully, from beginning to end. One peruses a contract, one reads an (ordinary) advertisement—that is, if one does not merely glance at it.

Bryan A. Garner, Modern American Usage (2003) expresses a similar view:

peruse (= to read with great care) is pompous and stilted in business correspondence. That is, the word shouldn't be used merely as a fancy substitute for read. ... Some writers misuse the word as if it meant "to read quickly" or "scan" [examples omitted]. That slipshod extension has become common enough to be listed in some dictionaries. But since it's the opposite of the word's traditional meaning, that usage is best shunned.

Of course, both Partridge and Garner focus on how peruse should be used, not on how people actually use it. For a descriptivist view—and a critique of prescriptivist hostility toward using peruse to mean simply "read"—we can consult Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989). Its discussion runs for a page and a half.

Briefly, WDEU argues that peruse arose as "a literary word" that, in poetry, served as "a useful alternative to the monosyllabic read." WDEU traces hostility to the use of peruse to mean simply "read" to Frank Vizetelly, A Desk-Book of Errors in English (1906), which made the following assertion:

peruse should not be used when the simple read is meant. The former implies to read with care and attention and is almost synonymous with scan, which is to examine with critical care and in detail. A person is more apt to read than to scan or peruse the Bible.

Incidentally, scan has long since completed the bipolar metamorphosis that some people now attribute to peruse. As Garner notes, "scan is ambiguous: it may mean either (1) 'to examine carefully, scrutinize' or (2) 'to skim through, look at hurriedly.' In [American English], as it happens, sense 2 now vastly predominates—a tendency bolstered by the ubiquitous electronic scanner, which contribute to the idea of haste."

According to WDEU, "it appears that this notion of the correct use of peruse was Vizetelly's own invention. It was certainly born in disregard of dictionary definitions of the word and in apparent ignorance of the literary traditions on which those dictionary definitions were based."

WDEU then cites 21 examples (ranging in publication date from 1594 to 1968) involving peruse—some with a narrowing adverb such as thoroughly, diligently, or attentively, or (contrariwise) negligently or idly, and others with no adverbial modifiers (such as "I perused a number of public notices attached to the wall," from a 1939 book by Flann O'Brien). Then it makes its central argument:

You may have noticed by now that the plain word read can readily be substituted in any of these examples, even where the idea of "read through or over" is pretty obvious.

...

In conclusion we recommend that you reread the examples and see for yourself in how many Samuel Johnson's simple "read" definition would work perfectly well. There are likely to be only a few in which adding the adverbs used by later dictionary definers will enhance anyone's understanding of the passage.

Under the circumstances, I don't think that the Tenth Collegiate's 1993 expansion of the second definition of peruse four years after WDEU appeared from "READ" to "READ; esp., to read over in an attentive or leisurely manner" represents a disavowal by Merriam-Webster's of the generic sense "read" in favor of something along the lines of "either read in an attentive manner or read in a leisurely manner, but not simply read." Rather, I think it reflects Merriam-Webster's desire to call out the two most common narrower senses that peruse-as-"read" takes, while upholding the continued validity of the root meaning "read."

In any event, Merriam-Webster's republished WDEU as Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage in 1994 (one year after the Tenth Collegiate appeared) with its lengthy discussion of peruse unchanged.

grammaticality - Why is "not as ... as" preferred to "not cheaper than"?

In the rephrasing exercise

A is more expensive than B. > A is not _________ B.

The only correct answer is supposed to be "A is not as cheap as B".

However, a student suggested "A is not cheaper than B".

In Portuguese, that's a perfectly possible construction, but, to me, it sounds awkward in English. However, I cannot explain why (except for the fact I'm sure I have never heard or read such a sentence - but, again, I'm not a native English speaker).

I've checked all my grammars, but I couldn't find anything that could help me explain to the student why not as ... as is preferred to not more/-er than. What can't be overlooked is that I have found no exercises or examples that allow for the not more/-er than structure.

As it is, I'm not even sure if the sentence is possible (even if it is awkward) or if it is absolutely wrong. Whatever the answer, the main problem remains: why? Is it because of the negative to be? Does it require the as ... as structure?

Answer

This is an entirely grammatical phrase, though not as idiomatic as A is no cheaper than B. However, it is not an acceptable answer to the exercise because the meaning is slightly different. A is no(t) cheaper than B could mean (it even suggests) that A and B are the same price.

hyphenation - Does "now outdated equipment" need a hyphen?

The full sentence is: "Previous well-cited work establishes human perceptual system thresholds, but these studies were conducted on now outdated equipment"

Should "now outdated" be changed to "now-outdated"?

Answer

Chicago Manual of Style, in its incredibly helpful hyphenation table, says that a phrasal adjective made up of an adverb not ending in -ly + a participle should be hyphenated when it comes before the noun. That makes the case for the hyphen, and while there are some conceivable reasons to leave it open, I don't think hyphenating here would be incorrect--unless there's a specific rule to "now" that I haven't found out about yet. (Chicago notes that several words, such as "less," are usually left open even before a noun.)

grammar - Can we mix tenses in the same paragraph?

From an Indian thriller TV show called Ssshhhh...Koi Hai

Ajinkya manages to find his mother but is shocked to know she had never transformed. He managed to kill Vikrant but that wouldn’t be the end of him. He enters Vayika’s body, who is injuired in a struggle and in order to finish Vikrant completely, ends up killing Vayika.

In this phrase taken from Wikipedia, does the bold part fit correctly with the rest?

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

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

The sentence was about baking, and it said:

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

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

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

So which form is correct, and why?

Answer

In the following sentence:

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

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

the definite article in front of a noun that is followed by a defining clause

When we want to refer to a specific noun, we use the definite article 'the'. When the noun is followed by a defining clause, again we use the defining article 'the'. My question is why the following sentence does not have the article 'the'? The who-clause seems to require the article.

People who haven't got cars can't stop at these out-of-town stores

Moreover, if I want to refer to, say, some cookies that can be find at a particular store, should I say:

Rolo Cookies are cookies (that are) sold at Tesco.

or

Rolo Cookies are the cookies (that are) sold at Tesco?

Another example:

"Make that change" is a/the??? slogan written on the Oriflame eye shadow pallet.

Could someone explain why sentence #2 in the question is ungrammatical because there i is no explanation why the article is used: Use of article in front of product names

grammar - The class is/are all working on a project together

The class is/are all working on a project together.

I am curious to know whether I can use both is and are in this sentence - with a small difference in meaning.

grammaticality - "You're missing the posts only available to members" — should there be a "the" in there?

Consider this sentence:

You're missing posts only available to members.

I think it should actually be

You're missing the posts available only to members

or at least

You're missing the posts only available to members

The second sounds the best to me, but friends say the first one sounds best.

This is going to go on a website for the people to see. I do not know how to justify it, but I think there should be a the before posts. Does taking it out make it okay? If so, can someone please explain?

Answer

Although the modifier "only available to members" makes "posts" more specific and thus would seem to require the definite Article, it still hasn't made the Noun completely specific.

You can say "posts" is halfway from being general to being specific.

This is often confusing. Consider this other "middle" example. This is correct:

Ex. I like people who have initiative. (not all people, but still

general)

In your example, not adding an article is suitable because the Noun "posts" is specific but still general.

The alternative you're thinking of should be something like:

Ex. I want to read THE posts that WERE only available to members.

Using the pronouns "he" and "she" for animals

I've been wondering for some time under which conditions the pronouns he/she can be used when talking about animals. I know that they are used when talking about pets (esp. larger ones) and when you know the sex of the animal (as, for example, zoo keepers, vets, etc., generally do), and also often in literature. But when it comes to other contexts, I often don't understand why he/she is used. Are there any rules?

Example: I recently read a report about how to survive in the Sahara desert, and how dangerous some of the animals can be. "Be careful if you encounter the so-and-so snake, He doesn't like to be stepped on." It was just this one sentence, and the source of the text was OUP in a textbook, so I'm sure it wasn't a mistake. And I've come across many other examples that I can't recall now, but that made me wonder...

And I'd also like to know whether there is a tendency for which animals take he and which she as a pronoun. For example frog: If he/she is used, is it usually he or she? Are there any lists or reference books where I could look?

grammar - Is English changing to make “Jack told Jill and *I* to walk faster” acceptable?

Consider:

Jack told Jill and I to walk faster.

instead of

Jack told Jill and me to walk faster.

This “mistake” seems to be becoming more and more common, even among TV newscasters or commentators. Seems as if this is going to be a permanent change in English grammar, adding a complexity:

Jack saw me there.

Jack saw Jill and I there.

Is it?

conjunctions - Alternative structures for "not only ... but also ..."?

I'm trying to write this essay and I find myself writing too many "not only ... but also ..." structures. Can you guys help me come up with some alternatives?

Basically, I want this kind of progressive effect:

Doing this is not only fun, but also one of the most important activities of human beings.

How about this one:

He is not only a teacher, but also one of the greatest educators in history.

Answer

Doing this isn't exclusively fun, it's one of the most important activities of human beings.

Doing this is not purely fun, on the contrary, it's one of the most important activities of human beings.

Doing this is not wholly classified as fun, conversely it's one of the most important activities of human beings.

He is not a mere teacher, he is one of the greatest educators in history.

He is a teacher and more, one of the greatest educators in history.

terminology - Is "am" in "I am right" an auxiliary verb?

Consider these sentences:

The ice was thick enough to walk on.

They were in a hurry.

There is enough salt in it.

It is freezing.

I am right.

Are the italicized verbs auxiliary verbs?

---

Update: Let me explain why I asked this question.

The above sentences are from exercise 6 "Auxiliary verbs" from the book "A Practical English Grammar Exercises 1".

From the 36 sentences in exercise 6, all except the above mentioned five sentences are indeed sentences that contain auxiliary verbs (may, must, can, will, had, etc.).

So, what happened here? Why are those five sentences in this exercise? Is it an oversight?

View image in full resolution here: http://i.stack.imgur.com/gjn8J.gif

Answer

Before I start, let me remind you that an auxiliary verb (to be, to have) is called like this because it helps another verb (from NOAD: late Middle English : from Latin "auxiliarius", from auxilium ‘help.’) as in, it supports the main verb.

The ice was thick enough to walk on.

They were in a hurry.

There is enough salt in it.

I am right.

Regarding the sentences above the answer is no, because there is no complex construction, they all are "simple" tenses. The main verb is "to be" in all of them.

"Thick", "enough" and "right" are not verbs.

It is freezing.

In this case, instead, we have an ambiguous situation, since it can be: (1) the verb "is" performs the role of auxiliary verb, since "to freeze" is a verb, or (2) freezing is an adjective/adverb, and in that case, the verb "is" wouldn't be an auxiliary verb.

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?

How do I correctly identify the object in a sentence?

How do I correctly identify the object in a sentence?

Here are two examples I am confused about.

1. She rose from her chair.

   
   
   
   

   On a website, I read that this sentence doesn't contain any object. But I believe that since the "chair" is receiving the action of the verb "rose", it must be an object.




2. He is working on a project.

   
   
   

   Is project an object here?

Kindly tell me how can I easily sort out objects in different sentences.

Answer

The simple thing that you can do is to isolate the verb and put "whom" or "what" in front of it.

Let us take your first example.
She rose from her chair.
If we isolate the verb and insert what or whom in front of it, the whole question seems ridiculous and as explained by @BillJ we need to do the impossible by writing - "She rose her chair".

As per the definition of the object- one that receives the action- chair might seem a good choice, but in actuality, "her chair" will be counted as an object complement and not as an object.

Do the same analysis for the second one. Hope it helps!

relative clauses - Comparative words after the subject

I'm really having trouble figuring out how to describe a clause describing a subject which contains a comparative adjective (or an adjective of equality). For example:

Children [shorter than four feet] are not allowed on the ride.

Words [larger than eight letters] confuse me.

The number [equal to 6] is the correct answer.

Which word [synonymous with "sad"] is also a color?

Is this a relative clause without a relative pronoun? Also, would these clauses be considered non-restrictive, therefore requiring commas?

Answer

As far as my knowledge and internet research goes these are all (or should be, depending on what meaning you are trying to convey) restrictive relative clauses with a zero-pronoun.

Children [that are] shorter than four feet are not allowed on the ride.

Words [that are] larger than eight letters confuse me.

The number [that is] equal to 6 is the correct answer.


Which word [that is] synonymous with "sad" is also a color?

The words in brackets are what is left out by the zero-realisation.

If you use the relative clause to add some information that does not change the meaning of the modified noun then you would have a non-restrictive relative clause and would have to use commas.

Words, larger than eight letters, confuse me.

This would then result in the meaning of the sentence changing to words confuse you (because non-restrictive relative clauses add information that can be omitted, generally speaking) although this would be a weird example of a non-restrictive relative clause.

I hope this helps somewhat.

verbs - "To hear" or "to hearing"?

I often see constructions like this one:

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

It seems a little strange to me. In my mind it would look better using the infinitive form "to hear". I don't know if it has something with the verbals... Anyway, what I want to know is which form is correct and why?

Answer

This is not an infinitive. "Hearing from you soon" is a gerund, which functions as a noun.

I look forward to [hearing from you soon].

is the same kind of construction as

I look forward to [my vacation].

grammar - Pronunciation of ‘an hundred’

I just saw a number of comments complaining about the first n in the phrase ‘an Herculean task’, claiming it implied a mute h. But is that true? My impression has been that earlier all words on h + vowel got an an, regardless of whether or not the h was mute. Was ‘an hundred’ pronounced ‘an undred’?

PS. Let me be clearer that I am not asking about standard contemporary usage. I never doubted that ‘an Herculean task’ had an archaïc ring to it. But the fact that something is archaïc does not make it wrong.

Is there no subject in a sentence like "Under the tree is a dog"?

I was trying to find out sentences without a subject, only object, and I came across
this

where the poster gives following sentences as an example

Under the tree is a dog.
Next to the park stands a clock tower.
Underneath his jacket was his white tucked in t-shirt and jeans.
Deep beneath the sea lies the mysterious kingdom of Captain Nemo.

Aren't the subjects in them: "the tree", "the park", "jacket", and "the sea" respectively?

Answer

These are all examples of locative inversion, where the subject and the prepositional phrase shift their normal positions. Usually the subject is at the beginning of the sentence, but not in these examples.

if you want to look into the topic of sentences without subjects, see the classic paper Quang (1971) on English imperatives.

What is the rule for adjective order?

I remember being taught that the correct order of adjectives in English was something along the lines of "Opinion-Size-Age-Color-Material-Purpose."

However, it's been a long time and I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few categories

(I think there were eight or nine). Can anyone fill them in?

Answer

I am re­mind­ed of how J.R.R. Tol­kien’s moth­er once fa­mous­ly
cor­rect­ed him at a very ear­ly age when he said ‘a green great drag­on’.
She told him that it had to be ‘a great green drag­on’, but when he asked
her why, she couldn’t an­swer, there­by start­ing him down the road of
puz­zling over mat­ters lin­guis­tic and philo­log­ic his whole life long.

This top­ic is one of con­tin­u­ing re­search. Sim­ply goog­ling for
‘ad­jec­tive or­der­ing re­stric­tions’ (AOR) or ‘ad­jec­tive hi­er­ar­chy’

can un­cov­er some fas­ci­nat­ing re­search in this area.

In her 2006 pa­per on “Ad­jec­tive Order­ing Re­stric­tions
Re­vis­it­ed” on pp
309–407 of the Pro­ceed­ings of the 25ᵗʰ West Coast Con­fer­ence on
For­mal Lin­guis­tics, Alex­an­dra Te­o­dor­es­cu writes:

Ad­jec­tive or­der­ing re­stric­tions (AOR) have been wide­ly dis­cussed,
but they are still not very well un­der­stood. For ex­am­ple, in

lan­guages like English pre­nom­i­nal ad­jec­tives are strict­ly or­dered.

…

For ex­am­ple, ad­jec­tives that de­note qual­i­ty have been ar­gued to
pre­cede ad­jec­tives con­vey­ing size, which in turn pre­cede ad­jec­tives
con­vey­ing shape, and so on, in all lan­guages (5). Sim­i­lar claims have
been made for oth­er ad­jec­tive types, and the re­spec­tive or­der­ing
re­stric­tions are giv­en in (6).

• (5) Qual­i­ty > Size > Shape > Color > Prov­e­nance [Sproat and Shih (1991)]




• (6) a. Posses­sive > Speak­er-ori­ent­ed > Sub­ject-ori­ent­ed >Man­ner/The­mat­ic [Cinque (1994)]




•        b. Value > Di­men­sion > Phys­i­cal prop­er­ty > Speed > Hu­man Propen­si­ty > Age > Color [Dixon (1982)]

See Teodor­es­cu’s bib­li­og­ra­phy to chase down re­lat­ed work. You
should al­so look for pa­pers that cite hers (Google Schol­ar finds 26 such
ci­ta­tions

to her work), like Lu­cas Cham­pi­on’s 2006 pa­per on “A Game-The­o­ret­ic
Ac­count of Ad­jec­tive Order­ing
Restric­tions”, which
starts off with the Tol­kien ex­am­ple.

Build­ing then on Cham­pi­on’s work is this English-lan­guage pa­per by
An­to­nia An­drout­so­pou­lou, Ma­nuel Es­pañol-Eche­va­rría, and Phil­ippe
Pré­vost en­ti­tled “On the Ac­qui­si­tion of the Prenom­i­nal Place­ment
of Eval­u­a­tive Ad­jec­tives in L2
Spanish”, from the 10ᵗʰ His­pan­ic Lin­guis­tics Sym­po­si­um in 2008. This one is in­ter­est­ing

be­cause it looks at how sec­ond-lan­guage learn­ers ac­quire an
un­der­stand­ing of ad­jec­tive or­der­ing when learn­ing a new lan­guage:

In this pa­per, we fur­ther in­ves­ti­gate knowl­edge of ad­jec­ti­val
or­der­ing re­stric­tions in for­eign lan­guage learn­ing, by fo­cus­ing on
L2 ac­qui­si­tion of eval­u­a­tive ad­jec­tives (EAs) in Span­ish by French
learn­ers.

The most re­cent pro­fes­sion­al pub­li­ca­tion I could find on this is­sue
is Katy Mc­Kin­ney-Bock­’s 2010 pa­per on “Ad­jec­tive Class­es and
Syn­tac­tic Or­der­ing
Re­stric­tions”,
in which she writes:

There is a lack of con­sen­sus in the lit­er­a­ture as to which
clas­si­fi­ca­tion of ad­jec­tives is di­rect­ly rel­e­vant for the
ob­served syn­tac­tic re­stric­tions on their or­der­ing. In this pa­per, I

ar­gue that ad­jec­tives are di­vid­ed in­to four class­es of rel­e­vance
for syn­tac­tic or­der­ing. I pro­pose that ad­jec­tive or­der­ing
re­stric­tions (AOR) are the re­sult of ad­jec­ti­val con­stit­u­ents
rais­ing or not rais­ing in the struc­ture as a con­se­quence of their
com­plex­i­ty, rather than stip­u­lat­ing that se­man­tic prop­er­ties
cor­re­late to syn­tac­tic heads.

and whose ex­tend­ed ab­stract reads:

I ar­gue there are four class­es of ad­jec­tives rel­e­vant to
syn­tac­tic or­der­ing: pred­ica­tive/in­ter­sec­tive,
pred­ica­tive/non-in­ter­sec­tive, non-pred­ica­tive, clas­si­fy­ing
(Sven­on­i­us 2008, Al­ex­i­a­dou et al 2007), and pre­vi­ous pro­pos­als
have not iden­ti­fied the rel­e­vant se­man­tic di­men­sions. Among the
prop­er­ties of grad­abil­i­ty, mass/count, and in­ter­sec­tiv­i­ty, on­ly
in­ter­sec­tiv­i­ty is syn­tac­ti­cal­ly rel­e­vant. The four class­es of
ad­jec­tives are mo­ti­vat­ed by the dis­tri­bu­tion of
or­dered/non-or­dered ad­jec­tives, scope ef­fects with cer­tain

ad­jec­tive-pairs, PP-mod­i­fi­ca­tion, N-drop­ping and com­par­a­tives
(Bouchard 2002, Hig­gin­both­am 1985, Ken­nedy 1999). DP struc­ture
in­volves 1) merg­ing the clas­si­fy­ing ad­jec­tive with pro­nounced N, 2)
merg­ing in­ter­sec­tive ad­jec­tives with N, 3) merg­ing
non-in­ter­sec­tive ad­jec­tives with a silent copy of N.

Fi­nal­ly, if you’re look­ing for some­thing slight­ly less pro­fes­sion­al
— or at least, less aca­dem­ic — then in this blog
post­ing,

the wri­ter pos­its an or­der­ing of:

• eval­u­a­tion


• size


• shape


• con­di­tion


• hu­man pro­pen­si­ty


• age


• col­or



• ori­gin


• ma­te­ri­al


• at­trib­u­tive noun

And sum­ma­rizes with:

If there’s def­i­nite­ly a mean­ing dif­fer­ence be­tween dif­fer­ent
ad­jec­tive or­der­ings, let that de­ter­mine how you or­der them, and

don’t use com­mas. If you can’t find a mean­ing dif­fer­ence, don’t go
try­ing to force there to be one. In­stead, go by the
ad­jec­tive-or­der­ing hi­er­ar­chy, and don’t use com­mas. If more than
one ad­jec­tive has the same kind of mean­ing in the hi­er­ar­chy, then use
com­mas, or ands or buts if the ad­jec­tives have con­tras­tive mean­ings.

There’s a lot more out there on this top­ic.

orthography - Is it "front-end", "frontend", or "front end"?

Which is correct?

1. front-end engineering


2. frontend engineering


3. front end engineering

I looked over http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp, referenced in this answer, and I'm still not sure which to use.

Rule 1 under Hyphens Between Words says:

To check whether a compound noun is two words, one word, or
hyphenated, you may need to look it up in the dictionary. If you can't
find the word in the dictionary, treat the noun as separate words.

"Frontend" is not found at reference.com. "Front-end" and "front end" are both found, which "front end" as two words representing the software term, so I think this must be right. However...

Rule 1 under Hyphens With Prefixes says:

The current trend is to do away with unnecessary hyphens. Therefore,
attach most prefixes and suffixes onto root words without a hyphen.

I think that "frontend" qualifies under this rule. Compare that with "backend" and it sounds to me that "front" and "back" are prefixes to "end".

Also, the most common usage I've noticed is "frontend" as a single word when talking about software. Common usage has to count for something, right?

What's considered the final say here?

Answer

For the compound noun front + end it is front end:

Noun

front end (plural front ends)

1. (computing) that part of a hardware or software system that is closest to the user.

frontend and front-end are alternative forms.

The compound noun front + end + engineering may be another matter.