conjunction reduction - How this present participle is formed

Can someone explain how the 'joining' part in this sentence is formed? and what can be the original sentence before reduction?

Joining us here in the studio to start things off we have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre.

I suppose the ing form at the beginning of the sentence cannot be considered a reduced adverb clause because the subjects cannot be the same.
Then I thought it might be a reduced adjective clause which relocated to the beginning of the sentence? Something like this maybe? But is it possible at all to relocate adj. clauses?

We have expert Sonia Tarrington, from the University of California's Nutrition Research Centre, who has joined us here in the studio to start things off.

grammaticality - Which is grammatically correct: "There is tea and juice" or "There are tea and juice"?

1. The bread and butter was tasty


2. Bread and butter are sold in this shop.

I have been taught when things are considered separately, we should use 'are' but when they are used collectively, we should use 'is'.

But in the following example, which one is correct?

A. There is tea and juice
B. There are tea and juice

grammar - "[will] likely" vs. "[will] probably" in AmEng usage

As far as AmEng goes, can likely be an acceptable alternate to probably in the following OUP quiz?

1. The traffic is terrible so I'll probably be late this morning.




2. Climate change is likely to affect us all by the end of the decade.




3. I'll call them if you like, but they aren't likely to be in.




4. The concert tickets are likely to sell out very quickly.




5. I'll probably find out if I've passed or not by the end of the day.





6. You've probably heard this joke before, but I'll tell you anyway.

LIKELY

adv. Probably: They'll likely buy a new car soon. [AHDEL]

Usage:

Likely as an adverb is preceded by another, intensifying adverb, as in it will very likely rain or it will most likely rain. Its use without an intensifier, as in it will likely rain is regarded as unacceptable by most users of British English, though it is common in colloquial US English. [Collins]

likely meaning “probably” is often preceded by a qualifying word: The new system will quite likely increase profits. Some usage guides maintain that such a qualifier must always be present. However, likely without the qualifier is standard in all varieties of English: The new system will likely increase profits. [Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary]

FOD

Answer

In examples 2-4, likely is a predicate adjective, appearing with auxiliary be: is likely, are(n't) likely.
Probably is always an adverb, so it can't substitute for a predicate adjective.

That leaves 1, 5, and 6, where likely can substitute for probably. Both are adverbs, and both occur after the first auxiliary verb (will likely, have likely), which is normal and common.

However, an auxiliary verb is not necessary; likely occurs with simple verbs as well:

• He likely slipped on the steps and fell.


• This likely has nothing to do with it, but ...

In effect, in American English, likely is a 2-syllable adverb complementing a 3-syllable probably.

grammaticality - "They interviewed several candidates who/whom he thought had the experience he required."

They interviewed several candidates who he thought had the experience and qualifications he required.

My test prep book says this should be "who" because of the subordinate clause's predicate:

They interviewed several candidates who he thought had the experience and qualifications he required.

I feel like it should be "whom" as it's the object of the main clause.

The interviewed several candidates whom he thought had the experience and qualifications he required.

Who's right?

word choice - Ending sentence with "supposed to"

Is the following sentence acceptable?

He arrived ten minutes earlier than he was supposed to.

It doesn't sound right, but I can't think of any better way to end the sentence.

meaning - "What about you?" versus "How about you?"

E.g.

• I'm going straight home after work. How about you?


• I'm going straight home after work. What about you?

They both seem to work interchangeably, but there feels like a subtle difference and I can't quite pin it down.

Similar but a little bit different from "How about" vs. "What about", the same arguments do not apply because we are always referring to "you".

grammaticality - Does name-combo 'Jarvanka' take singular or plural attributes?

Michael Wolff's new book Fire and Fury sure has generated quite a lot of controversy. However, one important topic seems to have been overlooked by the Mainstream Media: Wolff (or his editors) consistently use the singular verb form when describing actions taken by 'Jarvanka', Steve Bannon's catchy nickname for the Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump duo. (For example, "Jarvanka was surprised" instead of "Jarvanka were surprised.")

Is this correct? or does Jarvanka take a 'were' as it most certainly is two people?

(Note: IMHO, this is not comparable to plural nouns such as media, because here Jarvanka is (or are) obviously two different distinct persons, unlike media which is merely a collective noun.)

Answer

This type of name is incredibly informal, so I doubt this would be directly addressed in a style guide or grammar book.

"Answer man" Roger Schlueter argues that:

“Couple” is an equally troublesome collective noun, but in the case of “Brangelina” I have to defend our copy desk as being correct — and I have my Associated Press stylebook, a reporter’s usage bible, to back me up. In the AP’s entry on “couple,” it says, “When used in the sense of two people, the word takes plural verbs and pronouns: ‘The couple were married Saturday and left Sunday on their honeymoon.’ In the sense of a single unit, use a singular verb: ‘Each couple was asked to give $10.’”
_{Brangelina are is correct usage}

(The Associated Press stylebook he cites is this one.)

Whether singular or plural is used, in practice, depends on how the writer is currently thinking of the couple: are two people or a single unit (this applies to both "couple" and "Brangelina"). This means that there is variation, even when two authors are saying the exact same thing (note that both authors are American):

• 
  

  Brangelina has been an item since 2004, and the couple married in 2014. —Mic.com

  
  





• 
  

  Though Brangelina have been an item for 12 years, they've only been married for two. –Washington Post

  
  

Can the present tense be used in the past tense to refer to something that always happens or to something that hasn't happened yet?

I'm new here so please excuse me if this question's already been asked, I just couldn't seem to find it anywhere.

What I want to know is, can the present tense be used in the past tense?
Let's say I'm in school, and my teacher asks " Why do people cry?". What would be the correct way to write that in the past tense? "My teacher asked why people cried" or, "My teacher asked why people cry"? I've heard of backshifting, but I'm not sure if this is it. I've only recently started worrying about this, and now I feel like I have to contemplate every sentence before I say anything. Please help me if you can. I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, it's my first time using this kind of website.

grammar - Can the Personal Pronoun I Be Put in the Nominative Case before the Gerund?

In the recently published Report on the Death of Alexander Litvinenko by Sir Robert Owen there is the following sentence in the statement of one of the witnesses (Boris Berezovsky): "This resulted in Litvinenko and I becoming close friends". I think that there should be "me" instead of "I" but I'm not 100% certain. (This, I should note, was not a verbatim recording of Berezovsky's incorrect English speech; he spoke in Russian and then what he said was translated into normal English).

A word referring to the state of being a loser

There are terms like:

• survivor > survivorship


• victim > victimhood

is there one for "loser"? and what is it?

I stumbled upon the word "defeatism" but I'm not sure if it is the same as "the state of being a loser" as per New Oxford American Dictionary, the definition is:

a person who expects or is excessively ready to accept failure.

Regarding the usage, I'm trying to write some self-help style posts and just like discussing how to "move from victimhood to survivorship" and etc, I would like to be able to communicate how to "move from loser/-xyz/-ship/-hood/-dom to self-actualizer" – presuming one day I discover/be gifted the/some adequate ideas!

As far as I understand, though in general usage the opposite of "to lose" is "to win" but when it comes to individuals who are falling short of what they could/should/aught to have been in their lives and aren't, I believe the adequate opposite is "self-actualizer". Because in order to be considered a "winner" there is always, at least a hypothetical, jury that decides, gives score and etc regarding a certain set of criteria which may or may not relate to the individual.

Or maybe there is a term that actually refers to the ultimate opposite end of "self-actualization" that I should use instead of "loser"?

For example, in Mary-Elaine Jacobsen's book the vocabulary of choice is "everyday genius" and "false self" but given that neither these two term have made it into wide usage, not even as so much as "self-actualization", I guess they are not the right choice.

Answer

From a comment under the question, it was made clear what specific sense of loser is being looked for here.

In short, it's not asking for the simple state of consistently failing to win (which might be considered unluck or adversity), but rather the state of being actively unable to be effective at anything, or not having the required skill or attitude.

In that sense, being a loser is about incompetency:

[Merriam-Webster]
: INCOMPETENCE
: the state or fact of being incompetent

incompetent
2 : inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3 a : lacking the qualities needed for effective action
3 b : unable to function properly
// incompetent heart valves

// the incompetency of the secretary was revealed only after she had left the company, and her successor discovered years of filing left undone

// Meanwhile, six Castle Hills residents filed their own lawsuit this week calling for removal of the two women from office, alleging incompetency and official misconduct, under the Texas Local Government Code.
— Scott Huddleston, ExpressNews.com, "Castle Hills councilwoman’s seat in limbo as politics continues to roil San Antonio suburb," 9 Aug. 2019

// Because of his incompetence, we won't make our deadline.
// He is too incompetent to be trusted with such an important responsibility.

---

For somebody who is a loser by attitude or lack of skill, they can only start to become a success by switching from incompetency to competency.

grammaticality - Using an appropriate article before the word "leadership"

I had a quick question. Recently a co-worker posted a how-to guide entitled "How to be a good leadership at work". To me the sentence seems incorrect. But I can't explain why. Technically leadership is a noun, just like in the sentence "How to be a good person at work" would be correct, because person is also a noun.

Perhaps it's one of those things that sounds incorrect to me but really is correct. Can anyone explain this to me?

Answer

The problem is with the verb not the noun. So, while you can be a good person or a good leader, you cannot be a good leadership. Similarly, you can be a good friend but not be a good friendship. The sentence can be rewritten as:

• How to be a good leader at work.

or

• How to demonstrate good leadership at work.

grammar - What is the difference between these conditionals?

It's often said that non-native speakers have a poor understanding of the English tenses. I'm not one to disagree, but on the whole I've always thought tenses weren't that hard, until I got to the conditionals and the subjunctive. Since trying to learn a bit more about them, I've gotten really lost. At this point, I'm trying to understand the differences between these four "constructions":

1. If ever there were to be held a vote on X
   


2. If ever there was to be held a vote on X
   


3. If ever one were to hold a vote on X
   


4. If ever we'd (decide to) hold a vote on X

For clarity: I'll be refering to these examples as "constructions", when I mention an "action", I'm talking about the verb or word group that follows the auxiliary verb(s). In the examples, the action, then, is to hold a vote.
I'm thinking these constructions are expressing four different things:

1. Whatever follows this, will deal with the outcome of this hypothetical action. Even so, the action is likely never to take place. Something like: "If ever there were to be held a vote on the intelligence of sheep, The international community would really think we've lost the plot".



2. This , to me, expresses that at some point in time, it would have been possible for the action to take place, but it didn't. Though the rest of the sentence deals with the run-up to that action in a sort of know-it-all, historian trying to put things into context sort of way. "If ever there was to be an all-out nuclear war, the Cuba crises was when that would've happend, and people were truly terrified."


3. Simply expressing something that is, in theory possible, but will never become reality. The action is either tedious, requires too much effort or authority you don't have: "If one were to get every able bodied person to jump down on the ground at the same time, the resulting earthquake would be massive"


4. Same as 3, only in this case, it would be possible to undertake the action, but either its outcome is considered a given, or it's possible that the result of that action is something one would avoid, so it's never going to happen. It's a phrase that a politician might say: "If ever we'd hold a vote on our raising taxes, people would be livid, we'd get the first unanimous result in democratic history and never get re-elected again"

I'd like to know if I'm completely wrong here, and what these conditionals mean to the native speakers. Some sort of reliable on-line resource on the matter would be most helpful, too.

Answer

I agree with the comment from @PeterShor that constructions 1-3 all effectively mean the same. Construction 4 is just awkward, but I wouldn't interpret it differently from the others.

On the other hand, they all seem somewhat long-winded, and could simply be written as:

If ever a vote were held on X

As regards your four 'meanings':

1. I think the use of "If ever" rather than simply "If ..." is what conveys the possibly hypothetical nature of the action, and therefore that hypothetical nature carries through all your constructions.




2. To convey your second meaning, I would use the past perfect tense:

   
   
   
   

   
   

   If ever there were to have been ...

   
   




3. To convey your third meaning, I would omit "ever" and write:

   
   
   

   
   

   If, theoretically, ...

   
   




4. To convey your fourth meaning, I'd use something like:

   
   
   
   

   
   

   If ever we were actually to hold ...
   If ever a vote were actually to be held ...

   
   

In summary, no, I don't think that the constructions actually convey different meanings, and, if I wanted to convey such nuances, I would use additional words and/or different tenses.

punctuation - A semicolon or a comma in this sentence?

I am stuck between the use of a comma or semicolon here. I think a comma is a better choice to place after "respectively", simply because the next sentence is not a full sentence and sounds more like a clause than a sentence.

Model thickness and tamper area were considered as 5 m and 4 m², respectively, the same as those which have been previously used in verification process by experimental data of Oshima and Takada.

Is the prepositional phrase possibly called a subject complement?

Russet leaves were swept by past winds in heaps.

(Original sentence: "Russet leaves, swept by past winds in heaps."— Jane Eyre)

‘In heaps’ can be called as a ‘positional’ complement for verb phrase (were swept), yet it’s not an argument for the verb phrase. And if we regarded the verb phrase as a copular, ‘in heaps’ could be called as a semantic complement for the subject (russet leaves). So ‘in heaps’ may be called as a subject complement. Is this a possible view?

Answer

Many might see it simply as an Adverbial, or, in functional grammar terms, a Circumstance.

grammar - Future Conditional Subjunctive?

I assume that "future conditional subjunctive" is not really a term. But that's pretty much what I'm asking about.

I often find myself addressing the scenario where (x) one thing "A" may happen in the future, and (y) if "A" happens, "B" will result. Often, this occurs while I'm arguing that "A" should not be allowed to happen.

I would like to write:

"If A happens, then B will result."

My colleague insists that, because we don't want A to happen, we must write:

"If A were to happen, then B would result." (Sometimes he will try, "were A to happen, . . . ")

I think both "were to happen" and "would result" are incorrect. And "were to happen" seems unnecessarily awkward.

Similarly, I'd write: "If you don't stop A, then B will happen." Colleague would write "If you don't stop A, then B would happen."

And, finally, when generally discussing what A would cause, I would just write "A will cause x, y and z." Colleague would write "A would cause x, y and z."

Colleague's reasoning is that because we do not want A to happen or B to result, we need to use the "subjunctive." Otherwise, if we use the indicative, we are somehow conceding that A will, in fact happen.

My thought is that we want to make an unambiguous statement that A will result in B. We don't want to introduce any doubt that A will not result in B.

And, I've read that there is no future subjunctive in English.

Is there a correct answer?

pronunciation vs spelling - Are there nouns that undergo no change when used in the possessive (Saxon genitive)?

I’m looking for the existence of English nouns (common or proper) that
undergo no change when used in their possessive (Saxon genitive) form,
i.e. that do not take the usual ’s appendage the way radio’s,
or Paul’s would. If there exist nouns that end with s or x, and

for which the single possessive apostrophe ’ is widely accepted as
being optional, then that would count too.

My understanding is that every possessive noun either takes ’s
or just ’, but can’t confirm.

My question is specifically about the genitive form., i.e. Bob's car, desk's surface, crucifix'.

Since posting this question originally, I've learned a bit more about some of the taxonomy on the subject. I thought initially that the lack of apostrophe in phrases such as “boyscout club chocolate’s bitter taste” may have been a hint nouns didn't need an apostrophe in certain cases. But they're a different case.

Many have been quick to point out noun-noun compounds functioning as attributive nouns, such as in telephone pole, glee club or mountain rock peaks to express relative notions of "ownership"/"possession". Or that prepositions can also be introduced to express possession, e.g. "The book of Peter".

But, I do not mean to ask about attribute nouns, nor "x of y" constructions.

Do all nouns take the 's or ' when used on their own in the genitive?

Edit

Similar posts:

• Discussion on whether mens or womens takes an apostrophe. Did not initially find that question because it was specific to those two instances of words. In my original post I'd mentioned whether womens and childrens without apostrophe would be considered to be spelled correctly, without suspecting I'd be stepping into a whole slew of other posts.




• Using possessive nouns in the plural. I’ve found a similar, but different question here on possessive nouns in the plural. This kind of is what I'm looking for, but it's more about transforming nouns into attributive nouns, than nouns that don't need the apostrophe because of their nature.




• It’s been pointed out that in some countries, namely US and
  Australia, possessive apostrophes are deprecated in place
  names. That is sort of the answer I'm looking for, but only if the last token in the chain of nouns would normally take a 's.
  Are there more such cases in other fields?

I do feel at this point that the answer to my question is kind of spread on a million different questions.

How is the distinction made between adverbs and nouns in adverbs which are representative of the thing of whose adverbial quality they also represent?

Adverbs of place, among other adverbs of the nature mentioned in the question, confuse me. Saying that "wherever" is an adverb when "wherever" functions both as the representation of the place and also as the quality of the place's ambiguity seems improper. "I'm going wherever." "I'm going that way." "I'm going to London." The only difference I can see is that "to" is used to modify the verb "going" in any such sentences as the latter, while, in using adverbs, one does not make this addition for lack of specificity. "I'm going north." In this case, north is a real, concrete course--a thing, not a quality--and yet is considered adverbial. Why is this? Is the sentence "I'm going to the north" nounal? If so, how is there a semantic distinction which justifies the distinction of the words form?

An example of this which does not use an adverb of place is in the sentence "I'm going bankrupt." "Bankrupt," in the form 'bankruptcy,' is a fathomable thing, it is also a quality of what one is "going," thus, by this rule which I am questioning, is considered adverbial in nature. "Bankrupt" is not in any of its forms defined as an adverb. It is merely for the fact that it is a quality of a state that one is actuating by way of verb that it is considered adverbial when, simultaneously, it is nounal, representative of a thing that one is going--but it is foremost considered adverbial. Why?

The light's path or light's path? Can I use articles with apostrophes?

I've been told that "The Dirac's equation" is not grammatically acceptable. The correct should be "Dirac's equation" or "The Dirac equation".

I'm wondering if this has something to do with Dirac being the name of someone or if this is a general rule. My case, specifically, concerns the phrase I used in the title. Which one is the correct version:

a - "(...) the correction of the light's path"

b - "(...) the correction of light's path"

c - "(...) the correction of the light path"

What I mean is the path that a ray of light follows.

Thank you very much.

word order - When alphabetizing, which goes first?

When ordering these two names of places, which is first? Why?

Newark, New York

Answer

In traditional alphabetization, Newark precedes New York because spaces and punctuation are ignored (and 'a' precedes 'y').

In indexes prepared by computer, it is common to see New York precede Newark because a simple approach to sorting in a computer program is to directly compare the strings of characters, in which case the 'a' of Newark falls in the same (fourth) position as the blank between New and York, and blank compares less than 'a'.

comparatives - "than do I" vs. "than I do"

I need grammatical explanations for the following two sentence structures:

1. The mistakes children make in learning to speak tell linguists more about how children learn language than do the correct forms they use.


2. Freedman's survey showed that people living in small towns and rural areas consider themselves no happier than do people living in big cities.

If noticed, would someone explain me why "do" appears after "than" in the both of the sentences above?

So, would it be correct if I say, "You explain it more clearly than do I"?

grammatical number - Is it “set A or B” or “sets A or B”?

Here is my sentence:

The report further identifies two partial sets, which are not in themselves default sets but which one can—wholly or partly—combine with default sets A or B, or indeed with any permutation of options.

Should that have been "set A or B"? Is the set singular or plural?

Here is a simpler sentence on (I believe) the same principle:

When you reach customs, depending on whether you are a citizen, join queues A or B.

One could reword the latter sentence to evade the question, of course, but I seek an answer rather than a way to avoid an answer.

The second sentence is just something I made up for this question, but here is part of a third sentence, which comes from the same report as the first:

[It] earns exactly one of the adjudications respectively of Tables 3, 4, 5 or 6.

Should that be Table rather than Tables? Should that be and rather than or?

(Extra appreciation is given if you can provide a reference for your answer or, better, can quote a great writer to illustrate. If you cannot but still know the answer, though, please still give it. My copies of the AP Stylebook and the Little, Brown Handbook do not seem to answer the question.)

Answer

It should be "combine with the default set A or B" in this example. If you were to have options where each choice is a set of sets, then "the default sets" would be correct. In quick, relaxed English speech, this rule may not be followed. For example, with your second sentence, any person directing crowds toward queues may say "join queues A or B," but it would be better to say "join queue A or B" as in "join the queue labeled A or the queue labeled B." I would not use "join the queue A or B," so there is some irregularity here.

A set is a singular entity, no matter how many elements it has, so the singular would be best, complete with a definite article for clarity. English speakers are used to phrases such as "combine with defaults sets A or B" in everyday speech and so this would probably remain unnoticed, even in a paper. I am almost certain both examples have been used in professional settings (not that that forbids a correct answer, but if there is an incorrect one, it is quite forgivable).

I hope this was of some help!

Edit: There is a sort of interesting thing about the word "or" in that in English, as in most other languages, it is inclusive. That is, it could also mean "and" if written without any additional quantifiers. If that is the case (if one does not forbid exclusivity), the "and" implies a multiple and would change "set" to "sets." Perhaps this contradicts the earlier parts of my answer, but it is an important nuance that comes from additional thinking on it.

So, when you say "[It] earns exactly one of the adjudications respectively of Tables 3, 4, 5 or 6." that "exactly one" is very important. This, to me, forbids the "and," thus I believe "Table" would be best. However, many English speakers may not be used to this, having the inclusive "or" on the mind at most times, and may even find it a bit unnatural to see "Table" instead of "Tables" even in this context.

grammaticality - “Have you heard?” vs “Did you hear?” and “Sally broke/has broken her leg”

Earlier today I had a private lesson with an Italian student—intermediate level, who has been studying the present perfect vs. past simple tense. His teacher had given him an exercise where a list of Italian phrases had to be translated into English. One of the sentences was the following:

Hai sentito che Sally si è rotta una gamba?

It looks deceivingly simple to translate (for a native speaker) but I found myself with five versions, all of which I am certain are idiomatic and grammatical.

1. Have you heard that Sally broke her leg?


2. Have you heard that Sally's broken her leg?


3. Have you heard about Sally breaking her leg?


4. Did you hear that Sally broke her leg?


5. Did you hear that Sally's broken her leg?

The actual moment when Sally broke her leg happened at a specific time in the past, hence the past simple seems to me appropriate but we also say, Sally's broken her leg to express an action that occurred in the past but whose consequences are still felt in the present so...

• Which sentence tells the reader that Sally's leg is still broken?


• Which tense is more appropriate; the present perfect, Have you heard? Or the past simple Did you hear? Both sound acceptable to me. How is the meaning affected?


• Is it preferable for both verbs to be in the same tense? Why or why not?


• Ignoring the Italian translation and focussing on the five sentences, how would you interpret each one? Do they mean the same?

---

EDIT ^{(updated September 1 2014)}
Let me explain, more fully, why I posted this question. There was an Italian phrase which had to be translated (the first line in a short exchange) the rest of the dialogue was easy enough for my student and I to translate but he had difficulties with this first line.

In the exchange we learn that Sally broke her leg while skiing.

A: Have you heard/Did you hear... etc.
B: How did it happen?
A: She was skiing when she fell.

When I thought carefully about how the first sentence could be translated, I came up with five versions. I had a problem explaining to myself why they all sounded equally valid to me, in fairness sentence number 3 sounded the weakest candidate to me because it seems that the news of Sally's accident is very recent and conveys greater intensity.

As I tried to explain earlier, I was wondering how switching the past simple with the present perfect might change the meaning of the first line. If I say: Sally broke her leg, I might be thinking about the precise moment when this accident occurred. The event is established in the past and cannot be repeated. If I say: Sally has broken her leg it is plausible that her leg is still broken, seeing as a broken leg takes about a month to heal, and I am concerned with the results of that action which are felt in the present i.e. Sally now has her leg in a plaster/She cannot walk properly/She is currently injured, etc.

If the first verb is in the past simple, Did you hear...? does it affect how I write the rest of the sentence? Is Have you heard...? more colloquial?

Finally, I am NOT asking about translation, nor how to use the present perfect or the past simple.

Answer

To indicate that Sally's leg is still broken, stay away from the past tense (your examples #1 and #4). If you use the past tense the leg could still be broken, but past tense doesn't indicate that fact. If I say "Sally broke her leg yesterday" maybe you can guess it probably is still broken but if I say "Sally broke her leg 6 months ago" there's a good chance it's healed by now and past tense gives you no indication of whether it is still broken.

Similarly, to indicate that Sally's leg is still broken, stay away from the participial phrase form (your example #3). Especially in this context, a sentence starting, "have you heard", there is no indication that the action being described is still happening. If I ask you "have you heard about the mariner shooting the albatross?" you should not conclude that the mariner is still shooting the albatross. It could have happened a really long time ago!

The present perfect form (your examples #2 and #5) indicates that something happened in the very recent past so for something that takes as long to heal as a broken leg it should reasonably indicate that the leg is still broken, but to be absolutely clear have you considered the present tense? For instance, "Sally's leg is broken" or "Sally has a broken leg?" Because in that case there would be no doubt that Sally's leg is still broken!

If you say "did you hear" (past tense) it means did you hear at some point in the past? If you say "have you heard" (present perfect) it means did you hear at some point in the recent past? Both mean the same thing in this case.

There is no need for the sentence verb to be the same tense as the verb used in the gerund phrase (that Sally..). I can say, for instance, "I know that you wrote this question." The sentence verb tense should be appropriate for the sentence action and the gerund verb tense should be appropriate for the gerund action.

Note I've included a couple of sources that present perfect implies recent events since one comment on another answer claimed this isn't true. My understanding is there are 3 basic uses for present perfect: experience up to present (often with the word "ever"), recent past, and a recent journey. A broken leg would normally not be experience up to the present when combined with "did you hear" or "have you heard" (who says "did you hear I have broken my leg" if they are referring to their medical history from childhood?) so the choices are recent past or a recent trip. A recent trip doesn't make sense. So that leaves recent past.

"We use the present perfect simple with action verbs to emphasise the
completion of an event in the recent past." Cambridge Dictionaries
Online

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/present-perfect-simple-or-present-perfect-continuous

"The present perfect is often used to express recent events that
affect the present moment." About.com
http://esl.about.com/od/grammarstructures/ig/Tenses-Chart/presperf2.htm

"we often use the present perfect for recent events" wordpress.com
http://englishprojectoxford.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/present-perfect/

word choice - Writing quotes of a business name with star as hyphen

I have a business with a name e.g. "my business".

Wherever you see the company name it's always written as my★business - the company logo is similar and anywhere we write the name on the website that's how it looks.

My question is: Is there a wrong way to write this when quoting someone who has mentioned the business? For example, on our site we have a quotes section, a collection of quotes from users which we publish. One of them might be:

"I started using my★business after a friend told me about their website"

Is that the correct way to write the company name or should it be "my business" without the star? Or doesn't it matter?

Not sure how to tag this so apologies if incorrect.

grammar - what's the difference between "important to" and "important for"?

When do we use important for and important to? What's the rule?
For example:

It's important to me.

Or

It's important for me.

What's the difference between the two sentences?

(be + to + verb) Grammar

This question destroys my mind so finally I want to know the answer.

All I have to do is + to + verb

or

All I have to do is + verb

Which one is correct, and can't the wrong one be correct informally?

Answer

The second option is the more correct structure.

To explain it as simply as possible, you have to do in the middle of the sentence already. To do is an infinitive verb because the unsuffixed action word do is preceded by the preposition to (which is actually part of the infinitive verb, not just preceding it).

With that, you are now wondering if the verb at the end of the sentence should also be infinitive. It shouldn't simply because the previous infinitive verb, to do, already includes the preposition to, therefore the last verb doesn't need it.

I see this as a simple example of how English tends to reduce repetitive words as much as possible. In your first example, to is found before both verbs. But since that's repetitive, the to can be removed from the second verb and essentially shared from the first verb.

Use of the infinitive, always use 'to'?

Which is the correct use:

Thanks for the opportunity of being here?
or
Thanks for the opportunity to be here?

The idea was to use the verb in infinitive.

Answer

I find both to be possible, but "opportunity to be here" sounds more natural to me.

Note that there isn't a general rule: it depends entirely on the particular word that governs it (here, opportunity), and there is no logic to which word prefers which construction: they just have to be learnt.

orthography - Mixing up "quiet" and "quite": spelling or grammar error?

Look at this sentence:

It wasn't quiet what I wanted

And this one:

The music was too quite for me

Obviously quiet and quite are mixed up. Is this considered a spelling mistake? In both cases the words are valid, but used in the wrong place.

Is there a special name for these mistakes? Or are they simply grammatical errors?

Answer

They are not grammatical errors since the sentence structure is correct once you replace the erroneous word with the one the author obviously intended.

So I would categorise those mistakes as spelling mistakes influenced by homophone confusion.

What is the two-item list equivalent of the Oxford comma?

I was recently told that the Oxford comma is only for lists with three or more items. A preliminary search confirms this, as far as I can tell. I'm wondering if there is an equivalent word for a comma in a list with only two items, or if that's universally considered inappropriate?

Answer

A comma between two items in a list (e.g. "War, and Peace") is grammatically incorrect.
(Correction: There are some rare instances in which this comma may be acceptable, according to this article: https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/commas_the_Oxford_comma.htm.)

word choice - Use of definite article in cross-references

When referencing a chapter or section in a book, when should I use "the" in front of them?

For example, considering the sentences:

(The) Chapter 5 presents X and Y.

or

X, detailed in (the) Chapter 5, is Y.

or

X, detailed in (the) Chapter 5 of this book, is Y.

I would not use "the" in the second example, but not using it in the third one seems rather unnatural for me, although English is not my native language.

What are the grammar rule(s) in English concerning the use of the definite article in cross-references? I could not extrapolate this case from existing SE questions or from online English references.

single word requests - Pejorative terms for children or teenagers using the Internet

In Poland we have got many names for young children or teenagers using the Internet. For example we could see on the Internet that many have mangled the mother tongue and have been writing like this:

I’m CoOl, dON’t yOu ThInK :* swEEt

The point is that they mix capitalized and normal letters. We call these people pokémons.
I can see that this way of typing is also spread around the world so what do you call such people?

Second issue. Spotty teenagers flooding the web, asking over and over what had been answered, disregarding net etiquette. Someone forged the term of ‘neo child’. neo stem from the name of the product — Neostrada — a broadband Internet from the largest Internet provider in Poland: Telekomunikacja. Neostrada was and probably has been the most popular way to connect to the Internet so in some period of time we experienced such neo children.

Please watch this YouTube video to better understand what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6DZOq2hulk
(hope you like it :D)

So, do you have a name for such stupid behaviours? Ah, what is more interesting is that not only children can be called ‘neo’. Adults can too if only their behaviour is similar.

Quotation marks in a block quote that consists entirely of quoted speech

I know that you wouldn't normally enclose a block quote with quotation marks; but what I can't seem to find out is what to do if the quoted material consists entirely of quoted speech.

For example, this is the original quote (from the Bible):

Then Daniel praised the God of heaven and said:
"Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
wisdom and power are his."

Which of the following is correct?

In Daniel 2:20, Daniel sings a song of praise to God:

Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
wisdom and power are his.

or:

In Daniel 2:20, Daniel sings a song of praise to God:

"Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever;
wisdom and power are his."

Many thanks, and apologies if this has been asked before; I did search, but couldn't find anything!

pronouns - Yes, this is she. Who's calling?

I've read in a book that I should "use the subjective case if the pronoun is the

complement of the linking verb to be".

That is the following sentences are correct:

They believed that the thief was I. /
Hey, it's I. /
Yes, this is she. Who's calling?

OK, a rule is a rule. I don't mind using it, but I have a question for native speakers:

Is this way to say it heard in everyday speech? Will it sound deliberate/unnatural if I use it?

terminology - Is there a better term for "perfect infinitive", "perfect participle" or "perfect gerund"?

BACKGROUND

There are grammar terms such as 'present perfect' and 'past perfect' as in:

She has learned English for 10 years. [present perfect]

She had learned English when she was little. [past perfect]

I believe that these terms are fairly well established in more recent grammars as well as in the traditional grammar.

The way these terms are made is such that the first word 'present/past' represents the tense of the auxiliary 'have', and that the second word 'perfect' the structure of 'have + past participle'.

Now, I notice that the term 'perfect infinitive' is used in the traditional grammar to refer to the form 'have + past participle' where 'have' is in the form of infinitive.

For example:

She seems to have learned English when she was little. [perfect infinitive]

Similarly, the terms 'perfect participle' and 'perfect gerund' are used to refer to the form 'having + past participle' where 'having' is in the form of participle and gerund, respectively, as in:

Having learned English, she now wants to learn Chinese. [perfect participle]

They are not aware of her having learned English when she was little. [perfect gerund]

ISSUE

I don't know whether--or how well--these terms 'perfect infinitive', 'perfect participle' and 'perfect gerund' are established among more recent grammars, but they just don't make sense especially when you consider the other terms 'present perfect' and 'past perfect', where the first word represents the tense of 'have' and the second word the entire form 'have + past participle', because it's the other way around in the terms 'perfect infinitive', 'perfect participle' and 'perfect gerund', isn't it?

QUESTION

So I'd like to know first if anyone agrees with my confusion as to these terms being inconsistent, and secondly if better terms are actually in use for these latter three.

grammar - Except vs Besides

I would like to know if except and besides can mean different things in some sentences and have the same meaning in others.

For example,

1. It's hard for me to say anything to him except "hello" = Saying something that is not "hello" to him is hard for me.

It's hard for me to say anything to him besides "hello"= Saying anything more than "hello" to him is hard for me.

2. It's easy for me to trust anyone besides you = I trust you and all others easily.

It's easy for me to trust anyone except you = It's easy for me to trust anyone but not you.

It seems that when there are words that entail "negative meaning", such as impossible and hard, except and besides mean the same thing, while in other sentences, they are different.

Is this right or is there any other way to explain the difference?

What do you guys think about it?

Any opinion and advice is welcome

Thanks in advance!

How do I know when a verb should be followed by a gerund or an infinitive?

A few weeks ago I posted a question about the usage of a verbal in a particular sentence. But now, I have another question on the same topic, gerund.

Sometimes I don't know for sure if I need to use the gerund or the infinitive form, so I searched on web to find the answers for my questions; I found this. In this article I found a list of common verbs followed by gerunds and another list of common verbs followed by infinitives.

So, I was wondering if the words that compound one list has some characteristic in common that determine if the following word will be a gerund or an infinitive.

---

From the referenced PDF file:

1. Following a verb (gerund or infinitive)

Both gerunds and infinitives can replace a noun as the object of a verb. Whether you use a gerund or an infinitive depends on the main verb in the sentence. Consult the lists below to find out which form to use following which verbs.

I expect to have the report done by Friday. [INFINITIVE]

I anticipate having the report done by Friday. [GERUND]

Some common verbs followed by a gerund

(note that phrasal verbs, marked here with *, always fall into this category):

• acknowledge — She acknowledged receiving assistance.


• *accuse of — He was accused of smuggling contraband goods.


• admit — They admitted falsifying the data.


• advise — The author advises undertaking further study.


• anticipate — He anticipates having trouble with his supervisor.


• …

Some common verbs followed by an infinitive:

• afford — We cannot afford to hesitate.


• agree — The professors agreed to disagree.


• appear — The results appear to support your theory.


• arrange — They had arranged to meet at noon.


• beg — I beg to differ with you.


• …

Answer

Here is a long article that goes over a great deal of the use of gerunds vs infinitives and Wikipedia has some information as well. In short, it is not a simple answer, but there are rules to follow, and many instances where both work fine, but the meaning can change depending on which you use. In reference to the list you supplied, verbs of communication (acknowledge, admit, accuse, advise) tend to take the gerund (but not always - advise for example - advised against entering vs advised not to enter). Some just take an infinitive for no real reason other than there had to be a rule to govern them (arrange, afford, appear, agree). Some verbs can take either (love, prefer, like) but the meaning changes drastically (I love boxing vs I love to box).

All my friends in one place (verbless clause?)

This clip of the movie 'Goosebumps' starts with the character Slappy saying this:

1. All my friends in one place. I've never been so happy. I don't want this day to end. And it doesn't have to, as long as we get rid of Stine.

First, I'd like to know if "All my friends in one place" should be treated as a subordinate clause or not. If it should, then the transcript must be:

2. All my friends in one place, I've never been so happy. I don't want this day to end. And it doesn't have to, as long as we get rid of Stine.

Which of the two is correct?

If (1) is correct, then can a verbless clause be an independent clause?

According to this earlier question and answers, all the examples of verbless clauses are subordinate clauses, and verbless clauses are said to be limited to subordinate clauses.

I have also looked at CGEL (The Cambridge Grammar by Huddleston and Pullum), and all instances of 'verbless clause' there are limited to subordinate clauses, as well.

Is Slappy's sentence a legitimate verbless clause even in the form of (1)?

grammar - Swiss made or Swiss-made? Swiss quality or Swiss-quality

As indicated above, do we need to hyphenate said words?

The same questions apply to other "country-related terms" like Singapore quality, German precision, etc.

Thanks in advance

which is your favourite game /what is your favourite game

I want to know the difference between what and which, and between who and which

For example :

what is your favourite game / which is your favourite game

grammar - Why to use question form to express non-question sentences?

I know, the title is really vague and unclear but let me explain. I keep hearing things like "Do I envy you!" or "Boy, Do I love pizza!" kind of sentences. I know (or at least figured out) those are not real questions and actually the meaning is closer to "Boy, I (do) love pizza!"

What I'm not sure is the difference between "Boy, I love pizza!" and "Boy, Do I love pizza!", or when to use which. What is the grammar rule behind these kind of sentence structures?

Sorry if the question is stupid or too obvious but as a non-native English speaker, I'm having trouble to see the grammar rule behind it.

Thanks for your help.

edit: I'm also not sure what to add as a tag, please feel free to correct me if I have them wrong or suggest additional tags

verbs - Is "a group" singular or plural?

I was wondering what number the verb 'to snowboard' should take in the following sentence:

A group of men, led by Olympic athlete John Rider, snowboard(s) down the gently sloping hills.

Because 'a group snowboards', but 'they snowboard'. The second one sounds better to me.

But can anyone explain me the difference, and which one is right or wrong?

word choice - "I hope this could help you" vs. "I hope it can help you" vs. "Hoped this may help you"

Which of the following is grammatical when giving someone something they want?

• I hope this could help you.


• I hope it can help you.


• Hoped this may help you.

salutations - Is it "Yours faithfully" when ending an impersonal email to a company NAME?

Can someone address the grey area her: If you're addressing a company name via email, for the first time, and have no idea who the recipient is, you are using a "name" but there is nothing informal to suggest the salutation, "sincerely". At the same time you want to show a little know-how. Please clarify? My instincts go against the general guidance given previously, in this example.

Answer

Is there any reason you cannot use formal language in your correspondence?
If not you may address it to a company name, begin the letter with "Dear Sir/Madam", and end it with "Yours sincerely".

Capitalization of biological abbreviations at the beginning of a sentence

In the beginning of a sentence, should I capitalize abbreviations such as the following:

• hPSC (human pluripotent stem cell)


• mESC (mouse embryonic stem cell)


• rDNA (recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid)

I have seen both lower and upper case for the two first, while rDNA always seems to be in lower case. I'm curious which is the linguistically correct form.

Answer

Whenever you encounter a situation where a "rule" (such as begin a sentence with an upper case letter) will reduce the readability of your test (Is MESC the same as mESC?) then rewrite.
Do not try to find a loophole or a special rule that will need to be explained or justified. The meaning of your text is paramount.

There is a reason why chemistry texts do not begin a sentence about acids and bases with pH.

singular they - What are the most popular gender-neutral pronouns that aren't the same as other contemporary pronouns?

There have been attempts to use other contemporary English pronouns to stand-in as a true gender-neutral pronoun, given that English is lacking a commonly-accepted one for adult humans (non-humans and even babies can be referred to as 'it'). Examples of this include 'he/she', 'one', and the singular 'they'.

However, these can be confused with the contemporary pronouns which have been used as stand-ins, and they can at times be awkward to use. Other pronouns exist which can avoid this problem, such as 'thon', which seems to have historically picked up the most momentum, and was in the dictionary as recently as 1964!

Which are the most commonly used gender-neutral pronouns in English around the world today, to be used when referring back to an adult human, that aren't the same as other contemporary pronouns?

Answer

Ze and hir have been around for some time, although they haven't gained much traction in the cis community. There're more listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Modern_solutions

grammaticality - "a food-hygienically acceptable substance": Grammatical syntax?

In a document (written by a native Japanese speaker), I see the following phrase that sets off my acceptability and grammaticality alarms:

a food-hygienically acceptable substance

Google shows only 130 or so hits for:

food-hygienically acceptable

some of which are like for:

keep the food hygienically acceptable

Which is fine.

But the others are all translated from Japanese, which makes me suspicious.

So my questions to other native speakers are:

1. Is the syntax of "a food-hygienically acceptable substance" grammatical? I can’t seem to extrapolate to other such A+NOUN+HYPHEN+LY ADVERB+NOUN phrases to test it.




2. Is there any more natural way to express this, such as:

Left-side modification:

a food-hygiene-acceptable substance

More grammatical, but still awkward.

Right-side modification:

a substance acceptable in terms of food hygiene

backshifting - I asked + present/past tense

Consider the examples:

• 
  
  1. "My name is Ricky."
  
  


• 
  
  2. He said his name is Ricky.
  
  

The tense is not backshifted in #2 because his name is and will always be Ricky. Also consider:

• 
  
  3. Ricky says: "I live in Paris."
  
  


• 
  
  4. Ricky said that he lives in Paris.
  
  

The tense is not backshifted in #4 because he still lives in Paris.

For examples #2 and #4, it is possible to not backshift the tense because the reporting words are still true at the time of reporting, but what will you say about the following examples:

5. I asked what his name is.


6. I asked where he lives.

Here, is it correct for #5 and #6 to not backshift the tense?

If #5 and #6 are correct, then under what conditions is it correct to not backshift the verb like that?

adjectives - What is the difference between "blurry" and "blurred"?

The two quotes below discuss the same topic.

Terry's tortured season took a surreal twist on Tuesday when a blurry image resembling him appeared on cigarette packets in India. ^GUARDIAN

A blurred picture closely resembling the 31-year-old appears above a "smoking kills" slogan. ^CNN

The definition of blurry and blurred is very identical whereupon blurred has an extended definition. From OALD:

blurry:
without a clear outline; not clear

blurred:
1 not clear; without a clear outline or shape
2 difficult to remember clearly
3 difficult to distinguish, so that differences are not clear

I think that blurry is a derivative of the noun blur while blurred stems from the verb blur. But I wonder why there exists two forms. I tried to find other words where derivatives of both noun and verb with seemingly the same meaning exists to compare their meanings but I didn't find any. Those words which came to my mind have in my opinion a distinction. For instance, washed and washy.

Even though the quotes from the articles give the appearance that they are identical, is there any subtle distinction between blurry and blurred or are they interchangeable without changing any connotation?

Answer

Blurry can always be replaced by blurred (except in the word blurry-eyed), but not always vice versa. IMO, blurry, for the most part, fits all three meanings of blurred in the OALD excerpt, not just the first.

However, blurred has another use which blurry doesn't duplicate, and the dictionary doesn't bring out (probably because it's hard to do without examples). When blurred follows is, was, etc., (i.e. the picture was blurred), it can take a modifier or modifier phrase (e.g. the picture was blurred by the rain or the picture was badly blurred). Blurry cannot be used nearly as extensively in this way.

To go into nuances, even in the places where blurry and blurred are interchangeable, blurred suggests a previous state of non-blurriness and may suggest a perpetrator, whereas blurry only reports the state of the object and doesn't connote much more. The distinction is, however, only slightly observed in common usage.

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.

american english - Non in front of hyphenated adjective

If one wishes to add "non" in front of a hyphenated adjective, should one add a hyphen after "non?"

Answer

The Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Edition, addresses this question indirectly in section 5.117:

The en dash is also used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of the elements of the adjective is an open compound (such as New York) or when two or more of the elements are hyphenated compounds:

New York–London flight
post–Civil War period
quasi-public–quasi-judicial body
    but
non-English-speaking countries
not-to-be-forgotten moments

Since your usage is of the latter form (a normally hyphenated element in front of a hyphenated compound adjective), the use of multiple hyphens is therefore recommended:

He was the only non-red-haired person in his entire family.

Difference between "saw you" and "have seen you"

What is the difference between the two statements?

1. I saw you recently



2. I have seen you recently

Are both the statements correct? If correct, then why?

Explain the difference between specified timing and unspecified timing with examples.

phonetics - Are [ɪ] and [i] are allophones of the same phoneme in English?

I am leaning towards no, but would like confirmation and perhaps an example to illustrate.

Answer

The short answer is no. In English, the phones [ɪ] and [i] are not just allophones of a single phoneme.

There are many minimal pairs like "bit-beat", "shit-sheet", "bitch-beach" that establish that [ɪ] and [i] (in a usual English accent) are not always allophones of the same phoneme. To account for the contrasts between these words, we need to define at least two separate phonemes, /ɪ/ and /i/.

However, there are certain specific phonological contexts in which the phonemic contrast between /ɪ/ and /i/ can be analyzed as "neutralized", and for some speakers, there may be allophonic variation of some kind between the phones [ɪ] and [i] in these circumstances.

How to analyze neutralization is a notorious problem for phonological analyses that make use of phonemes, but we could say that in these specific neutralization contexts [ɪ] and [i] are both allophones of some single phoneme, which we could identify as either /ɪ/ and /i/ (or if you use the concept of "archiphonemes", /I/).

A well-known example in English of a vowel that can be analyzed as the neutralization of /ɪ/ and /i/ is the "happy" vowel: in a specific phonological context (word-finally or before another vowel, in a fully unstressed syllable) we can have either [ɪ] or [i], with no contrast. The "happy" vowel is actually not a great example of allophony per se because many contemporary accents only allow it to be realized as the phone [i]. It's more of an example of "diaphonemic" analysis. That said, I have read that there are some British accents, current or historical, where individual speakers show some type of free or conditioned variation between [ɪ] or [i] for the "happy" vowel, which would qualify as actual allophony.

In certain specific North American accents, in particular, there are other contexts where [ɪ] and [i] could be considered to be allophones.

• Before /ŋ/, there is no contrast between [ɪ] and [i]. Most accents of English only have [ɪ] in this context, but some North American accents allow (or perhaps even require) [i] instead. Phonetically intermediate realizations of the vowel are also known to exist. So [i] and [ɪ] could be said to be allophones of the same phoneme in this particular position for English speakers.

  
  
  
  

  There have been a number of questions about this topic asked earlier on this site; I linked to some beneath Why is /ɪŋk/ used with "ink" words when the actual pronunciation is /ijŋk/?




• Before /r/, many (I think most) North American English speakers have merged /ɪ/ and /i/ to a single vowel phoneme, the realization of which is variable and can range between [ɪ] and [i]. So for speakers with this merger, [ɪ] and [i] could be called "allophones" in this context.

copular verbs - Does English allow a zero copula in subordinate clauses?

In a casual search of the web, I found a few indications English does not allow zero copulas (https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/1468). However, I frequently see sentences with subordinate clauses that juxtapose a noun phrase with an adverb phrase, such as the following from a contemporary sci-fi author:

Kai stares up at me from the grave, his eyes hard as obsidian.

If this clause were made into a sentence, it would take an obligatory verb:

*His eyes hard as obsidian.
His eyes are hard as obsidian.

The original clause seems to contain an implicit "to be." Is it an example of a zero copula? If not, what is this construction called?

Answer

It depends on your definition of a clause. The traditional definition is "a finite verb and all its dependencies"; then your phrase is not a clause.

The construction is called an absolute construction: a noun and an attribute together forming an adverbial constituent.

word choice - Which one is the most general: "ox", "bull", "bison" or "buffalo"?

Which one is the most general: "ox", "bull", "bison" or "buffalo"?

I've looked it up in Wikipedia, but it seems that the authors of articles in Wikipedia are trying to avoid using general terms and would rather use special scientific terms derived from Latin, which makes definitions very accurate and that's, of course, the way how any article in encyclopedia should be. But here I am more concerned about general terms and their usage, not precise definitions. So, which one of those four words seems more inclusive to you? (I know "cattle" would probably "swallow" them all :) )

Answer

Bison, ox, and buffalo are all specific, different species. Confusingly, bison are sometimes called buffalo, although my impression is that this is becoming less common.

Bulls are adult males, most commonly cattle, though potentially from any of these species (and even some very different species---sea lion males, for instance, are also called bulls). Apparently ox is also used to refer to a castrated male from any of these species (again, mostly commonly cattle).

If you want a term that includes all of these, you probably want "bovine".

verbs - Ing form as infinitive at the beginning of a sentence

Is it possible to use the ing form as infinitive at the beginning of a sentence?

E.g. learning extracurricular Software to improve personal training.

This is a sentence I put in brackets in my curriculum vitae.
If possible, attach references of accreditate sources where you picked up the rule.

Thank you for your time.

Answer

In comments, John Lawler wrote:

This particular use of the -ing form is called a "Gerund", and it does function in much the same way as an infinitive does. Infinitive clauses and gerund clauses are varieties of Complement clauses -- subordinate clauses that act as nouns in a sentence, typically the subject or direct object of certain verbs. The example you give -- learning extracurricular software to improve personal training -- is not a sentence, however. It could be a sentence if it had a main verb, but as it is, it is only a gerund clause followed by a purpose infinitive clause.

And:

If this text is for your CV, you have much bigger problems than gerund vs infinitive. To start with, prefixed goals does not mean what you think it means, because it doesn't mean anything. And software is a mass noun that doesn't occur in the plural. On the other hand, that might be normal in whatever dialect of English is spoken where you live; there are thousands.

phrasal verbs - Grammar Explanation for "be used to"

I'm teaching an intermediate ESL class that focuses on writing. There is a lot of grammar, but it is rudimentary and I am trying not to confuse the students with too many complicated terms. In class today we did a lesson on gerunds and infinitives and one of the sentences that was used in the textbook was:

Which meals are you used to eating in a fast-food restaurant?

Of course the combination of "to" + "eating" confused everyone. I did a quick aside to clarify the situation, but promised to revisit the sentence next class. Now I'm stuck because I realize that I don't entirely understand the grammar myself.

Is "be used to" simply a phrasal verb that takes an object, which in this case is a gerund (eating)? Alternatively, is "used to" a complement that requires an object? How would you explain the situation using minimal jargon?

Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Answer

The expressions be used to, get used to and become used to are rarely used in other than the complete forms. An exception is :

Used to getting all his own way, Ben threw a tantrum.

However, this can be interpreted as a deleted form of 'As he was ...', and a stodgier alternative is 'Used as he was to getting all his own way, Ben threw a tantrum.'

Though it's not easy to find a reference saying that 'be used to' is best considered as a transitive multi-word verb (in ESL-speak 'a phrasal verb that takes an object'), My English Pages certainly seems to treat it as unitary:

Be used to is used to say that something is normal, not unusual.

Jane Lawson, in an article at Daily Step English, concurs:

So the structure [is]: ... ...

be used to or get used to + noun or gerund (for example: I am used to living in London.)

However, Quirk in ACGEL labels 'used to' in this sense an adjectival, which one could compare to 'familiar with'. There aren't many verbs that would work in front of this adjectival (if one decides to analyse it as such), when you think about it. Be, get, become, seem, feel, grow spring to mind.

I'd say that the construction falls in a grey area where {tMWV + DO} and {link verb + adjectival (with complement)} overlap.

Pointing out that to is the infinitive marker in 'I want to leave' but not in 'I am used to eating ...' may be helpful.

word choice - What's the difference between "rigor" and "rigorousness"?

What's the difference between rigor and rigorousness?

Which should I use in the following?

Rigorousness and clarity are not synonymous in pedagogy.

Answer

The relationship between rigor and rigorousness is that rigor is similar in meaning to “severity” or “strictness”, but rigorousness is primarily “the abstract property of having to do with, or being inclined to, rigor”. As for which is best in your sentence, it simply comes down to which one you mean.

The suffixes -ous and -ness are productive, meaning they are used by English speakers as part of habits or “rules” for producing new words. These compound words, in the ears of English speakers, will generally mean what the individual parts mean.

The suffix -ous takes a noun X and creates an adjective X-ous which stands for “having X”, “full of X”, “having to do with X”, “doing X”, or “inclined to X”.¹

• avarice → avaricious (having/full of/having to do with/doing/inclined to avarice)


• beauty → beauteous (having/full of/having to do with/doing/inclined to beauty)


• cancer → cancerous (having/full of/having to do with/doing/inclined to cancer)

The suffix -ness can take an adjective Y and create a noun Y-ness which stands for the abstract action, quality, or state which Y has to do with.² You can think of this as converting a description of something to a property which it possesses.

• ripe → ripeness (abstract action, quality, or state property from ripe)


• strange → strangeness (abstract action, quality, or state property from strange)


• tight → tightness (abstract action, quality, or state property from tight)

As you might expect, then, when these productive suffixes are used together with a noun Z, the resulting compound Z-ous-ness will mean “the abstract action, quality or state of having/being full of/having to do with/doing/being inclined to Z”. You can think of this as converting a thing to an abstract property having to do with such a thing.

• mystery → mysteriousness (the abstract property of having to do with a mystery)


• number → numerousness (the abstract property of having a number)


• odor → odorousness (the abstract property of having an odor)

Because these habits or “rules” of new word production are instilled into the minds of English speakers, they will find it possible to make sense of words which are invented using this method, even when the combinations have never been seen before.

• santorum → santorumousness (the abstract property of having to do with santorum)

Such habits or “rules” are not, of course, the whole story. Once a new word is coined by compounding with suffixes and becomes a popular word, it is tossed and buffeted by the same social forces which cause all words to evolve in meaning. The compound may acquire unique connotations which do not wholly apply to its parts. A good dictionary will provide this information.

gerunds - Is "programming" not a noun?

Recently, I was told that the word "programming" in the phrase "programming thoughts" is a verb in the gerund-participle form and that the term "gerund" by itself is obsolete in modern grammar. I was confused by this, because to me the construction seems exactly the same as in, say, "Shower Thoughts": a noun being modified by an attributive noun. I understand that it's the same form as the present participle. But it seems to act exactly as a noun phrase: for example, it can be modified by adjectives like "good" or "bad." I know that some -ing words can be analyzed as deverbal nouns; this is described here: what is the difference between a “deverbal noun” and a “verbal noun”?

However, the tests given seem to mainly apply to count nouns; normally we can't pluralize mass nouns, and they can't take the indefinite article a/an. The definite article can be used with programming; for example, in the phrase "the programming of computers."

So why can't it be considered an indefinite deverbal noun? Is that even the right terminology? Is there any terminology in modern theories of syntax by which one can distinguish the "programming" in "programming class" (a class about programming) from the "programming" in "programming grandparent" (a grandparent who programs), or are these not considered to be distinct constructions?

I've read a Language Log article about the concept of gerund-partiple and how it covers some of the things traditionally labelled as "gerund" (Gerunds vs. participles) but the examples of the "gerund" here seem to be more verby than "programming":

Destroying the files was a serious mistake.
I regret destroying the
files.

Also, in a comment, Mark Liberman says

Huddleston and Pullum argue, in addition, that the traditional
functional distinction between gerunds and present participles is not
a coherent one, and should be abandoned. That's not the same as
arguing that all -ing forms are gerund-participles — this is clearly
false — or there are no functional distinctions among uses of
gerund-participles — H & P retain or propose several, just not

anything that's closely congruent with the traditional split.]

What are the -ing forms that are "clearly" not gerund participles? And what are the names Huddleston and Pullum use for the functional distinctions?

This Wiktionary discussion suggests that H & P distinguish "gerundial nouns" from "gerund-participles" using the following criteria:

• Complementation: Among other things, gerundial nouns take an "of" -prepositional phrase as complement ("the singing of the song").



• Modification: Gerundial nouns take an adjective as modifier, while participles take an adverb. ("Her splendid singing of the song left
  them transfixed.")


• Determiners: Only nouns can take the definite article ("the singing of the song").


• Plurals: Only nouns can take the plural (however, they don't always do so).

By these criteria, it seems to me that "programming" is a gerundial noun, not a gerund-participle. And assuming the term is compositional, I'd think a "gerundial noun" can be called a noun. But I'm not sure I'm getting this right.

I guess the same question applies to words like "cooking" and "writing."

---

(I know that many dictionaries list "programming" as a noun, but dictionaries can't be trusted to get parts of speech technically correct.)

Answer

I never used the terms "gerund" and "participle" when I was learning syntax, nor when I was teaching it, so I think we could easily do without those terms. However, on the other hand, I don't see a problem with the terminology, provided that one is careful.

For the English forms derived from verbs by adding "-ing", there are:

A. nouns. These take articles, can be modified by adjectives (like any ordinary noun), but do not take direct objects (though sometimes logical objects can be expressed with "of"). They cannot be modified by adverbs, just as other nouns cannot.

B. gerunds, which are verbs used as nouns. These are the heads of nominalized sentences (so that is why they are said to be used as nouns), but like other verbs, do not take articles, cannot be modified by adjectives, can be modified by adverbs, and if transitive, can take direct objects (unlike true nouns).

C. participles, which are verbs used as adjectives. These are either like predicate adjectives, used for the English progressive construction, or noun modifiers. Unlike true adjectives, they cannot be modified by "very". When they are noun modifiers, they can be thought of as coming from reduced relative clauses, and when they are alone, without a direct object or other complement, they will be preposed to the noun they are predicated of. [Chomsky gave the example "the (*very) sleeping child".] If you think of a noun modifier as an adjective, then these are derived adjectives.

D. adjectives. These can usually be modified by "very", but cannot take direct objects. Compare the true adjective "annoying" in "He is very annoying to me", with modifier "very" but without a direct object, and the participle "annoying" in "He is annoying me", which cannot have "very" and does have a direct object.

grammaticality - Use of "what" vs "that"

The following sentence was on one of the tests:

What would you like to do that others have told you is impossible.

Students have asked why that could not be replaced with what. I.e.,

What would you like to do what others have told you is impossible.

We have been trying to debate, we know it doesn't sound right but they expect a more detailed explanation, will really appreciate if anyone has an answer for this.

symbols - indefinite article before I(0)

I'm writing my thesis and need to write: "[...] and a/an I₀ of [...]" and am puzzled about which indefinite article to use.

I(q) is a symbol for intensity as a function of the momentum transfer q and I assume the indefinite article before intensity would be an. I₀ is the intensity where q=0 and is also known as the "forward scattering", and I would assume the forward scattering would have the indefinite article a.

So dependent on whether you see I₀ as the forward scattering or the intensity at the point where q=0, I would use a different indefinite article. I read it in my head as forward scattering so the an "sounds wrong", but when I look at the page I think that the a "looks wrong". Are there any defined rules?

Thanks in advance and please bear with me as English is not my first language.

grammatical number - Staff and percent. Which one of these two statements is correct?

Which one of these two statements is correct?

60% of staff work
or
60% of staff works

orthography - "An SQL Server database schema" or "a SQL Server database schema"?

I got the following sentence from the book I'm reading:

You can take a database-first approach
by first creating a SQL Server

database schema.

From what I learned, I think it should be "an SQL Server database schema", not "a SQL Server database schema". So which one is correct?

Answer

This depends, I would think, on your pronunciation of SQL. It can be pronounced as "sequel", or spelled out as "S-Q-L". That perhaps doesn't help in written English.

A thoroughly scientific survey of Google throws up many more hits for "an SQL" than "a SQL". This is also the form used on that Wikipedia article and elsewhere, such as this Microsoft SQL Server documentation entitled "Executing an SQL Query".