grammatical number - Plural vs singular form of verb after set of plural and singular subjects

Should I use verb in plural or singular form if the first subject in the row is singular but is followed by set of subjects in plural form:

The story itself, the characters and their tempers make up/makes up a completely different utterance

Answer

Since the subjects are homogeneous, the predicate-subject agreement requires us to use a plural verb:

As a general rule, use a plural verb with two or more subjects when they are connected by and.

You can read more about subject-verb agreement here or in many other sources online.

verbs - Is this correct grammar — "which feature in C/C++ don't you like?"

The question in question is this:

Which feature in C/C++ don't you like?

Just wanted to know if that is proper way of asking. Not sure if "don't you like" is the right way there.

meaning - "A English nerd" versus "an English nerd"

On some forum today I referred to myself as a English nerd. Now I'm wondering whether maybe I'm an English nerd.

My gut feeling tells me that there is a slight nuance in meaning between the two phrases and that even though the general rule is to use an in front of a word starting with a vowel, I think a is more appropriate in this case.

The a in a English nerd refers to the word nerd and the adjective is only added to denote the type of nerd that I am.

Whereas using the phrasing an English nerd would imply that I am a nerd who happens to be English (I'm not).

Now, my question is: Did I analyze this correctly and is there in fact a nuance in meaning? Or should I have used an English nerd to comply with the general "a versus an" rule?

Answer

There is no different nuance in meaning as you describe in any dialect of English I am aware of.

The a/an pattern is a purely phonological pattern; using one or the other has no impact on meaning. The use is simply governed by the sound of the following word. So, we say:

• A boy ("boy" starts with consonant sound)


• An old boy ("old" starts with vowel sound)



• An hour ("hour" starts with a vowel sound)


• A used automobile ("used" starts with a consonant sound)


• An extremely tired man ("extremely" starts with a vowel sound)

Whatever sound comes directly after the indefinite article determines whether it takes the a form or the an form. It doesn't matter if this is a noun, adjective, adverb, or anything else.

Now, there are some dialects that do things differently, but that difference amounts to allowing a more often (usually with free variation). Again, semantics does not come into the picture.

If there is any true nuance in meaning for you, then it is something that (as far as I know) is attested only in your idiolect.

present perfect - “I burned the toast” vs. “I've burned the toast”

I have a question about a sentence I read in the comic strip Garfield.

Garfield's owner, Jon, brings him a burnt piece of toast saying,

I burned the toast.

Well, once there's no time specified and the toast is still there on the plate at the time the cat owner is speaking, shouldn't we use the present perfect? Wouldn't it have been more correct for Jon to say,

I 've burned your toast

I know the finished time may be implicit, but the thing is it's the example given for the use of simple past in a text book for foreign students, so I think it might be a little confusing for them, don't you think so?

Answer

Quick googling, I guess you mean this comic?

No, the has done form would not have been more correct.

This comic is a perfectly normal example of the way that the did form is used.

I mean, yes, it probably will be confusing to students, because the English tense-aspect system is confusing. (By which I mean, it's a relatively complex and subtle part of the grammar.)

But the usage of the did form here is not in any way a weird exceptional case that misrepresents normal usage.

The has done form would imply a following statement or question in some sort of present or future tense verb form like is doing, will do, is gonna do, etc, or another has done (eg: "I haven't done it yet, because he hasn't paid me yet").

(It could also be followed by a does form; the does form is just more restricted for the same reason it always is: for "normal" verbs [ie, not weird, essentially arbitrary exceptions like "see", "want", "know", "like", etc], it can usually only be used with a habitual meaning. eg: "I've burned too much toast in my life. Now I only eat cereal.")

Concretely, if Jon had said:

• "I've burned the toast."

that would imply that he's gonna say something like:

• "And now I'm doing X."




• "And now I'll do X."




• "And later I'm gonna do X."




• "Do you want me to do X now?"




• "Should I do X now?"

Or expects Garfield to respond with a statement or question with a verb form like that.

• "Are you going to do X now?"




• "Well then, I guess we should do X."

And when I say it would imply that, I mean that neither of them has to actually respond with an utterance with any verb form, or have any exact utterance in mind.

Consider:

1 - "Have you heated the water?"

vs:

2 - "Did you heat the water?"

In both cases, the answer could be "yes" or "no", but 1 is "naggier" than 2 because it vaguely implies the asker saying something like "if you haven't yet, then you should do it now" (even if they don't actually say anything extra later), whereas 2 is more "neutral". That is, the asker just wants to know the simple factual answer to the question.

Jon is being "neutral" in the same sense here: he's not soliciting any response or leading into any continuation.

EDIT:

Some more stuff to add...

Note that Jon would also use the did form if he expected (to make or receive) a continuation in a past tense form like did, was doing, had done, etc, like:

"I burned the toast..."

• "While I was doing X."


• "Before I did X."


• "After I did X."


• "Because someone left the toaster on the wrong setting."


• "Because someone had left the toaster on the wrong setting."

etc

(There's no real difference between did and had done in those last two examples; had done makes it a bit clearer that we're making yet another jump back in time, but that's already pretty clear from context.)

But he could also continue into a non-past form as well, like:

"I burned the toast..."

• "So now I'm gonna do X."

etc

That is, did can continue into both the past or non-past, but has done can only continue into the non-past (or another has done, like I said above).

So in that way, has done is a more restricted, specialized form than did.

In fact, I might even dare to venture that, as a general rule-of-thumb:

Pretty much any time the has done form sounds right, the did form would also sound okay, especially if you also use an appropriate adverb like "already", "before", "once", etc. (In fact, the has done form kinda is functionally a member of that set of adverbs.)

eg:

• I've visited China.

could more-or-less be substituted with:

• I visited China once.

or:

• I visited China before.

Without really making it sound weird or changing the connotations.

But there are lots of cases where the did form sounds right, but the has done form would sound odd, no matter what you add.

eg:

• I went to the store and ran into Bob while I was there.

could not be transformed to:

• WEIRD: I have gone to the store and ran into Bob while I was there.

nor to:

• EVEN WEIRDER: I have gone to the store and have run into Bob while I was there.

So yeah, rule-of-thumb: "when in doubt between did and has done, use did".

(I call it a "rule-of-thumb" because, while it's probably more-useful-than-not for confused students, I don't think it really offers much linguistic insight... teachers shouldn't be pushing confused students into making tricky choices in production like that anyway...)

But!

There is definitely one major exception: when the action is still happening.

eg, "I've worked here for three years" can not be replaced with "I worked here for three years", because that would change the implication from "and I still do" to "but I don't anymore".

However, the has been doing form is probably better in that case anyway (ie, "I've been working here for three years").

Again in a table to make it clearer:

"I've been working here for three years"    ("and I still do")      # same meaning as below, sounds most normal
"I've worked here       for three years"    ("and I still do")      # same meaning as above, sounds like... maybe there's some doubt about the future?
"I worked here          for three years"    ("but I don't anymore") # different meaning

This is the case where a language like German or French would use a construction with present tense and a word like "since" and/or "already", so that the literal translation into English would be something like:

• (NOT NORMAL ENGLISH): I work here since three years.

I'm not sure offhand, but I expect that other languages like Italian and Spanish also use a similar construction in this case...?

Also...

None of this applies to the had done and had been doing forms when they're used for narrative back-shifting like in a novel.

Like, if you imagine someone narrating their experiences and thoughts as they happen in present tense 1st-person...

then you can think of English novel style as taking that narrative, and shifting all the tense forms "one step back".

(And also often transforming them into the 3rd-person.)

like:

I'm walking down the street.    >   I was walking down the street.  >   Bob was walking down the street.
I haven't eaten any breakfast.  >   I hadn't eaten any breakfast.   >   He hadn't eaten any breakfast.
Suddenly, I see a strange man.  >   Suddenly, I saw a strange man.  >   Suddenly, he saw a strange man.

etc

Narrative back-shifting gets more complex (will do goes to would do, for instance, which is totally different from the normal use of would do in conversation), and some forms like had done can't really be back-shifted (had had done would be bizarre), so they stay the same...

Finally, the had done form in an "if"-clause is... best thought of as a transformation of an underlying would have done, I think.

Like, it really "should" be:

* if I would have done X,    he would have done Y

and it's just an arbitrary extra rule that, after an "if", it turns it into:

  if I had done X,           he would have done Y

But that's just part of a bigger pattern where "if" forces all the .would meta-forms to transform into .did meta-forms like:

would do                >   did
would have done         >   had done

would be going to do    >   was going to do

etc

terminology - Is there a difference between articles and determiners?

I have heard the, a, and an referred to as both articles and determiners. Do these two terms mean the same thing, or are there some differences between them? Can a word be an article but not a determiner, and vice versa?

Answer

In grammar determiner is the more general category:

2. Grammar A modifying word that determines the kind of reference a
   
   noun or noun group has, for example a, the, every. See also article.

ODO

Wikipedia lists seven common types of determiners:

• Articles


• Demonstratives


• Possessives


• Quantifiers


• Numerals


• Distributives


• Interrogatives

An article is one type of determiner.

definite article
noun
Grammar A determiner (the in English) that introduces a noun phrase and implies that the thing mentioned has
already been mentioned, or is common knowledge, or is about to be
defined (as in the book on the table; the art of government; the
famous public school in Berkshire).
Compare with

indefinite article
noun
Grammar A determiner (a and an in English) that introduces a noun
phrase and implies that the thing referred to is non-specific (as in

she bought me a book; government is an art; he went to a public
school).
Typically, the indefinite article is used to introduce new
concepts into a discourse.

ODO

In grammar, not all determiners are articles, but all articles are determiners.

pronouns - Is the singular "they" acceptable in formal writing?

I am linking to this post for reference.

The acceptability of "they" as a singular pronoun is growing. Has it grown to the point where it is acceptable in formal publications, such as journal articles, business proposals, or political speeches?

It seems to be that it is not quite there; most people are still too concerned about being negatively judged for it. However, the options of "one", "he or she", and "s/he" are similarly avoided for their cumbersome and pedantic tones. I often see either "he" or "she" used exclusively as an alternative, however, as there is no official stance on one pronoun or the other referring to either or, this opens the door for issues of implicit gender discrimination.

I try my best to skirt the issue altogether when I write, often dramatically revising paragraph -- and even paper-- structure. This, of course, is ridiculous. What is the best option for communicating the very commonly needed genderless singular personal pronoun in formal situations?

grammar - has been, have been , had been

Please anyone tell me when we have to use "has been, have been , had been" and something started in past and still continuing is it possible to use has been ?

Catenatives followed by infinitives and gerunds

What is the difference in meaning when the catenative verb “like” is followed by an infinitive, or by a gerund? For example:

Do you like ski jumping?

vs.

Do you like to ski jump?

Also, what is the difference between:

My brother taught me to read and write.

vs.

My brother taught me reading and writing.

pronouns - Possessive for a third person and a first person

Bob and I are working on a project. I want to refer to "Bob's work" and "my work" collectively, without referring to Bob and myself collectively. (This will be the first reference to Bob and myself in my writing.)

How do I do this, without resorting to the ungainly "Bob's and my work"?

Answer

You could transpose the words to "...work done by Bob and me" or "...work Bob and I did."

synonyms - When is it appropriate to use "Yeah" and "Yep" as variants of the word "Yes"?

As a learner of English I know that yes is a standard variant and the other two are informal, spoken words. I know nothing more about it, and always try using the yes variant, just to not sound inappropriate. But I'd like to be able to not sound too formal in a casual conversation.

Could you help me understand the differences between these words and the contexts in which it is okay to use them?

Answer

You are correct that "yeah" and "yep" are informal variants of "yes." In conversation among friends, any form is appropriate, but "yep" has a slightly dismissive tone.

"Did you find your wallet?"

"Yeah, I left it in the other room."

As opposed to

"Did you get directions to the theater?"

"Yep."

In the second example, you're implying that you've already got directions and you don't need to spend time hearing them again.

tenses - Present simple vs. present perfect

I'm doing a key word transformation and I've come to this sentence:

There aren't any eggs left.
"We ____ eggs".

I should complete the sentence with 2–5 words using the word "run".

At first I thought of

We run out of eggs.

but could I use present simple here if it's not a repeated event? Should I use

We've run out of eggs.

Answer

Yes, pretty much as you've been arguing:

We run out of eggs.

Running out of eggs is a thing that we do.

We've run out of eggs.

We have recently run out of eggs, and therefore it can reasonably be inferred that we have no eggs.

dashes - Can a dash work after a question mark?

Can a dash work after a question mark? Meaning is this sentence correct and if not how would you rewrite it?

I am wondering if you know any publications, blogs or websites who are seeking new writers right now? — particularly those interested in tech or the cloud, big data, mobile applications, info graphics, etc.?

Is this particular statement a phrase or a clause?

The difference between clauses and phrases has been extensively discussed (here, here, and likely elsewhere). And as Dusty has said, “The short answer [is that] clauses contain a subject and its verb, while phrases do not.”

In a recent comment (found here), I noted that the questioner’s sentence—“The day I was born, Granny died”—was formed by two clauses. However, phoog responded that "the day I was born" is not a clause, but rather (I presume) a phrase.

Is this true? If I am to judge by Dusty’s short answer—that a clause contains a subject and a verb—then “the day I was born” checks out as a clause. My understanding is that “the day I was born” is a subordinate clause—or, in the words of Wikipedia, “a clause that provides an independent clause with additional information, but which cannot stand alone as a sentence.”

Unless you think they are necessary to the meaning of your answer, I do not need definitions of phrases and clauses. Rather, I am looking for a definitive answer—phrase or clause—and proof as to how or why you came to that conclusion.

EDIT: I deleted this question because I felt as though it had been answered on the original post by phoog. He responded to my comment, noting that "[the day I was born is] an adverbial noun phrase. It has no predicate, as a clause must. The clause I was born modifies the day, but the fact that the phrase contains a clause doesn't make it a clause."

However, Araucaria commented on another post of mine, asking me to reopen this question. He states, "The linked-to answer is a bit misleading (to say the least), but your question is excellent, and is a very good example for people to investigate!" That said, I have reopened the question and am curious to hear any and all opinions and/or interpretations of phoog's explanation.

Answer

"The day I was born, Granny died”

Inverted ---> "Granny died the day I was born.”

In full ----> "Granny died on the day that I was born.”

Same structure ----> "Granny died on Tuesday.”

Answer

"the day I was born" is a noun phrase.

"I was born" is a clause.

grammatical number - There is/are one or several apple/~s?

To be clear, among

There is one or several apple.

There are one or several apple.

There is one or several apples.

There are one or several apples.

which is correct?

---

My guess:

Because of the shortest distance rule ¹, apples is correct as it is near several.

Though there seems to be near one, the actually object is apples, and thus are should be used.

Thus

There are one or several apples.

is correct.

To make things clearer,

There are one or several apples and a table.

illustrates the long connection between there and apples better.

_{1 Sorry, I do not know its English name. I just translate it from my language back.}

---

By the way, I do not want to emphasize at least one.

Answer

That is not a smooth phrase but of the choices "There are one or several apples" would be most common. See this and this for examples.

"There is at least one apple" would be better.

Period after "fax"

What are the rules for putting a full stop after a fax abbreviation?
Sometimes I see:

Tel.: xxx-xxx-xxx
Fax.: xxx-xxx-xxx

Is "fax" here an abbreviation?

Answer

There is no need for a period. Fax is no longer an abbreviation, but a word in its own right.

grammatical number - Why is "zero" followed by a plural noun?

I could have:

• Two books


• One book


• Zero books

Why is zero followed by a plural form?

---

I don't expect English to always make sense, but everything has a reason, even if the reason is stupid.

The definitions of "singular" and "plural" per Merriam-Webster:

• 
  

  Singular (adj): of, relating to, or being a word form denoting one person, thing, or instance

  
  




• 
  

  Plural (adj): of, relating to, or constituting a class of grammatical forms usually used to denote more than one or in some languages more than two

  
  

So by this logic, our choices are "one" or "more than one". Maybe it's a bug :-)

Answer

Substitute the word "any" in the place of zero and it makes sense. Instead of saying "I have zero books." you are saying "I do not have any books."

In this construction, the plural is not referring to the zero-quantity of books you have, but instead refers to a (vague and undefined) collection of books, none of which you have.

Capitalization of idioms in titles

If I'm using an idiom in a title then should all the elements of the phrase be capitalized or just the ones that are usually in capitals?

For example, which of the following should be used?

be up and Running

be Up and Running

be Up And Running

Answer

If you're using an idiom, then in formal writing none of the words should be capitalized beyond what standard grammar and punctuation (beginning of a sentence, proper names, etc) require.

In a title, which words are capitalized will depend on the stylistic concerns of your medium, but generally it will be: first word, last word, and main words, with secondary words (conjunctions less than five letters, prepositions, articles, etc) left uncapitalized.

Conjunctions of more than five letters may be capitalized, and typically, in most professional publications, they are.

grammar - Marine Corps Possessive

I am editing my brother’s paper, and I realized I am unsure about the possessive form of Marine Corps, such as

The best kept secret of the Marine Corps

Is it

the Marine Corps’ best kept secret

or

the Marine Corp’s best kept secret

I am leaning towards the first because the s is part of the word corps.

Answer

As a Marine myself, I can tell you that "Marine Corp's" is completely wrong.

It is technically correct to use either:

Marine Corps's
or
Marine Corps'

If you look hard enough you will find examples of both, and typically one may be preferred. I have never seen either stated as incorrect; one is either more or less preferred than then other.

I personally would stay away from using "Marine Corps's" not only because of personal preference, but because you will get the occasional mispronunciation as "corpses", which, while it is often a Marine's primary mission to turn an enemy into a corpse, we do not like to hear our name mispronounced as such.

etymology - Origin of different past tenses for verbs with the same endings?

Why do we have a situation where the past of "to blow" is "blew", but of "to glow" is "glowed"? And don't say "flew" if you mean "it flowed". The poem Lovers, by Phoebe Cary has many examples of these.

How did these differences originate? Did "blow" and "glow" come from etymologically distinct backgrounds that have just come to be spelled and pronounced the same way? Is there a general rule for words like these?

Answer

The name for the difference is "strong" versus "weak" verbs. Strong verbs have a vowel change in the past, weak verbs add -ed. (Life gets slightly more complicated: for instance, there are irregular weak verbs, but that's not relevant to this question.)

It basically has to do with how frequently the words are used (or were used in the past). We learn to use these other past forms by hearing them repeated. If we don't hear one enough, the strong past form (the one not formed with -ed) sounds "wrong" to us, and we use the -ed form.

You can see this with young children of the right age, who routinely try to use -ed on strong verbs. When a word is used rarely enough, people grow up without ever getting comfortable using the strong past form, and continue to use -ed. They then pass that on to their children, and so on.

So over time, strong verbs become weak if they're used infrequently. You can see this dynamic in play today with words that are on the edge of the necessary frequency; for instance, what is the past of "dive": "dived" or "dove"? Quite possibly in a generation or two, "dove" will sound archaic and "dived" will be standard.

grammar - To "to" or Not To "to"

I often come across sentences such as, "Our program assists, at no cost, students maintain independent living..." I believe it should be written as, "Our program assists, at no cost, students to maintain independent living..." Input? This isn't a question about the word "help" - this is specifically about the word "assist."

Which are or What are

is this correct?

Which are the different methods by which you can search...

or

What are the different methods by which you can search...

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.

terminology - Longer than a word — smaller than a sentence

What would you call a linguistic construct that is just big enough to convey a meaning within a context, longer than a word but not having the length and proper form of a complete sentence? Like, for example, "good job" or "nice shirt" — neither of those is a full sentence but both get the point across. A sentencette, or is there a formal term for it?

Answer

The basic grammatical units are morpheme, word, phrase, clause and sentence. In the definition given in the ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken English’, a phrase is ‘a structural unit built from words, consisting of a head plus (optionally) modifiers.’ In 'The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language', David Crystal puts it a little differently: 'A cluster of words smaller than a clause, forming a grammatical unit.' (He mentions that it is sometimes called a 'group'. This is the term used in functional grammar.) To take an example, the sentence ‘Egyptians have approved a controversial new constitution’ contains two phrases: ‘Egyptians’ and ‘a controversial new constitution’.

This is the generally understood use of phrase. It is not to be confused with its use in the approach to grammar known as ‘immediate constituent analysis’. There, phrase is used rather differently, in that a sentence is divided into a Noun Phrase and a Verb Phrase, and each of those is further divided into all the constituent parts of the sentence.

grammar - Is the sentence "There is a large number of labourers who want to migrate to Japan for work." correct?

There is a large number of labourers who want to migrate to Japan for work.

I type this sentence in a word processor, and it reports an error that "is" should be "are" (subject-verb agreement).

I doubt this is a valid error. Could anyone confirm this?

grammatical number - Why "themselves" and "himself"

In the earliest grades of elementary schools, students learn that "hisself" and "theirselves" are not words. I do not understand why this is.

If you wanted to refer to 'his' sock, you would say "his sock," not "him sock." Similarly, you would say "their socks," not "them socks."

Why do you not call 'his' self hisself and 'their' selves as theirselves?

Answer

There appear to be a couple of competing theories for why this happened.

The first is essentially phonetic: the forms where a 'genitive' is used are the ones where genitive and oblique forms differ in a single vowel ("thou" vs "thy", "me" vs "my" etc, compared to "him" vs "his" where there's also a consonant change). As I understand, the main problem with this theory is that if it was true, you might expect to see a period of variation between "genitive" vs "oblique" forms across the board, including e.g. "himself" vs "hisself". There's a small amount of evidence for this (e.g. different manuscripts of the same text where forms such as "himself"~"hisself" alternate in what is otherwise the same sentence). But maybe not as much evidence as you'd expect.

The alternative theory is syntactic and a bit more complex but essentially has to do with a statistical split that already existed in Old English. In Old English, "self" was essentially an adjective that served as an intensifier, a bit like "own", "very", "per se" in English today. Old English didn't have "reflexives" as such: "I saw me" was the way to say "I saw myelf" (as it is in German, French etc today); "I saw me self", would be a particularly emphatic version, a bit like saying "I saw my very self" in Modern English. Now, the interesting thing to note at this stage is that (a) as an adjective, "self" was case-marked as usual, and was of the same case as the word it accompanied; (b) as an adjective, "self" was readily used with any noun and so was probably more common in the third person at that stage. Or put another way, in Old English, saying "thou self" was a bit like saying something like "you your very self" today: it was an emphatic phrase that would occasionally be inserted, but wasn't so common compared to in the third person.

As Old English gradually lost its case system, there was then a grammatical "re-shifting" or re-interpretation that took place. One important change was that "self" gradually changed from an adjective into a noun, probably driven by the loss of case endings (a word used as a general intensifier in lots of places is arguably more recognisable as an adjective if it has case endings).

As that occurred, the third person cases of "him self" etc where then more clearly marked as "objects" because they also frequently occurred in parallel to other cases of "self" still as an intensifier alongside other nouns/noun phrases (i.e. people still said "I saw him self", but also "I saw the butcher self", so they had it 'more in their minds' that "self" in these third person cases was used alongside an 'object'). So there wasn't so much impetus to evolve "him self" > "his self" (though there are a few instances of evidence for "himself" ~ "hisself" existing as alternatives in Middle English).

In the other persons, on the other hand, a phrase like "I/me self" tended to be used in a sentence as an emphatic "incise" or interpolated phrase rather than the subject/object per se-- a bit like saying nowadays "I myself, I believe that...". So in these cases, with "self" as a noun, there was more of an impetus for "I/me self" to evolve to "my self" to help allow the noun "self" to 'have somewhere to go to' grammatically: "my self" now becomes a more cohesive unit. It's worth noting that the third person forms "himself" etc fused together earlier than "my self" etc, which continued to be written as two words for some time.

Further reading (on which the above draws):

• Van Gelderen (2000), "A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, Self, and Interpretability."


• Danijela (2003), Review of the above book in The Canadian Journal of Linguistics (which helps to summarise some of the main arguments)


• Sinar, B., (2006), "A History of English Reexives: from Old English into Early Modern English" (a PhD thesis that doesn't focus exclusively on this issue, but mentions it in passing with some examples of some of the forms/phenomena I've mentioned above)

possessives - "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X"

Which option is grammatical?

1. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s writings.


2. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings.

Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better.

Answer

Wikipedia has this:

Joint or separate possession

For two nouns (or noun phrases) joined by and, there are several ways of expressing possession, including:

1. marking of the last noun (e.g. "Jack and Jill's children")


2. marking of both nouns (e.g. "Jack's and Jill's children").

Some grammars make no distinction in meaning between the two forms. Some publishers' style guides, however, make a distinction, assigning the "segregatory" (or "distributive") meaning to the form "John's and Mary's" and the "combinatorial" (or "joint") meaning to the form "John and Mary's". A third alternative is a construction of the form "Jack's children and Jill's", which is always distributive, i.e. it designates the combined set of Jack's children and Jill's children.

When a coordinate possessive construction has two personal pronouns, the normal possessive inflection is used, and there is no apostrophe (e.g. "his and her children"). The issue of the use of the apostrophe arises when the coordinate construction includes a noun (phrase) and a pronoun. In this case, the inflection of only the last item may sometimes be, at least marginally, acceptable ("you and your spouse's bank account"). The inflection of both is normally preferred (e.g. Jack's and your dogs), but there is a tendency to avoid this construction, too, in favour of a construction that does not use a coordinate possessive (e.g. by using "Jack's letters and yours"). Where a construction like "Jack's and your dogs" is used, the interpretation is usually "segregatory" (i.e. not joint possession).

("General principles for the possessive apostrophe", in "Apostrophe")

So in your example, unless they are writings that Giovanni and Walker co-wrote, you should use Nikki Giovanni's and Alice Walker's writings. Although I agree that it trips off the tongue better with just the second 's, and no doubt only the pedants in the audience would pick you up on it ;)

articles - Omission of "the" in "elected him president" and "made captain"

Why is there no the before president and captain?

They elected him president.

She was made captain of the team.

Answer

The ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ (LSGSWE) explains it thus:

When a predicative noun phrase names a unique role or job, either a
zero article or the is used.

The is not normally found after words like elected (and re-elected) which show that someone has been appointed to an office. The LSGSWE’s own example is ‘Lukman was re-elected OPEC President in June.’ In other cases, however, it’s optional. The LSGSWE’s second example is: ‘Simon Burns is the chairman of the appeal board.’ That could equally well appear as ‘Simon Burns is chairman . . .’

British English plural verb for group noun in a contraction

I'm curious about the use of the famous British plural verb form with a group noun¹ in a contraction. The general custom for the plural is discussed here and here but those don't call out contractions.

England football fans are currently singing the following to the tune of September by Earth, Wind, and Fire:

Woah, England are in Russia,

Woah, drinking all your vodka,


Woah, England's going all the way!

Now, it's a football song, not high poetry, but note that in the above, the first line uses England are but the last line uses England's. Unless we magically decide that the first England is the team but the second England is the country, that's...interesting.

The plural contraction is really awkward:

• England're going all the way


• Family're hard work sometimes



• The group're on it

...and as we know, awkwardness tends to get smoothed out of language.^{[citation needed] ;-)}

Is this just a fudge to make the song's meter work? Or is it a deeper pattern to use the singular form in a contraction even when using the plural form otherwise, perhaps because of the awkwardness?

Sadly Google Ngrams won't let me look for England is going vs. England are going (and England is vs. England are is too general) and in any case, I'd be flooded with American English results. Trying to search Hansard, unfortunately Google Search treats the ' as a space.

I can't use my own instinct on this and am having trouble coming up with other examples to look for: I'm an English/American dual national who spent 30 years growing up in the U.S. reading British novels and watching British television on PBS, who's been back in the UK for 18 years. So my dialect is mid-Atlantic and horribly confused. :-)

---

¹ E.g. the team are vs. American English's the team is for nouns representing groups of people (roughly; there's lots of nuance).

Answer

It's just a fudge to make the meter work.

Should enclosing commas be treated as parentheses?

I just read the following in Dan Ariely's book Predictably Irrational,

[...] Zoe, and the other kids to whom I offered the same deal, was
completely blinded by [...] p. 57

To me it would have seemed more natural to have written 'were completely blinded'. On the other hand, commas are often used in place of parentheses, in which case the following would, presumably, be incorrect,

Zoe (and the other kids to whom I offered the same deal) were completely blinded by [...]

Should 'was' or 'were' be used in the sentence separated with commas?

Answer

To me it would have seemed more natural to have written ‘were completely blinded’.

You are right. Dan Ariely’s sentence does not seem natural regardless of the punctuation. The answer to your question has to do with what reading is – well, what readers do. And it turns out that neuroscientists now know one very interesting thing about reading which explains exactly how Dan’s sentence is problematic : reading uses the same parts of your brain that are used in speech production and listening, notably Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area, and uses them in the same way.

It makes sense that the same parts of your brain are used for reading, listening, and speech, because you are using the same vocabulary and grammar for all three activities. But what’s interesting is that reusing the same parts of your brain means reading, listening, and speaking are mostly the same thing. When you read, you can meaningfully say you are speaking the words to yourself and listening to them in order to make sense of them. The observation that we sometimes “hear” a text in our own voice as we read it is not an illusion, or even a side effect : it is fundamental to how we do language.

Not only that, but reading, listening, and speaking all light up other parts of your brain which deal with memory and imagination, and they all do it in the same way. As you read, you create mental simulations of the narrative that involve multiple senses and include creative imaginings of things which are not even mentioned. Whether you speak of cheese, hear of cheese, or read about cheese, you see, smell, and taste the cheese. You even see where it is – perhaps on a cheese-board, or in your hand – regardless of whether that detail is in the narrative. As you read a text, you are continually adding to your mental simulation, and this helps you notice when something does not make sense.

When a text does not follow the same rules as speech, the result is confusion : it seems wrong because reading is a form of listening and of speech. You stumble over the text as you would if you were speaking the words aloud or listening to them.

This is what happened when you read Dan Ariely’s sentence. You heard

Zoe and the other kids to whom I offered the same deal was completely blinded by

and by the time you got to was you had already built up a mental simulation of the first part of the sentence with some kids (plural) in it. Your brain had trouble making was (singular) fit with this mental picture. To describe this situation we say there is an error in subject-verb agreement.

I agree that Dan Ariely intended the commas to delimit a parenthesis, a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself. A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax. Wikipedia derives the word from the Greek παρένθεσις, meaning “to place alongside of”.

The remark

and the other kids to whom I offered the same deal

will work as a parenthesis if you hear it like one when you speak it to yourself. The trouble is that it also happens to work within the syntax of the sentence, leading you down the garden path until you encounter the word was. Commas are not always enough to cue a parenthesis. Dan should have used round brackets (parentheses) – or even dashes – to guide the reader to treat the interruption as an interruption.

Further Reading

 2009 Cook/Dehaene Scientific American “Your Brain on Books : Neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene explains his quest to understand how the mind makes sense of written language”.
 2011 Stafford/Blackburne “What happens in the brain when you read : A Conversation with Livia Blackburne”.
 2012 Bergen Louder Than Words : The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning.
 2012 Paul The New York Times “Your Brain on Fiction”.
 2013 “scicurious” Neurotic Physiology (blog) “Silent reading isn’t so silent, at least, not to your brain”.
 2013 Wikipedia “Broca’s area”.
 2013 Wikipedia “Wernicke’s area”.
 2013 Wikipedia “Parenthesis (rhetoric)”.

word order - solid black line vs black dashed line

I am describing a chart and got confused about my intuition and Google results.
So I'd usually refer to a "solid black line" and there are 1,130,000 results (with quotes) for that against 320,000 for "black solid line". So far, so good.
When it comes to "dashed black line" it sounds weird to me though it's the same wording order. There are 214,000 for that against 318,000 results for the reverse order "black dashed line".

So, my question is: dashed black line or black dashed line? (considering that I am also mentioning the solid one, I was going for the first option not to break the pattern)

Answer

Generally the order of adjectives is: opinion, size, physical quality, shape, age, colour, origin, material, type, purpose - so... I would consider 'solid' and 'dashed' to be adjectives of physical quality, and I would write 'a solid black line' and 'a dashed black line'.

Adjectives Order (Cambridge)

meaning - The difference between "being with a company" and "being from a company"

Some people leave voice mail like:

hi, this is John from ABC Systems...

and sometimes I can hear people say

Hi, that's John with ABC Systems...

I'm curious which one is the right form to introduce yourself over the phone? When should I use from or with?

Answer

It's a matter of personal preference. I prefer with. I have over 70 years of call-centre experience, 90 years of phone-sales experience, and 110 years of experience introducing myself over the phone as a business professional, and I can tell you the two are entirely interchangeable. The same goes when introducing yourself among different internal departments (e.g. "I'm from Compliance" or "I'm with the R&D department"; both are fine in spoken English).

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

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

Whether you are looking to build. . . .

or

Whether you are looking to building. . . .

verbs - I threw a coin in a well that [was] or [is] in the forest

Which statement is correct and why?

I threw a coin in a well that was in the forest.

vs

I threw a coin in a well that is in the forest.

Also, is the "is/was" before "in the forest" called a linking verb?

Lastly, is the phrase "that [was/is] in the forest" an adjectival phrase that is describing forest?

grammaticality - Can we use "not either" instead of "neither"?

Can we use "not either" instead of "neither"?

For example, given that…

1. I don't like football


2. I don't like basketball

… which of the following are correct?

A. I like neither football nor basketball.

B. I don't like either football or basketball.

syntactic analysis - Should I modify a gerund using an adjective or an adverb?

I know that a gerund is a noun, so it should be modified by an adjective. However, it is also a verb form. Can I modify it by using an adverb?

verbs - What Does He Do

I'm teaching conversational English to ESL students in Korea, but I don't have a strong background in grammar. I can tell them how we say things, but cannot always explain why it is that way. Today, one student asked about the phrase:

"What does he do?"

They wanted to know why we use "do" at the end, and why we cannot say "What does he does?". I really wanted to answer their question, so I told them I'd answer tomorrow. Please let me know! Thank you!

Answer

The first and second uses of the verb do are different.

The first do ("what does") is an auxiliary verb, which doesn't have meaning on its own, except to properly phrase a question. The auxiliary do is conjugated in the typical way:

What do I...
What do you...
What does he...
What did I...

The verb that follows the auxiliary do should be in the form of a bare infinitive, that is, the infinitive minus the to. The bare infinitive form of to do is do.

So it's:

What does [auxiliary verb, conjugated in the present tense with the subject "he"] he do [bare infinitive of to do]?

As TaliesinMerlin points out, it may be helpful to think about this construction as a verb phrase. That term has multiple definitions, but here, we can think of a verb phrase just as multiple words which are used in combination as a verb. Some similar verb phrases with an auxiliary verb and a main verb are he can do and he should do.

When we use a verb phrase, only one component of the phrase is conjugated to match the subject:

I can go
You can go
He can go*

In this case, you can think of the verb phrase as he does do (an emphatic form of the statement he does), which is then inverted to form the interrogative form: he does do -> what does he do?

Other examples will follow the same pattern:

What does [auxiliary] she like [bare infinitive]?
Where did [auxiliary in the past tense] they go [bare infinitive]?
He does [auxiliary, here used for emphasis, not to form a question] think [bare infinitive]!

---

* This isn't the best example because can is irregular and is conjugated identically. If someone wants to edit this answer with a better example, they are welcome to do so.

hyphenation - hyphenated noun

I am proofreading a text and I am not sure if I should hyphenate the following noun.

We are considering limits in which, without going into details, something happens to different objects, A1, A2, A3, etc... We want to refer to the limit where something happens to e.g. A1 as the A1 limit. Should it be hyphenated, i.e. the A1-limit?

Answer

I don't think hyphen use for compounds is predictable -- you'd need a style guide of some sort listing approved hyphenated forms. If you are are coining a new compound, consequently, which is probably the case with your example, you should never use a hyphen, because your compound could not be on such a list.

capitalization - "Not" or "not" in book title?

Assume I have written a book and want to name it:

The Joy of Not Being Stupid

Would the "not" be capitalized?

Answer

Blue book of grammar and punctuation: The following rules for capitalizing composition titles are universal.

•Capitalize the title's first and last word.
•Capitalize verbs, including all forms of the verb to be (is, are, was, etc.).
•Capitalize all pronouns, including it, he, who, that, etc.

•Capitalize the not.

Do not capitalize a, an, or the unless it is first or last in the title.
•Do not capitalize the word and, or, or nor unless it is first or last in the title.
•Do not capitalize the word to, with or without an infinitive, unless it is first or last in the title.

Difference between 'which' and 'that' in restrictive (defining) relative clauses

Excuse me if this topic has been brought up before though I couldn't find it. It seems that there are many similar topics related to both defining and non-defining clauses but there is still one question that bothers me.
I want to know about the difference between wh- pronouns (who, which, what...) vs. that in restrictive relative clause.

For example:
The man that I saw at the mall looked puzzled.
The man who I saw at the mall looked puzzled.
I omitted commas intentionally, as I'm willing to talk about defining clauses only.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language gives quite vague description on that and I cannot think about actual examples:

"Relative clauses are so called because they are related by their form to an antecedent. They contain within their structure an anaphoric element whose interpretation is determined by the antecedent. This anaphoric element may be overt or covert. In the overt case the relative clause is marked by the presence of one of the relative words who, whom, whose, which, etc., as or within the initial constituent: clauses of this type we call wh relatives. In non-wh relatives the anaphoric element is covert, a gap; this class is then subdivided into that relatives and bare relatives depending on the presence or absence of that."
Thanks in advance!

UPD: I know that it seems that in general there is no need to dig for this information but still I need this for my research.

Answer

As Janus Bahs Jacquet states in the comments, the difference is essentially one of formality. The Cambridge Grammar of English states the following general principle:

In a wide range of informal styles, that is used instead of who/whom or
which in defining relative clauses. (p571)

This principle is confirmed by Swan in Practical English Usage:

We often use that instead of who or which, especially in an informal
style. (p478)

Swan goes on to note:

That is especially common after quantifiers like all, every(thing), something, any(thing), nothing, little, few, much, only, and after
superlatives. (p478)

When the relative reference is to a person, Swan states:

That is often used in identifying relative clauses instead of
who/whom/which. That is most common as an object or as a subject
instead of which. That can be used as a subject instead of who, but
this is quite informal. (p482)

The Cambridge Grammar of English notes (of defining/identifying relative clauses):

That may refer to the complement of a preposition, but not when the
preposition is placed immediately before the relative pronoun:

• The other girl that I told you about also lives in Bristol.

So, the following is not grammatical:

The other girl about that I told you also lives in Bristol.

It must be: ... about whom ... . Of course, this very formal usage conforms to the general principle noted above.

grammar - "it seems" vs. "it seems that"

Is there a difference between using "it seems" and "it seems that"

For example:

"It seems that automatic restart is not happening now"

"It seems automatic restart is not happening now"

Which one is correct? Or are they both?

grammar - What is the function of "do" in the following sentence?

Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.

What is the function of "does" in that sentence?

Answer

It's to support subject/verb inversion (as in "neither do I" or "so do we"). So 'does' is standing in for the main verb, 'discover' because modern English avoids inverting except with auxiliary verbs such as do, can, will. Without 'does', you'd have to say 'Only by ... views of others DISCOVERS ONE ...' which isn't done in modern English.

single word requests - Linguistic term for a type of reply

just wondering what the word or phrase is for a reply that indirectly answers the following way:

Mum: Could you please do your homework?

Child: I've already done my homework.

So, the child isn't answering the question being asked directly, yet his response is fitting.

Thanks

Should "Ladies" be marked with an apostrophe in the noun phrase "Ladies beer"?

What should it say on a label: Is it "ladies' beer" or "ladies beer?"

grammaticality - "The problem is he is stingy"

I have this sentence:

The problem is he is very stingy with his money.

But I feel it sounds weird or even wrong with the two ises so close. Is the sentence structure grammatical? If it isn't, how to fix it?

Answer

It's perfectly grammatically correct.

The problem is just that: you repeat the word "is".

It's that simple.

It's a commonplace in English, say speechwriting or advertising writing (I mean say for radio or TV voiceovers), that you don't repeat a word in a sentence or, really, in a passage, and particularly not close.

Here you have two "is"s very close, so it sounds awkward. It's that simple.

(AND INDEED, he/his are almost the same word - that's another repeat.)

The solution is this simple:

The problem is this: he's very stingy with money.

The problem is: he's very stingy with money.

or any other combo.

{Note - it goes without saying there are many other situations where, for emphasis, for drama, because you are Winston Churchill, etc, you repeat a word closely. Say ... "May the luck be with the player." .. repeating the "the" sounds cool and dramatic there. But in the example at hand, it's simple: the sentence sounds lousy since you have (indeed two different) close repeats.}

grammar - Would you mind me / my opening the window?

Would you mind me opening the window?

Would you mind my opening the window?

Who uses which form, and why? Is this a difference in dialect? A difference between formal and informal grammar?

meaning - Is the past tense correct in "Did you know Fred was a doctor?"

Possible Duplicates:
He didn't know where New Jersey was…
Tense change: previous actions on something that's currently true

My wife and I were disagreeing about this today:

1. Did you know Fred was a doctor?



2. Did you know Fred is a doctor?

I was arguing for (1) based on what seemed to "sound right." My wife claimed that, since Fred is currently alive and still practicing medicine, present tense should be used. However, we agreed that the negation of these sentences uses was:

I didn't know Fred was a doctor.

Here I think everyone would agree that is would sound wrong!

So which is correct between (1) and (2)? And why? Is this some kind of subjunctive?

Answer

My vote for "is" in both cases, negated or not. If you have the qualification, then you are a doctor.

Compare

Did you know that Fred is a doctor? - Oh, is he? I'd never have guessed.

with

Did you know that Bob was a fighter pilot in the war? - Oh, was he? I'd never have guessed.

grammar - Resulted in "him" or "his" losing the job?

In the following sentence,

Shortly thereafter he had a car accident which resulted in him losing the job.

My supervisor wanted to change him to his saying something about gerunds. I disagreed and proved it to her by showing her a GrammarCheck I had done on the sentence. She didn't like it but she let it go.

Isn't using him correct in that sentence?

grammar - Avoiding his/her in technical writing

I need to refer to a user of a certain service and would like to avoid a perticular gender such as his/her and not use one either.
Could I say "The user attempts to maximize own capacity.", instead of "The user attempts to maximize his own capacity"?

Thanks a lot.

Trump is the 45th US president. How do you ask a question to get this number?

Trump is the 45th US president. How do you ask a question to get this number?

where to put the comma between two distinct quote?

Where should I put the comma and the quotes in such a sentence?

The comments were significantly focused on my being “engaging, patient and extremely helpful,” “very coherent and easy-to-understand,” or "clear and straight to the point".

My question is whether I can do something like this "bla," "bla" - meaning, a simple space between two quotes and the comma before the first one.

Thanks!

Passive to active interrogatives

I am a high school student. While doing my weekly assignment, I came across a question which asks me to write in active voice

Have they been told to be ready?

Can anyone help me out with this one?

Answer

Has anyone told them to be ready?

is the translation into active voice.

pronouns - What's the difference between "these" and "those"?

First of all, I'm not a native English speaker, but in school I learned that these is used if referring to something near, and those is used when referring to something far away (temporally or locally). But now I'm sometimes watching English movies and notice sentences like "Have you seen those boots?" while the boots were only centimeters away. Is this just not correct, or have I learned the wrong rules?

Another question is, what if I'm referring to something abstract such as ideas or thoughts so that I can't say if they are far away or not. Should I use those or these?

Edit

So it can't be really wrong in any case if I use these respectively those?

Answer

In the 'Have you seen those boots?' example, if meant as an exclamation, there is also a sense of distancing oneself. That is to say if it was meant to imply "Have you seen those boots, they are fantastic/awful", one is indicating the boots are not yours, but belonging to someone else, and thus conceptually distant from you.

If the question is taken to mean "Where are the boots?" then their distance is unknown, and thus also conceptually distant.

In summary, I would use 'those' when something is either physically or conceptually distant, and 'these' when they are near to me, either in proximity, or my emotional sentiment toward them. That's the best way I can frame it logically, anyway.

word choice - Unsure on the pronouns/verbs/tense to use here

This question came up when answering tickets today at work. A client says they've been having one singular problem across multiple entries. How should I phrase my response?

"Which entries was this happening on?"
or
"What entries was this happening on?"

Neither of these sound right. Is the issue tense? i.e.:

"Which entries has this been happening on?"

I'm pretty sure 'which' should be correct because I'm asking for specific entries from a list.

What's the correct option here?

Answer

The awkwardness comes from splitting which/what and on.

Try: On which entries did this problem occur?

or, if you like the sound of it better: For which entries did this problem happen?

"Which" is better than "What" because you are asking about specific individual entries.

grammar - A song came on tv

I'm not a native English speaker, so I wanted to ask something. How would you say that
'As i was zapping through the channels, and this song came on'.
Is this a correct sentence? Basically what I want to know is the phrasal verb for the song, as in the song was on air ? Sorry I know its not a correct sentence. Help me please.

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.

differences - Can the word 'fluently' be interchanged with 'fluidly' in this sentence, "I see I can't write fluidly either."

I was asking a question concerning the use of the words 'fluently' or 'fluidly' in a particular sentence. I did not mean to post it as an Answer.

grammar - Which would be correct? Owen and I or Owen and me

Caption over picture of Owen and his dad..."Owen and I" is this correct grammatically ?

Is Working a noun or a verb in this sentence?

"Working for the man". Does "Working" act as a noun, verb or something else in this case and why?

If I said, "I am working for the man." Then clearly working is a verb. However, I'm confused by the colloquial phrase "working for the man." It seems to have a "poetic" tone if you will. Because the subject does not exist I wonder if "Working" is a state of being in this case?

As "Peter Shor" pointed out Maybe the answer is that because this is not a complete sentence then we don't know what role "working" plays in the sentence.

FWIW, I'm imaginging how I can translate the phrase into Japanese. Which word I use for "Working" depends on whether it is a noun or a verb.

Answer

Are you perhaps thinking of the song ‘Proud Mary’?

Left a good job in the city,

Working for The Man every night and day,

And I never lost one minute of sleeping,

Worrying 'bout the way things might have been.

If so, working is an ellipted form of I was working, and is thus the -ing form of the verb work.

It’s rather different in a clause such as Working for the man was hard. There its role is ambiguous, but I think a good case can be made for it being a noun, since it is the subject of the clause.

grammar - If an independent clause stands on its own, is it still considered a clause?

There are several definitions related to clauses in my textbook that am a little confused about, and I would greatly appreciate some clarification.

Here are the definitions:

1. Clause. A group of words which contains a subject and a verb but is in itself not a complete sentence, but a part of a complex or compound sentence.





2. A complex sentence is a sentence which contains at least one dependent and one independent clause.

   
   
   

   
   

   While we were away, our house was robbed.

   
   




3. An independent clause is a main clause, one that is not subordinate.

In the example given in definition 2, we have a dependent clause ("While we were away") and an independent clause ("our house was robbed.") It seems to me that the independent clause can stand on its own as a sentence ("Our house was robbed.")

However, it looks like based on definition 1, this would not qualify as a clause, since it is itself a complete sentence and is not part of a complex or compound sentence.

Is it correct to say that when an independent clause stands on its own, it is not considered a clause? If so, is it considered anything besides "a sentence"?

Thanks!

commas - Implicit "that/which is/are" in nonrestrictive relative clause

Is it grammatically correct to leave off "that is" or "which is" in a nonrestrictive relative clause? Is there a term for this? Is this actually a different phenomenon? It (sometimes?) seems to apply to the whole sentence, not any individual noun. For example:

Today I [verb], (which is) [comparative adjective] than [gerund].

I have [object], (which is) [comparative adjective] than [object].

I have [object], (which is) [comparative adjective] than [subject].

present perfect - "Have been + verb-ing" vs. "have + past participle"

What's the difference between the following constructions of present perfect:

I've been waiting for you for seven years.

I've waited for you for seven years.

Googling yields no satisfying results. I also asked a native speaker and the one wasn't sure about the difference between the two, so I would like to know if there is any.

Answer

In "I've been waiting for you for seven years" the focus is on the act of waiting. Maybe you want to emphasise how long seven years is, or make the listener understand how patient you have been.

In "I've waited for you for seven years" the focus is on the result of the wait. Now, perhaps you want to emphasis that the wait is over, or you are unwilling to wait any longer, or you are really angry now.

This gives a quick overview.

writing style - Using Past Perfect after an event

While reading a book, I came across some sentences that used past-perfect "after" an event had taken place. Actually, I've seen many books do this, so this must be the grammatically correct way, but I'm curious why.

It was after Dad died and we had moved to New York.

Why shouldn't it be the other way around, as in "It was after Dad had died and we moved to New York"?

Not long after that, she had made the decision to sell the house.

I'm really confused why it isn't "Not long after that, she made the decision to sell the house"? It feels like the decision making took after "that."

He stayed out until the sun had set.

Well, I guessing that this one means that he went home after the sun had set, but I'm still not sure why the writer would write this way.

proper nouns - How to handle the possessive case of the name Franks

Hey guys I was wondering where to put the ' when using the possessive case of my surname, Franks. I've seen it done all the ways given below, depending on what family member wrote it, but I was wondering which one was correct?

1. Franks'


2. Franks's


3. Frankses'

questions - "Who are the neighbors of who?" : is this grammatically correct?

Temporary reopen note:

This question may appear at first blush to be about whether to use who or whom. However, the naturalness and grammaticality of this phrase has to do with the periphrastic genitive versus the saxon genitive, not whether to use nominative or accusative case. For this reason this is both a useful question and not a duplicate of the linked-to post here:

---

The Question:

Just to give a few details: I am writing an answer to an exercise, the exercise describes arranged objects, I want to state that the provide information allows one to deduce what are the neighboring objects.

How do I say it in one sentence - "who are the neighbors of who?" It does not sound correct to me...

I would appreciate if someone could point out if this is correct and would be grateful if there is a way to break this down or compare with similar language construction to help get familiar with this type of sentences.

grammar - In the active voice, does the verb need to be transitive and have an object complement?

Most definitions of the active voice I've come across define it as a sentence where the subject is the agent of an action verb, and some definitions state that the verb must be transitive and requires an object. But there are only two voices in English, so in what voice are sentences that use state verbs or copulas?

For example:

I belong to a gym.

She is a good teacher.

The grapes need eating.

The patient underwent surgery this morning.

Or is this just one of those things where the issue is simply more complex than commonly explained? Perhaps it is that by 'agent' we do not necessarily mean the 'actor' as would be necessitated by an action verb. State verbs also have an agent, in the sense that the subject experiences or is in a certain state. Similarly, with copulas the subject has agency in as much as it receives the attributes in the subject complement.

I teach ESL and I need a way of explaining this concept that does not lead to confusion, but I also want to be sure that my explanation is linguistically accurate.

personal pronouns - "I" or "me" in one word question

Which of the two is more correct, when one wants to make sure whether he/she is a subject of the statement (ex. the sentence is addressed at two people, and one of those two people wants to make sure, whether the sentence is addressed at him/her).

You have beautiful eyes.

Me?

or

You have beautiful eyes.

I?

Answer

A case can be made for either, but "Me?" is far more common. The reply "I?" feels stilted and artificial.

etymology - Why are the possessive and object pronouns the same for feminine but not masculine?

Essentially, why is the pronoun the same in different uses for feminine but not masculine?

---

Feminine:

Possessive:

It is her car.

Accusative

I know her.

Masculine:

Possessive:

It is his car.

Accusative:

I know him.

hyphenation - What is the correct way to write the word "back-end"?

Back-end and front-end are common technical terms nowadays. Traditionally, they are written with a hyphen "back-end". Is there a rule in the English language that dictates this to be a correct way to write term, that signifies general single something? Or did it just "stick" that way?

Clarification 1:
The proposed answer that discusses when to hyphenate assumes back-end as a compound word. I don't think it is and this am asking this question. Compound words like on-the-fly are comprised of possible standalone words that are all required to describe the phenomenon or thing in question.

Backend is a synonym to server-side, which really is a compound word. Backend is a singularization of server-side, not a compound itself.

I understand that I may have a logical "gap" somewhere in this line, the reason why I asked is to help me clarify this.

Should perfect and progressive tenses be avoided in research papers?

Writing a research paper, I came across a remark from one of the reviewers:

"Keep it simple" […] try to stay with present simple and past simple tense.

This would discourage the use of perfect / progressive tenses.

Now, I'm not a native speaker—and neither is the reviewer—but I'm sure there are valid uses for the present perfect tense. For example:

Research has shown that […]

This effect has often been cited as […]

The authors of […] have published a database […]

This, specifically, would imply that whatever research has shown is still valid today, whereas using a past tense here would mean that the research isn't accepted at the time of writing.

Regarding that reviewer comment:

• Why should these tenses be avoided in the first place? I wouldn't say that the "keep it simple" rule literally refers to the "simple" tenses. Or does it?


• Is that a general rule or are the examples I've mentioned valid uses of the perfect tense?

grammar - object-subject-verb order

I've seen the phrase "... does not an honest man make" used, and wanted to know wheather this usage constitutes an idiom or sentance pattern.

Some example usages from the internet:

• A long resume of lies does not an honest man make.



• One good deed does not an honest man make?


• Honesty in one small area of life does not an honest man make.


• Making excuses for lying politicians does not an honest man make.

Is this just a special case of object-subject-verb word order (yodaspeak), or is it an idiomatic usage that creates special emphasis?

Answer

You are right in thinking that OSV is a construction that changes the emphasis of the sentence. To demonstrate:

1: Do you like pasta?
2: Not really.
1: How about pizza?
2: Now that I like!

This is a feature of language called "Topic-fronting" that can occur in many languages. As you can see from the example the focus of the sentence is moved to the object "that". In this case, it also stresses that the response is different from the one that preceded it. In English, it's often used this way e.g

I despise most German composers, but Mozart I like!

I'll also add that the usage of OSV in English is mostly idiomatic. Limited to certain contexts and can come across as strange if overused in ordinary language. The most common context in which I see it used are contexts in which it might be appropriate to say something like "Now you're talking!". It carries a connotation of slight oratorical flair that might not be appropriate for, say, a dreary business meeting.

I should add that your example:

Making excuses for lying politicians does not an honest man make.

Is not an example of OSV topic fronting at all. In fact, what you've got is SVOS. Your sentence has two verbs. So perhaps a different example might be in order.

Making excuses makes an honest man.

This example is simply the standard SVO. Compare:

Making excuses an honest man makes.

This is a clear example of SOV, however, I doubt it would occur anywhere asides deliberately poetic or archaic-sounding language. On the other hand, the expression:

X does not a Y make.

Is also very idiomatic in English, and its use is almost exclusively restricted to sentences involving the verbs "to do" and "to make" plus a negation, although other verbs are possible. In many ways, the SOV formation is the very opposite of OSV, as it draws attention away from the object and places it on the verb. However, similarly, SOV is sometimes used to draw attention to the fact that what was said previously is now being contradicted. e.g

1: The expensive school my children attend should ensure they grow up to be gentlemen.
2: Expensive schools do not a gentleman make.

As before, I'd be wary of overusing these phrases if you're not a native speaker. They're highly situational, and if you overuse them you risk sounding pretentious.

Commas and Coordinating Conjunctions Before Dependent Clauses

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?" -- Jane Austen

Many famous authors and writers use coordinating conjunctions and commas in this way. Are these commas used to make it easier to parse, or are they indicating a pause, or are they indicating a tonal shift? What are the specific guidelines for commas preceding a coordinating conjunction that is between an independent clause and subsequent dependent clauses?

In the example sentence, I understand why there is a comma between "neighbors" and "and": the coordinating element contrasts the inversion of the dependent clauses. I, however, do not understand the comma between "live" and "but." "For what do we live" is an independent clause, not an introductory clause.

Here is another example from a college writing center's website.

"When connecting two independent clauses with a comma and a word like 'however' or 'therefore,' you can either divide the sentence into two sentences, or use a semicolon, which can be used to connect two independent clauses without a coordinating conjunction."

So, what do you think?

Is an article acceptable in those sentences?

Can I say : We are not in a kindergarden. Should I say : We are not in kindergarden. Does usage of 'a' refer to a bulding?

Answer

Exactly as you noted, in this case, the use of article refers to a building.

Saying "we're not in a kindergarten" you're expressing the fact that you're not in the building itself, while saying "we're not in kindergarten" generally says you don't attend kindergarten anymore.

Another example would be:

I need to go to hospital. I'm extremely sick.

versus

Go to a hospital and steal some syringes.

grammar - 'As can be seen ...'

Considering the rule that every finite clause in English must always have a subject, I was wondering what the subject of the first clause in this sentence is:

As can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

Is this sentence correct or should we say:

As it can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

And what is the subject of the whole sentence.

Answer

(1) As ____ can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

The gap '_____' in (1) is there to show that the subject is missing, and that As is not the subject. Before addressing why and how a subject is omitted from a tensed clause, I'd like to first prove that As is not the subject.

There are at least two arguments that could easily be made against calling "as" a relative pronoun or even a pronoun.

(A) The entire as-clause is "mobile" (as @BillJ correctly commented):

Thus, sentence (1) means the same thing as these sentences:

(2) The number of first year students, as ____ can be seen from the figures, decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(3) The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, as ____ can be seen from the figures.

In contrast, a relative clause can only be used after its antecedent; therefore, the following sentence doesn't work:

(1') *Which can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

Adding the relative clause right after the subject is possible, but the relative pronoun does not refer to the same thing as the gap '_____' refers to in (2).

(2') The number of first year students, which can be seen from the figures, decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(Note here that there's no gap in the relative clause, because which is the subject of the relative clause, and that which here corresponds to the gap in (2).)

Here, which refers to the noun phrase (The number of first year students), but the gap '_____' in (2) refers to the entire main clause (The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years).

Now, adding the relative clause at the end is also possible:

(3') The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, which can be seen from the figures.

At first glance, (3) and (3') seem to mean the same thing, but they actually don't. In (3) the as-clause is used to confirm what is already known, whereas in (3') the relative clause is used to introduce new information.

This is why (4) doesn't work whereas (4') does:

(4) *The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, as shows that our student recruitment strategies need revising.

(4') The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, which shows that our student recruitment strategies need revising.

(B) Auxiliary verbs can be can be omitted as well as the subject from the as-clause (no pun intended):

(1'') As _____ seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(2'') The number of first year students, as _____ seen from the figures, decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(3'') The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, as _____ seen from the figures.

Here, the gap is not just the subject but the subject and can be. Although the meaning of these sentences is slightly different from that of (1)-(3), the omission of can be is entirely possible or even preferable, as shown in this Ngram.

This omission is impossible in (2') or (3'), because a relative clause has to be a finite clause.

From the second argument above, we now know that not only the subject but also the subject and auxiliary verbs can be omitted. So it's not a case of omitting a subject but rather a case of omitting anything that's unnecessary in a subordinate clause. In the OP, what's unnecessary just happens to be the subject of a subordinate clause, specifically a comparative clause.

Generally, a subject and any other complement of a tensed verb can be omitted in a subordinate clause such as a relative clause and a comparative clause. It's only in the content clause that a subject cannot be omitted.