grammaticality - Adding “’s” when the name ends with “s”?

Example 1:

Peter’s bag

Example 2:

Chris’s car

Is example 2 correct? If not, what is the rule for names that end with “s”?

Answer

Example 2 is correct.

The rule differs when dealing with plurals.

The boys' jackets could not be found.

punctuation - Using ellipsis to indicate a pause in conversation

Wikipedia has a sentence in its article on ellipsis:

In reported speech, the ellipsis is sometimes used to represent an intentional silence, perhaps indicating irritation, dismay, shock or disgust. This usage is more common amongst younger, Internet-savvy generations.[citation needed]

I can find plenty of random internet articles making a similar statement, but is there an actual authoritative grammar source that says this is grammatically correct? Is it just something the "Internet-savvy generations" have invented?

Here is an example from a story:

She swallowed hard. "I'm afraid, Mark. Maybe if you might... talk to him?"

Here the ellipsis is indicating a verbal hesitation in the quote rather than the typical use of indicating an omission.

Answer

According to Grammar Girl, several style guides support the use of ellipses to indicate a pause (the relevant paragraph can be found under the header The E-mail Ellipsis).

She quotes from the Chicago Manual of Style that "Ellipsis points suggest faltering or fragmented speech accompanied by confusion, insecurity, distress, or uncertainty."

I would consider such style guides to be the kind of authoritative source you were looking for.

grammar - Why does English use singular they instead of making up a new word for this?

Why does English use singular they instead of making up a new word for this?

In my native language there’s a word dia which has the same meaning as he/she, but it doesn’t give information about the gender of that person.

I’ve seen questions close to this, but they don’t provide the reason for not making up a new word for this distinct meaning.

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

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

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


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

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

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

grammar - I didn't know he IS/WAS

I didn't know he was/is such a good person.

Which is correct in the above sentence. Is/was and why ?

(Assume the person is still alive and is still a good person)

meaning in context - His memory is as immortal as his arts have made me. (grammar)

All the world has heard of Cornelius Agrippa. His memory is as immortal as his arts have made me. All the world has also heard of his scholar, who, unawares, raised the foul fiend during his master's absence, and was destroyed by him.

From Mortal Immortal by Mary Shelley.

Is the highlighted sentence grammatically correct?

As far as I can tell, His memory corresponds to his arts, not to his arts have made me. I mean, the correspondence has to be 'word to word' or 'phrase to phrase'. Or maybe the sentence needs a relative pronoun or something?

In fact, what does this sentence mean exactly?

Answer

It's a likening of the degree of immortality possessed by his memory to the degree of immortality conferred upon me by his arts:

His memory is immortal in some degree.
His arts have made me immortal in the same degree.

His arts have made me as immortal as his memory ... mutatis mutandis, then
His memory is as immortal as his arts have made me.

word choice - How does an "agency" differ from a "company"?

When should a company be called an agency?
Typically advertising and recruitment companies call themselves agencies, is there a reason other than tradition for this?

Answer

An agency is a company that acts on behalf of another company — as an agent. For example, an advertising agency has clients for whom it sells advertising. McDonald's sells fast food to the public, so it is merely a company. It has an advertising agency, however, to create its commercials.

Similarly, a recruitment agency provides a service for employers, and so on.

grammaticality - Is this grammatically correct? "Martin heard footsteps rushing towards his office."

Is this sentence correct?

"Martin heard footsteps rushing towards his office."

I think something's missing between footsteps and rushing.
By adding were, I believe the sentence becomes grammatically perfect, but while writing novel where authors loves to break rules in order to maintain fluency, the sentence breaks the fluency of the paragraph.
So I wanna keep this sentence as this is in my novel if it's really grammatically correct.

Answer

The use of rushing doesn't seem right to me, because rushing is not something you can hear.

I would use a description that can be heard, which itself implies rushing.

Martin heard footsteps pounding towards his office.

negation - Is it normal to use "yes" begin a negative answer?

Multiple times I've read dialogs like this example:

— This conjecture hasn't been proved.

— Yes it has been proved in 2003.

This seems odd to me: the answerer first says "yes", but proceeds to contradict his own beginning. I'd suppose the answer should rather have been something like "No, it has been proved in 2003.", meaning "You're wrong, it has been proved in 2003."

Is it actually normal usage of "yes" in English?

Answer

According to On the syntax of yes and no in English (alt link: download PDF), English uses the polarity-based system, in contrast to languages like Japanese that use the truth-based system. (This is exactly what Janus Bahs Jacquet alludes to in their comment.)

The reply, in your case, does not get its polarity from the original statement. Instead, its polarity comes from the word "yes", (so it's not wrong to say it that way).

differences - Past conditional statements

What is the difference between the following two statements?

If I went home for dinner, I took a glass of soft drink.

If I went home for dinner, I would take a glass of soft drink.

Are both of them correct? If not, why can't we use the second one? And if I say: "Would both of them be correct?" instead of "Are both of them correct?", which one would sound more natural?

grammaticality - When is it appropriate to end a sentence in a preposition?

Like many others, I commonly find myself ending a sentence with a preposition. Yes, it makes me cringe. I usually rewrite the sentence, but sometimes (in emails) I just live with it. To, with... you know who you are.

Should I keep fighting myself on this one, or is it okay in some circumstances?

Answer

A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.

adjectives - "Above"/"below" before/after a noun

I have seen sentences similar to the following:

(1) See the reference above.

(2) See the reference below.

And,

(3) See the above reference.

But not,

(4) See the below reference.

Are all these forms acceptable? Which is/are preferred in formal writing?

Answer

There is not really any difference between reference above and above reference, but some publishers may prefer one or the other. Below reference will be rare, if it is found at all.

american english - What is the pronunciation of "the"?

I read that the definite article is pronounced differently depending on the word that follows it.
Which is the exact pronunciation of the?

Answer

I’m adding this answer because no one seems to have used IPA, or explained the matter simply. The word has three standard pronunciations, which vary by context.

The definite article ‘the’ is normally pronounced /ðə/ before a consonant sound and /ði/ before a vowel sound. Neither of these is a stressed syllable.

However, it also has a ‘stressed’ pronunciation used for emphasis, which is always /ðiː/ no matter what sound should follow it. The vowel here is held longer than in the unstressed version.

That’s really all there is to it.

grammar - "Employee list" or "employees list"

I know we can use list of employees, but I'd like to know which is preferred or more correct: employee list or employees list?

grammaticality - Singular or plural form of verb

Which of two following sentences is correct?

1. Depending on whether
   
   a birth or a death occurs , we have...




2. Depending on whether
   a birth or a death occur, we have...

Update I changed the title.

Answer

OP's example #2 looks a bit unlikely, but in certain contexts it could be valid. As they say, it all depends on the "whether" - in this case, whether the two possibilities are...

1 A: a birth occurs, OR B: a death occurs
2 A: a birth or death occurs, OR B: neither of those things happens (happen??!!!)

If OP intends the second distinction, the plural verb form in #2 is fine.

---

I wouldn't have a problem with a hotel manager saying...

"It all depends on whether the King or Queen turn up - if not, we might be able to let you have the Royal Suite tonight"

In that context, the two possibilities referenced by whether are that either a senior royal arrives (and thus gets the best room in the house) or neither of them do (in which case you will get the accommodation upgrade).

punctuation - Comma or no comma before the word "and"

I'm curious about whether to use comma before "and". Some people told me that using comma to connect two different sentences and two different subjects.

Please provide some examples to explain the usage of this. Thanks a lot!

With the article or without

I'm writing an essay about Transport. I wrote "Nowadays there is goob public transport in a lot of countries and cities. There is bus, aircraft, train, taxi..."
Is it correct that I wrote "...bus, aircraft, train, taxi..." without the article? I mean it in the general. Thanks.

nouns - "Runtime", "run time", and "run-time"

The CLR under .NET is referred to as the "Common Language Runtime." It seems that the convention is "runtime" for a noun and "run-time" for the adjective. Is this correct or should it be "runtime" also? I'm inclined to think it should be like the following:

1. The variable is typed at runtime.



2. The runtime variable is null.

Answer

I (as a programmer and linguist) would pretty much always use runtime.

I think you might be building too much into the idea that runtime is an 'adjective' in compounds such as runtime environment. The word still remains more noun-like than adjective-like[*] in such cases and there's little motivation for inventing a special spelling in that case. And if you look at examples of actual articles, textbooks etc, I think you'll find most authors come to the same conclusion.

In the Java and C# APIs, I also don't think you'll find a case of it being spelt "RunTime" rather than "Runtime".

[*] cf. "more flexible environment"~"*more runtime environment"; "this environment is flexible"~"*this environment is runtime" etc. These aren't perfect tests, because "adjective" vs "noun" don't really constitute a perfect dichotomy. But you can see that "runtime" is more at the 'nouny' than the 'adjectivy' end of the scale in these cases.

grammatical number - Why do we use the article 'a' when referring to 100 items? But we don't use it when referring to any other plural count?

Edit Note:

This question has been linked to these questions about using an article before adjectives modifying numbers. This question here has nothing to do with adjectives at all:

The question

Why do we use the article 'a' when referring to 100, but not when referring to any other plural counting?

Here's an example:

I saw a hundred birds today.

But when talking about other count that 100, we don't use 'a' because it's plural:

• I saw ninety-nine birds today.


• I saw two birds today.


• I saw two thousand birds.


• I saw seventy-five birds.

Is there a grammatical or historical explanation?

word choice - Should a photograph label read “you and I” or “you and me”?

I had a debate with my friend about this topic because he had a photo captioned:

Seth and I playing lion king

and I said it should be

Seth and me playing lion king

Which is correct?

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.

grammar - -ing verbs after comma

I need to know if the usage of the gerund form in the following sentence is correct:

The relations between the countries cold due to the piercing statements by the President in 2007, criticizing the party as violent.

I'm translating a text and I have to stick to a specific number of words. Is the previous form correct or shall I say: "in which he criticized the party as violent"?

Answer

Since the remarks are in the past, you probably want to use a construction that uses a past tense form of 'criticize' as you mention, i.e. :

"... statements by the President in 2007, which criticized the party as being violent."

Note that I've added "being" to make it more clear that we are applying the adjective to the party's actions, and not the party as an entity.

As well, I might need to see more context, but I suggest also adding a verb earlier in the sentence, or changing the word altogether since 'cold' can't really be a verb on its own.

So, I think a good sentence might be:

"The relations between the countries turned cold due to the piercing statements by the President in 2007, which criticized the party as being violent."

or maybe

"The relations between the countries soured due to the piercing statements by the President in 2007, which criticized the party as being violent."

It's up to you based on what you feel suits the original text best.

Are these clauses independent?

I work as an editor for a technical firm, and I'm struggling with figuring out if this sentence and others like it need a comma:

"Very limited grading is necessary to achieve the proposed grades because the site is essentially level and the proposed finished floor elevations are within 1 to 2 feet of the existing surface and surrounding finished grades."

I want to use a comma after 'level' because it's a longer sentence, and that does divide it into two complete sentences/clauses. However, are the clauses truly independent if both of them ('the site is essentially level' and 'the proposed elevations are') relate back to 'very limited grading is necessary because'? In other words, is independence solely a syntax question, or can it also involve meaning?

Sidenote: As an editor here, I'm generally not at liberty to rewrite unless something is technically wrong.

grammar - Over land didn't seem much easier

From the book 100 year-old man who climbed out the window and disappeared
" over land didn't seem much easier" :

The above sentence seems wrong to me .
As I learned, over land doesn't look like a noun and should not be placed for the subject position .
Or is the sentence reversed?
Or is it just typical English expression?
Would you explain the usage of the words to me?

Thanks alot in advance :)

verbs - Use of "did" in an affirmative sentence before subject

I wrote the following sentence in an article:

Only in June it created repositories.

The editor corrected me:

Only in June did it create repositories.

What's the explanation for "did" in this case? It doesn't sound like emphasis, because the following word is not a verb.

Answer

1. Only in June was it creating repositories.




2. Only in June it was creating repositories. (ungrammatical)

In example (1) we see the auxiliary and subject change places. In example (2), the auxiliary and subject are the same as they would be in a normal sentence. It is ungrammatical.

3. Only in June did it create repositories.




4. Only in June it created repositories. (ungrammatical)

In sentence (3), again, we see subject auxiliary inversion. Sentence (4) has no auxiliary - this is because it has no inversion. However, it is ungrammatical.

Although we can insert auxiliaries for emphasis, the use of do is obligatory in the sentences above. It is not about emphasis. It is because we need to invert the subject and auxiliary verb. They have to change places. We can't do this if there is no auxiliary, so in sentence (3) we use the 'dummy' auxiliary DO so that we can create an inversion. Note that the main verb create can't be used for inversion:

• Only in June created it repositories. (ungrammatical)

Moving only to the front of a sentence will trigger subject auxiliary inversion in main clauses under certain conditions. Here are some examples:

• Only if we've received the papers can we release the prisoner.


• *Only if we've received the papers we can release the prisoner. (wrong)


• Only after the concert did I notice Pavarotti in the back row.


• *Only after the concert I saw Pavarotti in the back row. (wrong)


• Only in extreme circumstances did they steal.


• *Only in extreme circumstances they stole. (wrong)


• Only in the houses of parliament will you find this many cads.


• *Only in the houses of parliament you will find this many cads. (wrong)

The grammatical sentences have certain features in common:

• i) These sentences all have subordinate preposition phrases which occur before the main clause (phrases with if, before, after, during and so forth)


• ii) These prepositions are always prepositions of time, place or condition.


• iii) The head preposition in each case is being modified by only.


• iv) Only must have the sense of not except in such examples.

When these conditions apply, subject auxiliary inversion will apply. Notice that although only modifies the subordinate phrase, the inversion occurs in the main clause. The subject auxiliary inversion does not occur in the subordinate clauses.

The Original Poster's Question

The main clause in the Original Poster question is a version of the canonical (normal) clause:

• it created repositories.

However, this main clause is fronted by a temporal preposition phrase in June. This preposition phrase in June is being modified by the adverb only. This requires us to invert the subject and the auxiliary verb in the main clause. As we previously noted, the main clause is:

• it created repositories.

There is no auxiliary in this clause - so we need to use the dummy auxiliary, do for the inversion:

• did it create repositories.

This gives us the sentence:

• Only in June did it create repositories.

Hope this is helpful!

single word requests - Is there a term that describes a sentence that states one thing but means the opposite?

The poem I am studying has this line:

yes, how quaint and curious war is

I want a word to describe this for an essay on it. Would it be juxtaposition or oxymoron, or something else? It, in a way, has a hidden meaning.

word order - Identifying the verb(-phrase) and object in a sentence

What is the verb(-phrase) and the object in the following sentence:

"Many of them were able to begin buying their own homes."

Case 1: 
    -verb(-phrase): were able
    -object (infinitive clause): to begin buying their own homes

Case 2:
   -verb(-phrase): were able to begin buying

   -object: their own homes

So "Case 1" or "Case 2"?

I would be really grateful for an answer. Thank you very much in advance.

Answer

The sentence Many of them were able to begin buying their own homes contains two clauses, and therefore at least two verb phrases, so asking what "the verb phrase" or "the object" is is problematic.

The first clause in the sentence is the whole sentence. The first verb phrase is:

• were able to begin buying their own homes.

The pair of words were able by itself is not a syntactic unit, and therefore is not a phrase on its own.

The word able in this clause is an adjective that takes an object, the infinitival clause to begin buying their own homes.

The second clause in the sentence is the infinitival clause:

• to begin buying their own homes

Technically this clause has two verb phrases:

• begin buying their own homes

and

• buying their own homes.

This latter verb phrase contains the verb buying which takes an object, their own homes.

As in the case of were able the strings of words to begin buying or begin buying are not syntactic units, and therefore not phrases on their own.

The word to is not typically considered part of the main verb phrase, since it functions more like an auxiliary verb in terms of its syntactic position.

word choice - Differance in the usage of the verbs "hear" and "listen to"

How is it correct to use the verbs "hear" and "listen to" when we talk about attending some events such as performances, concerts, public speeches, etc.?
Is it possible to say: "Let's go and hear the Royal Orchestra at the Albert Hall this evening."? Or is it correct to say: "Let's go and listen to the Royal Orchestra at the Albert Hall."?

Or: "Let's go and hear the speech of the President." vs. "Let's go and listen to the speech of the President."

In Collins Dictionary it's put that:
"2. 
verb
If you hear something such as a lecture or a piece of music, you listen to it."

What is the criteria of choosing the right verb "hear" or "listen to"? As I understand while attending the performance we're paying attention, focusing on music, enjoying it? More appropriate is "listen to", isn't it?

The matter is about using these verbs talking about attending public occasions - concerts, seminars, speeches, etc. Is it correct to say: "Yesterday we went and heard the concert/speech/etc...." or it's better to say "...listened to....". Or the same in present: "I'd like to hear Mozart concert at Albert Hall tonight".

logic - Do comparisons make up a special case for understanding either/or as a logical operator?

This question was prompted by a friend who is a fluent speaker of English but not a native one.

Consider the following cases:

• I either eat the apple or the orange. I eat: apple XOR orange.


• I eat either the apple or the orange. I eat: apple XOR orange.

No difference.

Now consider:

• The banana either costs more than the apple or the orange. banana > apple XOR banana > orange
  
  
  
  
  • That is: The banana costs more than the apple or the orange, but not both.
  
  



• The banana costs more than either the apple or the orange. banana > apple AND banana > orange
  
  
  
  
  • That is: The banana costs more than both the apple and the orange.
  
  

My friend asked me, as a native speaker, to first confirm that this was the correct logical translation and then to explain just what the hell is going on here. What rule governs the distinction in the second pair of propositions?

Usually in these cases, I just explain it away as some form of idiomatic expression: "Sometimes either/or means exclusive-or and sometimes it means and. It's just the way it works."

However, I did notice one thing here. This distinction arises in the propositions involving a comparison between subject and objects: less than or more than.

Am I on to something? Anybody have a more coherent explanation?

Answer

Consider your sentence:

1. The banana costs more than either the apple or the orange.

You have noticed that there is a reading of this sentence where it means:

2. The banana costs more than both the apple and the orange.

This sentence, in turn, means:

3. The banana both costs more than the apple and costs more than the orange.

---

It is recognized in Oxford Dictionary (as well as in this related question) that "either" is sometimes used to mean "both," as evinced by this definition:

[DETERMINER]

Each of two

'the road was straight, with fields on either side'

Now, this definition holds that "either" is a determiner. But in the kind of example you point to, it is clearly a conjunction ("either... or").

But your conjunction example can easily be transformed into a determiner-involving variant:

4. The banana costs more than either of them.

This should convince you that the sense of "either" as a determiner meaning "both" might get extended to a conjunction.

So although Oxford doesn't mention it, we can form a corresponding definition for "either... or" as "both... and".

Here is another example of "either... or" being used to mean "both... and":

5. Fido likes either ice cream or bacon before bed.

It seems to me that this kind of use is licensed only in contexts where there is a connotation of choice, but I can't formulate a more precise rule. Maybe someone else can.

grammatical case - More issues with the predicate nominative

In comparison to German, English is very "situational" with its predicate nominative (see this question).

Suppose the rule is that the predicate nominative is only ever applied for sentences like the following:

It was I, who did that.

then it would be very logical if it were

"Who was that."

"That was I."

• Is this spoken by anyone?


• Is this considered correct by the ardent defenders of the predicate nominative?


• If the answers are "No." wouldn't it make sense to say that there is no such thing in the heart of the English language after all?

meaning - Present perfect with since interpretations

I have a couple of present perfect + since examples below.

1. I have studied two books since 9.15.


2. We have taught at this school since 1965.


3. They have been at the hotel since last Tuesday.

Sometimes the meaning is clear and sometimes it's not.

1. Am I still studying more? How is it clear?


2. Are they still teaching?


3. Is clear if they are still at hotel?

I would like some explanation for these questions on what do they mean and why do they mean that?

grammatical number - ...when construction of the permanent facilities "is" or "are" projected to be complete: which is correct?

The funding need will extend through the year 2020 when construction of the permanent facilities is projected to be complete.

My boss insists I should use are instead of is. I disagree. Any recommendations?

grammaticality - "Not only should I" in declarative sentence

There is a phrase "Not only should I succeed but others should fail". And I saw it many times in similar structures that the order of words "should I" are as if they were in a questioning sentence. (In a declarative sentence the order is "I should")

Can anyone give me an explanation why that is?

Answer

I don't know the specific grammatical rule for this, but it is common to invert subject and verb when adverbs or adverb phrases are placed at the beginning of a sentence. See more
here:

http://www.englishgrammar.org/inversion-subject-verb/#udVqaYOcOyIydwVs.99

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_sentence

grammar - How do I ask "who has done the most number of things" properly

Sorry if the title is confusing. Basically I want to ask people "who has done a certain thing for the most number/times" but I don't know to properly construct the sentence.

Please help me.

conditionals - Is this sentence correct? (Tense)

Conditionals seem to be a pretty basic unit of grammar, but this sentence nevertheless got me stuck:

The experts were felt to have little hope of reducing the differences, even if
an attempt were made to bring the two parties together.

The use of were seems incorrect here, doesn't it? Given that the sentence is in the past tense, the unreal conditional should read

...an attempt had been made...

If the real conditional is implied, was is required, since, to the best of my knowledge, the use of were with a singular 3rd person is restricted solely to unreal conditionals. I have also come across the were to have been construction, but that doesn't seem to apply in this case.

So, in summation, is it just me, or is the sentence incorrect? I'll be truly grateful for an answer.

Answer

I find the passive voice of feel to be a little distracting. Let's transpose the voice to active and use another verb. Try the version below, which I don't think changes the meaning:

The audience thought that the experts have little hope of reducing the differences, even if an attempt were made to bring the two parties together.

Now we can see that this is really a report of past speech, i.e., what the audience was thinking at the time they were listening to the experts:

"These experts have little hope of reducing differences, even if an attempt were made to bring the two parties together."

Now, when these thoughts are reported after the fact, the person doing the reporting may transpose the tenses to represent past time. This is called backshift, and it would look like this:

The audience thought that the experts had little hope of reducing the differences, even if an attempt had been made to bring the two parties together.

But backshift isn't required, especially if the statement reported is still true at the time of the report. In finding the present tense in the report, we understand that the audience still feels this way about the experts.

pronouns - Who vs whom in "Who is the right person to turn to?

Take the sentence:

Who is the right person to turn to?

I'm not sure whether who or whom should be used in this position.

meaning - Is it very wrong to say "can you pass the salt?" expecting people to pass the salt?

It makes sense to just pass the salt when someone says, "can you pass the salt?", but how grammatically incorrect is that?

Are we supposed to just answer yes for that question?

This happens in various situations. For instance, even teachers say "can you find the odd one out?
1 1 1 2 1 1 "
So, should one just say "yes" or should they say "2" ?

I apologise if the question is lame.

verbs - Infinitive without to: The first thing I do is open my eyes

I have not been able to find an explanation for this use of an infinitive without to:

The first thing I do in the morning is go to the bathroom.

The first thing I do in the morning is open my eyes.

The first thing I do in the morning is turn off the alarm clock.

Infinitives without to are used in the following cases:

-After modal auxiliary verbs (We can managed it)

-After do (I do admit I was wrong)

-After certain verbs like let, make, see... (They made me wait)

-After rather, better and had better (I would rather go alone)

-After and, or, except, but, than, as and like (It is as easy to smile as frown)

-After why (Why pay more at other shops?)

[ http://www.perfectyourenglish.com/grammar/infinitives-without-to.htm ]

I have found no mention of using an infinite without to after the verb to be. Are the examples above a special case? Are they very colloquial? Or are they incorrect?

Answer

In this case actually infinitive with and without "to" is possible (and I was surprised that "to" is possible here, as it sounds quite uncommon to me).

From bbc.co.uk:

There are one or two other structures where to-infinitive and the bare infinitive are both possible. Expressions with do or did, such as what I've done or all I did can follow either pattern.

I hate shopping so what I've done is (to) order a new computer over the Internet.

All I did was (to) suggest that she should lend him no more money. I didn't insist on it.

The examples you gave are not incorrect in any way, and such structures are commonly used.

grammar - Which of these following sentences are grammatically correct?

1. For instance, don't exchange presents at work, or talk about your evening out.


2. For instance, don't exchange presents at work or talk about your evening out.

pronouns - Is it appropriate to refer to a person of unknown sex by "it"?

I would like to treat a user as a non-gender noun and refer to it with the gender-neutral pronoun, it. E.g.,

The user defines two variables, x and y. It then multiplies each variable by a prime number.

However, on Wikipedia I found this:

The word "it", however, has an extremely impersonal connotation, even offensive, in common usage and is rarely used in English to refer to an unspecified human being or person of unknown gender. This is because the word "it" connotes that the person being specified is inferior to a person or is an object.

Is to appropriate to refer to a person of unknown sex as it?

Should I rephrase my sentence as follows:

The user defines two variables, x and y. The user then multiplies each variable by a prime number.

Answer

It is pejorative with reference to living beings, esp. social beings. It refers to an inanimate object.

Stay with the user throughout, for consistency, for political correctness and for consideration towards the reader.

Next, rephrase sentences to circumvent the issue of direct reference:

The user defines two variables, x and y, and then multiplies each variable by a prime number.

should do.

True, earlier some people used to refer to a newborn as it, but that is out of ignorance of the niceties. Never done in formal writing.

grammaticality - Is it more correct to say "You have not yet " or "You have not yet"?

Having seen Correct placing and usage of "yet", it sounds like it may be correct to say either "You have not created any items yet." or "You have not yet created any items."

Is one more correct than the other, or is it a matter of preference? The first personally sounds more correct to me, but I wanted another opinion!

Answer

Both are completely correct, but "You have not yet *x*ed any items" is considered more formal, so it is significantly less likely to be spoken, as we tend toward informality in speech.

Confusion in the usage of the conjunction word "that"

I read an article on the National Geographic website:

In this sentence:

We reach the water and I try to swim – but the water is so salty I just float on the surface.

Cannot we use "that" between "salty" and "I"? If so, why has it been omitted?

word choice - Does "the same number of people" behave as singular or plural?

This hurts my eyes to read it and my ears to say it, but the writer stands by item #43

About the same number of people was awarded bachelor's degrees in 2010 as filed for personal bankruptcy (1.6 million).

Is the subject in this sentence singular or plural?

Answer

The heading for paragraph 7 of Harbrace College Handbook, Chapter 6a states,

When regarded as a unit, collective nouns, as well as noun phrases denoting quantity, take singular verbs.
. . .
The number is singular; a number is plural.
"The number of students was small." [The number is taken as a unit.]
"A number of students were taking tests." [A number refers to individuals.]

Their examples indicate that it's different depending on if the number is taken as a unit or refers to individuals. In your case I think it's individuals and should use the plural.

grammar - Can "a person" be used as plural?

Is it acceptable to write: A person can develop their talent. or a person can develop their uniqueness?
In this case the person is used as a general term, not a specific person.

grammaticality - "Work" (noun) is plural or singular?

I couldn't find an answer to this question by searching the archive. If it's duplicate please let me know, and I'll remove it.

I was wondeing if "work" (noun) is plural or singular? for example, I want to speak about the "previous work" (meaning previous published papers):

Is it correct to say:

I provide a high-level overview of the previous work, including "their" limitations.

Or I should say:

I provide a high-level overview of the previous work, including "its" limitations.

I also appreciate any suggestion for a more elegant way of saying that there are "niche" in the previous papers, that I'm going to highlight.

Answer

Work can be either singular or plural, and in your context, either is possible - but the pronoun must agree, in either case.

So you can either use

• I provide a high-level overview of the previous work, including its limitations.

or

• I provide a high-level overview of the previous works, including their limitations.

In the first case, you refer to the entire body of previous work, whereas in the second, you refer to multiple instances of previous works. The difference is subtle, though, and my initial point stands - I'd say that you can use either, as long as the pronoun is consistent.

meaning - "archival" versus "archivable"/"archiveable"

What is the difference between archival and archivable? Archival appears to be an acceptable word among official sources, whereas archivable/archiveable does not appear to be a valid entry. Is the correct form of the word describing something's ability to be archived archival or archivable? Are the two redundant, or are the official online lexicon sources just not up to date or comprehensive enough?

grammatical number - Apostrophes and s’s

I always forget the rule about if something is possessive put 's at the end, for example "the sailor's hat". I know some people say to remember because it has a different meaning if it's plural (e.g. "the sailors hat" would mean there's multiple sailors owning the hat) but it also doesn't make sense if 's is expanded to it is (e.g. "the sailor is hat"). Does anyone have any advice on how to remember this?

I had to look it up and found this article which claims that if something has an s at the end already it is preferable to add 's (see note on rule 2). I was taught not to. Is it better to add a second s? For example Chris's golf clubs vs Chris' golf clubs.

Answer

I’m sure this is a duplicate question, but here’s something I wrote for a friend. If your noun is singular and ends in s then whether you add another s after the apostrophe is a matter of style, not grammar.

The London Underground has a station called St. James’s Park (after the Royal Park of that name). There is a stadium in Newcastle called St. James’ Park, which is pronounced like the Underground station.

---

Apostrophes and how not to be confused

Apostrophes are easy. Here’s a short summary which your teachers could have used. There isn’t even a test at the end. Note: I’m criticising the education you were given, not you for having suffered that.

Simple plurals never have an apostrophe, even if you’re a greengrocer.

• My lists are scattered all over the house.


• All the tomatoes are green.


• I was born in the 1960s.


• All MPs are [fill in something here].

Possessives do have an apostrophe. Write the noun, with its plural “s” if it’s a plural and then put an apostrophe, and add an s if necessary. You don’t need another s if you’ve already got one.

• The car’s owner ran off. (One car, then the apostrophe, then an s because you don’t already have one)


• My MP’s expenses are entirely above board. (One MP, apostrophe and s)


• The cats’ owner fed them. (More than one cat, then the apostrophe and you don’t need another s)


• The soldiers’ CO was awarded the DSM. (More than one soldier, apostrophe and no additional s)


• James’ book was blue. (One James, then the apostrophe, and you don’t need another s although you could add one because James is singular)


• The sheep’s wool was white. (One sheep, apostrophe, s)


• The sheep’s wool was white. (Two sheep, apostrophe, s)

Possessive pronouns don’t have an apostrophe.

• Their car


• The car is theirs.


• Its wheels are chrome.


• Your car is black.


• The black car is yours.

“It’s” only has an apostrophe when it’s a contraction of “it is”, and the apostrophe indicates a letter missed out, in much the same way as “don’t” for “do not” or “you’re” for “you are”. When it is a pronoun you want to make a possessive pronoun, remember the rule that possessive pronouns don’t have an apostrophe.

• It’s a car. Its wheels are chrome.

Simples :-)

One reason given for why possessives have an apostrophe is that they are actually contractions similar to “don’t/do not”. For example, there is a 16th century dance called “Lord Salsbury his Pavan”, which became shortened to “Lord Salsbury’s Pavan” because it’s easier to say. That’s why possessive pronouns like “theirs” and “your” have no apostrophe: they’re not contractions. This may or may not be correct — evolution of language is more complex than that — but it’s a handy way of remembering.

Sentence without a main clause?

What do you call a phrase without a main clause? For example, answering a question:

Are you to blame for the increase in deaths?

Of course not!

The answer cannot stand alone. Is there a name for this?

Edit: Above is not a good example.
I am trying to explain spoken language as a written text. The text is an interview. The interviewer has asked a question, and the answer starts with 'because' and refers to information in the question, and alone does not make sense. So it cannot stand alone. Does this make this a sentence fragment/subordinate clause or something else?

punctuation - Where to put the periods when using a parenthetical sentence?

I have two complete sentences; the second is in parentheses, essentially a comment on the first. Where do I place the periods? I would use this:

They played opera. (I covered my ears.)

Is this punctuation correct?

Answer

Punctuation within parentheses

If your parentheses enclose a sentence-within-a-sentence, don't use a period within the parentheses. Do, however, use a question mark or an exclamation point if it is called for.

Mother love (hers was fierce) ruined
the young boy's life.

They finally said (why couldn't they
have admitted it earlier?) that she
had been there.

The wedding reception (what a fiasco!)
ended abruptly.

If the parentheses enclose a complete sentence that stands alone, keep the period within the parentheses.

(Her father was the only one who
didn't attend.)

From Cliffsnotes

word choice - Should "forty-year" in this context be hyphenated?

Mr. Willow’s more than forty-year experience in the industry persuaded me to apply.

Or is the following a better way of saying it?

Mr. Willow's more than forty years of experience in the industry persuaded me to apply.

Are they both correct, or should the hyphen in the first example be removed?

grammaticality - Woe is me - what does it mean?

What exactly does the phrase 'Woe is me' mean? A google search returns many results ranging from FML to just having a bad day. There are many references to the phrase being grammatically incorrect and thus meaning nothing, but it seems like it is in use. So, is the phrase acceptable in common English despite being grammatically incorrect? Or is it, infact, grammatically correct?

Edit: What I was able to find using Google:

1. Phrases.org.uk: "I am distressed; sad; grieved."


2. onlinecollege: "Woe is me: It sounds a bit like Yoda-ese, but instead of saying FML, go biblical with "woe is me."


3. UrbanDictionary: "Both answers that tried to explain are incorrect in explaining the grammaticality of the phrase. The verb "to be" is an intransitive verb, meaning it cannot take an object." (Refer to the link for complete text)

etymology - If a word is coined / popularized / used only or mainly by second-language speakers of English, is it still considered to be an English word?

It seems that there are quite a few terms that look like English and are used in English spoken by non-fluent or fluent but nonnative speakers of English as a second language amongst themselves, but not by, or only very rarely by, native English speakers.

Here's a few that spring to mind before I look for a resource:

• advices [1] [2]


• campings


• drink shop (only used in Cambodia, they're actually like independent convenience stores)


• Handy (only used by German speakers)


• infos, informations [1], [2]


• KTV (only used by Chinese speakers)



• touristic

Also I know there is an English Wikipedia article on this phenomenon in which the preferred term is "Pseudo-anglicism". You'll find a lot more such terms there. Not only "incorrect" regular plurals of words that have no separate plural form that I was able to think up without peeking.

The most surprising thing for me was that many of these words and strange plural forms have English entries in the English edition of Wiktionary - mostly without any kind of note suggesting they are anything other than normal everyday words any English speaker might make!

I'm interested in both prescriptivist and descriptivist view on this topic. I'm also interested in both English native speakers view and non-native speakers.

meaning - How should I understand "I trade A for B"?

[ADDED:] Which of the following is the meaning of "I trade A for B"?

1. I give A so that I can get B.


2. I give B so that I can get A.

The following is an example from a piece of news on this site:

The change comes as Chretien's Liberal Party is besieged by charges that it trades favors for campaign money. The announcement appeared intended to shore up his political standing with an increasingly restive electorate and within his own party to preserve his parliamentary leadership position.

I understand that "trade" means exchange and "favor" means "the support or approval of someone", which should refer to "the support of the Chretien's Liberal Party" here. But what does it mean that "it trades favors for campaign money" --- "the party exchange the support for campaign money"? How did they do they?

Answer

A Favor is a special privilege or right granted or conceded

So if the Party is trading favors for campaign money it means that if donations to the Party are made they will reciprocate by, for example, passing legislation that benefits the donors or taking other actions afforded by their position in a quid pro quo fashion.

Using determiners with articles

I was studying articles when I came across the following statement:

There are other special modifiers called determiners or markers that may appear in front of a noun phrase. Do not use an article if you also intend to use any of the following markers directly before the noun: this, that, these, those, my, his, her, your, our, their, its, any, either, each, every, many, few, several, some, all. (http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/english-as-a-second-language/articles)

However, I'm not sure about "all" because I came across phrases that included articles between "all" and the nouns. For example - "all the countries", "all the way", etc...

I would appreciate if anyone can clarify what the blockquote means and explain if there are exceptions.

Thanks

possessives - "Can you send me Fred and your flight information?"

This doesn't quite sound right but might be right. Consider

"Can you send me Fred and Amy's flight information?" This is correct via The Chicago Manual of Style.

Alternatively,

"Can you send me your and Fred's flight information?"

"Can you send me Fred's and your flight information?

or even
"Can you send me Fred and yours flight information?"

How about some help?

meaning - "I’ve just arrived" vs. "I just arrived": Are they both correct? Do they mean the same thing?

My grammar book suggests that when using words like just, that you should “always” use present perfect. So the correct form should be I've just arrived according to my book.

Is this true?

I ask because I see a whole lot of people using I just arrived all over the place. I therefore cannot help but wonder whether this is an incorrect form that is somehow nonetheless in wide use by native speakers, or whether it's also a correct form just with a subtly different meaning.

Answer

Neither. This is a case (one of many) in which the two forms are equivalent in meaning.

This is aided by the fact that in English the two sentences are pronounced identically, since the /vdʒ/ cluster in /ayvdʒəstə'rayvd/ I've just arrived is very difficult to pronounce, and is normally shortened to just /dʒ/, which makes it indistinguishable from I just arrived.

Since people hear them identically, they are apt to spell them identically, especially if they mistakenly believe, as many do, that English spelling represents English pronunciation.

The same phenomenon is responsible for such confusions as I would of gone vs I would have gone, I got a cold vs I've got a cold, etc.

gerunds - "With my/their/our V-ing..." as supplement to main clause

Here are some news article examples containing 'with my/their etc. being...' as supplement to a main clause:

(1) Since the opposing counsel would be the U.S. Department of Justice, and with my being new to that game, I enlisted as co-counsel an accomplished federal litigator with extensive experience in dealing with the DOJ. (Source)

(2) Since this raised many leftists' ire and with my being the reasonable man I am, I propose a compromise: no immigrants from the Third World or the Old World. In other words, no immigration, period. (Source)

(3) The Jordans were serving at Destiny Life Church in Oakland, and with their being hired by Divine Hope Church, both churches merged while keeping the Divine Hope name. (Source)

Is the use of genitive pronouns (my, their, etc.) well-formed and natural?

Or is it better to have accusative pronouns (me, them, etc.) instead?

EDIT

In a related question "with/without + pronoun (me vs. my) + gerund-participial phrase", I have shown this example from The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 461):

We set off again, the Rover going precariously slowly in very low gear up hills, with me staying on its tail in case it petered out altogether.

CGEL says, and I agree, that my cannot replace me in this sentence.

If the above examples (1)-(3) are well-formed and natural, how do you distinguish (1)-(3) from the CGEL example?

Looking for words similar to "lagging" and "ahead of"

In computer networking, assume that I'm waiting for packets which are ordered by sequence number. First I get sequence number 1, and then 2, then 3 …

Assume that I now have 99 packets and I'm waiting for the packet with sequence number 100.
If I get a packet with sequence number 50, since I have received it already, I say
this packet is an obsolete packet or lagging packet. But if I get a packet with sequence number 200, how do I describe it? An advanced packet?

single word requests - How to describe a time range that starts one day and ends the next day?

For example, your work shift starts every day at 8:00pm and ends at 5:00am in the morning the next day. If you wanted to explain this to someone, but you do not need to be specific about the start and end times, how would you say this?

My shift crosses a/the date/dates.
My shift spreads over two days.
My shift goes across a/the date/dates.
My shift crosses/passes the midnight.
My shift spreads across two days.

I am not sure how to describe this, and I only came up with the ones listed above. I don't even know they make sense.
Can someone please tell me what is the most natural way to say this?

I don't want it to be too long like:

My shift starts and ends on different days.
My shift starts on a day and ends the next day.

Edit 1: Thanks everyone for the comments and answers.

I have actually heard people say "I work the night shift", and "I have an overnight shift." This seems to be the most natural way to say this.

Now, as I mentioned in one of my comments, I am creating a manual for my clients. The manual is for a computer system I created that allows the user to enter their shift time details (such as start time, break time, and end time).
In some cases in the manual, there will be a case where I would like to start the sentence with "If your shift ... ". In this case, how would you say what I want to say?

Can you just say "If your shift is overnight"?

Edit 2
Thanks again everyone. I am also thinking both

If your shift crosses over to the next day
and
If your shift goes into the next day

might work too. Do these sound natural to you guys?

Answer

You can say that your shift spans two days.

span verb
2 Extend across (a period of time or a range of subjects)
‘A complete planning cycle should ideally span a period of about three to five years.’

- ODO

Here's a usage example (emphasis, mine):

We are pleased to be supporting this Bill, which amends the Holidays Act 2003 to ensure that when a work shift spans two days, at least one of which is a public holiday, an employer and employee can enter into an agreement to transfer the public holiday to cover one whole shift.
- Flavell: Transfer of Public Holidays Bill, Scoop

Why do so many people use a preposition with which to end a sentence?

I see it a lot, even though my elementary teacher told me it is wrong. This is probably a new development, a sign that our language is in decay. Soon none of us will be able to understand each other. But this sloppiness is a disaster, up with which I will not put.

What are your own experiences with this terrible phenomenon? How may we roll it back? Should moderators strike out at such language abuse? What do you do to correct your friends, family, and colleagues? Do you leave them notes, too? Voice mails? Should all existing literature be corrected and republished as well, the old editions burned?

hyphenation - Use of the en dash instead of the hyphen in compound adjectives

I have the following taken from a paper that I am editing:

… proposed a water-filling factor aided search method to solve …

My question is related to whether I should use an en dash to connect the adjectives here, as in:

… water-filling factor–aided search method …

Can anyone please help me out? Is this understandable? Is this the correct way to do it?

Is “water-filling-factor-aided search method”, all with hyphens, a little weird?

"Until" and past perfect

Having seen one sentence in "Practical English Usage" by M.Swan (a very popular grammar book), I was really puzzled.

I waited until the rain had stopped.

The past perfect is generally used to show that one past action was completed before the other one, but here, trying to analyze the sentence, we can't say that first the rain stopped and then she waited. I can't grasp the use of using the past perfect in this sentence.

Why does this sentence use the past perfect?

Answer

The past perfect is used to emphasise completion of a past action. Example:

I arrived home after my wife had gone to bed.

In other words: "My wife went to bed. Sometime after that I arrived home."

In your sentence, the speaker is using the past perfect to emphasise the following:

It stopped raining. Sometime after that I stopped waiting (because I was sure that the rain had stopped.)

If you do not wish to emphasise the point about the rain stopping, it is perfectly ok to say:

I waited until the rain stopped.

Can a word that sounds the same as the way it is spelt be an initialism and an acronym?

Initialisms are pronounced as words and acronyms are spelt letters. However, some words sound the same, said and spelt.

e.g. Input Output can be abbreviated as IO. It can be spelt I-O or pronounced Io as in the moon/god. There is no way to tell the difference in how it is said or written.

Is a word which is pronounced the way it is spelt, an initialism, an acronym or both?

Answer

I think you've misunderstood the difference between acronyms and initialisms. Something can be both, or just one and not the other.

Acronym:

a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.

Initialism:

1. a name or term formed from the initial letters of a group of words and pronounced as a separate word, as NATO for North Atlantic Treaty organization; an acronym.


2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation.


3. the practice of using initials or forming words from initials.

As you can see, WAC, OPEC and NATO are both acronyms and initialisms because they're a bunch of initials that you can pronounce as a word.

FBI on the other hand is a bunch of initials you cannot pronounce as a word; it's an initialism but not an acronym.

And finally, loran is pronounced as a word, but isn't only taken from initial letters; it's an acronym but not an initialism.

So for IO:

• If you pronounce IO as a word (like Greek "io"), it's an acronym.


• If you pronounce IO as letters I-O ("eye oh"), it's not an acronym.


• In both cases, IO is an initialism.

grammaticality - Usage of the gerund preceded by the possessive adjective/determiner?

I read this thread on the usage of the gerund preceded by the possessive adjective/determiner with much interest.

I have another question about the usage of the gerund preceded by the possessive adjective/determiner.

In a test from a textbook I am using, one must choose the correct form of the bracketed word in the following sentence (I have simplified it somewhat):

Company X experimented with its (expand)____ into a new business area.

The given answer is "expansion." To me, this intuitively feels more comfortable than the gerund "expanding".

My question, however, is the following:

Is the gerund also grammatically correct in this sentence?

In the example sentences throughout this thread so far, there are no cases in which the subject of the sentence and the subject of the gerund clause are the same, not to mention cases in which the verb of the gerund clause is intransitive and followed by a preposition.

For example:

The monkey seemed to be preoccupied with its prying off the lid of the jar.

Again, this sounds very awkward to me, but I'm not sure if it's incorrect.

I also wondered if there might not be a rule that if a verb has a standard nominalized form (expand -> expansion), it needs to take precedence over the gerund when it is preceded by the genitive case.

Are such matters entirely irrelevant to my question?

Answer

I agree with J.M. and Jimi.

It's semantically acceptable to use a gerund following a possessive adjective/determiner, but, as with anything, it can be clearer in some sentences (e.g., "his new shoes really helped with his running...") than in others ("Company X experimented with its expanding into a new business area...").

Just my two cents!

personal pronouns - Possessives ("his", "her") versus definite article ("the")

"He led her by the hand."

"I hit him in the jaw."

"She closed her eyes."

In the first two examples one doesn't say "her hand" and in the second one doesn't say "his jaw". But in the third one says "her eyes" and not "the eyes".

Is there a rule governing the choice between "the" and the possessive forms?

punctuation - How to punctuate a range of hyphenated numbers?

What is the best way to punctuate a range of hyphenated numbers, e.g., sections 12-3 through 12-7?

EDIT: Just to reply to those who marked this as a duplicate, I really fail to see how the post that this question purportedly duplicates is responsive my question. I'm not expressing a misunderstanding of en-dashes and hyphens, but rather asking a question about preferred usage. In fact, the top answer (which I think is correct) suggests not using a dash or a hyphen at all.

Subjunctive mood - what is the tense of the verb following a conjunction?

Which verb is correct?

If the world were perfect, workers would wear respirators even when dust levels were/are low.

"If the world were perfect" is an impossible condition/situation, which makes it subjunctive, correct?

Does the subjunctive mood only refer to a verb or does it refer to an unreal/imaginary/impossible situation? Example:

"If the world were perfect . . ."
vs.
"In a perfect world . . ."

lists - Do I need to include "the" for each item in a text sequence

Can anyone please tell me that which is more appealing:

• My industrial collaborations at the national and the international levels.

• My industrial collaborations at the national and international levels.

What if the list has more than two items, like this:

Our contributions have impacts on the wireless industry, the application of IoT, the underwater channels, etc.

Do I need to add "the" before each item?

conjunctions - Do dependent clauses have to have subjects?

I am studying for a test and am confused about one point. In my book, there is one rule that states Independent, (FANBOYS) Independent. This shows the general rule that you can connect independent clauses with a comma and a coordinating conjunction. This is fine. The next rule says Independent (FANBOYS) Dependent. I am not so sure about this one. What is an example of this type of construction? The example given by the book is "I'll take the #2 with a coke but will pass on the shake." However, how is "will pass on the shake" a dependent clause? Isn't it an independent clause with an implied subject?

grammaticality - Is it necessary to use "to" multiple times in this context?

This is the sentence:

Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, to nurture the culture, to manage resources, and to develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).

In my language, we don't repeat the equivalent of "to" multiple times and it's correct to use it just once (before the first verb).

So I was wondering, would the following sentence be grammatically correct:

Entrepreneurial leadership is the leader’s ability to influence others, nurture the culture, manage resources, and develop a competitive behavior to seek opportunities and advantages (Ireland et al., 2003).

Or is it necessary to use "to" before each verb?

Answer

In your sentence, all the additional "to" seem redundant. But there are some instances where adding additional "to" may be necessary.
For example, in legal documents, when we are empowering someone to do certain acts, we use "to" after every comma to indicate that now a new power is being listed after the comma. Same goes for setting out duties. This is also found in laws.

Now, in this context, you would use additional "to" if you are not defining the entrepreneurial leadership but writing an instruction or expectation for someone to be hired as an entrepreneurial leader.

phrases - Idioms similar to "dig your own grave"

I'm looking for an idiom or phrase similar to "dig your own grave"

It's for this scenario:

Person 1 made a comment and is now attempting to explain it/talk themselves out of an awkward situation, but they are just making it worse.

Person 2 tells them "stop, you're digging your own grave"

I need something better than "digging your own grave" because it doesn't flow with the rest of the scenario. It's not snappy/quick enough.

Could "quit while you're ahead" work? It sounds good but based on the meaning of it I'm not sure it fits properly.

I hope someone can help - I also hope my question makes sense, I have no idea it's half 6 in the morning and I haven't slept yet so brain is running a little slower than normal :P

CJ x

Answer

I offer two idioms for your consideration: quit while [one is] behind and cut [one's] losses.

But first, let's look at the more traditional phrase "quit while [one is] ahead." Christine Ammer, The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms, second edition (2013) has this entry for that phrase:

quit while one's ahead Don't try to improve on something that is already accomplished, as in Those drapes we hung are even enough—let's quit while we're ahead. This idiom also implies that further action runs the risk of spoiling something. Also see LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE.

According to Charles Doyle, Wolfgang Mieder & Fred Shapiro, The [Yale] Dictionary of Modern Proverbs (2012), the expression "quit while you're ahead" goes back only to 1919:

Quit while you're ahead

1919 Charles E. Van Loan, Score by Innings (New York: George H. Doran) 245: "'That's right!' growls Sam Horgan, who was down on the floor with the dice. 'Quit while you're ahead, you cheap skates!'"

Within fifty years, however, people had begun occasionally using a variation on this expression that comes much closer to the sense that the posted question requires: quit while [one is] behind, meaning to stop making things worse by continuing to pursue a losing or failing course of action.

For example, from Ohio AFL-CIO, News and Views (1968), quoting a column by James Reston in the New York Times that was reprinted in the Columbus [Ohio] Citizen-Journal on November 8, 1968 [combined snippets]:

"The trouble with Hubert Humphrey is that he probably won't quit while he's behind [after losing to Richard Nixon in the 1968 presidential election], or enjoy the pleasures of defeat, He will rest for a few weeks and then get back in the political battle, ...

The expression also appears in David Profumo, The Weather in Iceland (1993) [combined snippets]:

Kit said he was getting bored with the low strike-rate, so we decided to roll the fishing grounds for just two more days before packing it in. This is usually a mistake (it's better to quit while you're behind, than compound your failures), but for once we had a real run of luck, and managed a double-header.

And from David Berg, The Trial Lawyer: What It Takes to Win (2006):

On the other hand, if your witness cratered on the stand—was so bad it's doubtful redirect can help her—quit while you're behind. Ask a few questions if you have to, but add nothing new to stir up significant recross.

The other relevant idiomatic phrase, which has much the same sense as "quit while you're behind," is cut [one's] losses. Jeffrey Moore, Prisoner in a Red-Rose Chain (1999) uses both expressions in the same sentence:

Milena was looking me in he eye. I looked away, towards my mood ring: black. Should I cut my losses, quit while I'm behind, admit I haven't the faintest idea of what I'm talking about?

grammatical number - Need we use “sums” in sentences whenever they describe the sum of plural objects?

Need we use sums in the case that the sentence describes the sum of plural objects?

For example, “100 centimeters sums to one meter” versus “100 centimeters sum to one meter”.

They both seem make some senses. For one thing, it is the sum of 100 objects, so it is suitable to use plural. For the other, in spite of how many things summed, the sum itself is a singular, so we’d better to use it in the singular way.

Which side is correct?

Why are some first names always abbreviated and some not?

Is there any consistent rule or at least an explanation why in some names the first name(s) are traditionally nearly always abbreviated and in some are not?

Why, for example, T.S. Eliot but Thomas Wiseman,

or H.G. Wells and not Herbert Wells;

Charles Dickens and not C.G. Dickens or something?

Obviously, both forms must be correct, but in practice only one or another appears for a particular name in writing. And it mustn't be the first name that affects it, as the first example demonstrates... (And let's stick to real names, as opposed to pen names, which can be anything).

Use of parentheses to include both singular and/or plural possessive

GIVEN: "You can either pay for, or rent, your kid's baseball uniform."

QUESTION: If you are sending form letters to each of a number of parents, some of whom have 1 child, and others, 2 or more children, who will be playing ball, could you write:

EX.1. "You can either pay for, or rent, your kid's(s')baseball uniform(s)."

[I read the suggested "Questions that may already have your answer," above, which don't seem to pertain to the present query, and researched 's(s') online; and, so far, I haven't found anything on this. I compared my question to the questions and answers, here:
How do you make a word like "parent(s)" possessive? and thought that nothing there adequately answers it.]

UPDATE: @Davo's answer, below, is clearly a way to express what is intended. I'm asking whether or not the 's(s') construction would be correct/ understood.

punctuation - Fractions as phrasal (compound) adjectives

Is there a difference between a written-out fraction that serves as a noun:

He gave me one half of his sandwich.

and a written-out fraction serving as an adjective:

I gave her a one-half share of my cookie.

I say a fraction serving as a modifier should be hyphenated as a phrasal adjective. A fraction serving as a noun should not. But everyone I work with hyphenates fractions no matter what their part of speech.

Answer

I do what you suggest and as logic dictates: hyphenate when used adjectivally. So, “he gave two thirds of his fortune to me“, but “our two-thirds majority on the board ensures a satisfying outcome”.

More to the point, the New Oxford American Dictionary concurs on avoiding the hyphen when used as a noun: “one half of a circle”, “a third of a mile”, etc.

word choice - Questioning my use of "in question"

I just found myself writing some documentation that uses "in question," but then I questioned whether what I wrote makes sense. The context is a document that describes the numerical solution of different classes of various initial value ordinary differential equation (ODE for short), with the assumption that the reader of the document will know what that gobbledygook means.

Here's what I wrote:

[This module] supports a number of classes of numerical integration problems,
characterized by the nature of the underlying ODE: ...

• Problems such as propagating the translational state of a vehicle.
  This class of problems involves propagating a vector quantity and its
  
  time derivative based on the second time derivative of the vector quantity
  in question.

For example, think of advancing position and velocity over time given a magical function that computes acceleration (but the problem is more generic than that).

Is my use of in question here grammatically correct and also clear, or should I rewrite and use some other phraseology?

Answer

It's correct and clear, referring back to the aforementioned vector, but you could also use this vector or the same vector. In question can suggest an effort to determine the vector, but it reads fine to me.

can the pronoun I be use alone to answer a question who?

If I am asked, who is going to the wedding? can I just say "I"?

possessives - Indicating Possession Between You and Another Person

Is there a good way to indicate that something belongs to you and another person when you want to mention the other person by name?

As an example, suppose some friends ask you "Where's the party at?" and the party is at the house that you and Bob share. Then

The party's at our house.

would work just fine. But what if some of the friends you wanted to invite didn't know that you lived with Bob, and you wanted to make sure they understand that Bob will be hosting the party with you?

In this situation, I've often found myself wanting to say something like

The party's at my and Bob's house.

This sounds clunky at best, but the obvious alternatives all seem slightly inappropriate to me. For example, you might propose saying

The party's at the house that belongs to Bob and me.

but I would say that seems a little stilted. Perhaps something like

You know where Bob and I live? That's where the party's at.

could work, but it certainly isn't very economical. The best option is probably something like

Bob and I will be hosting the party at our house.

but that sounds a little formal if someone just asks "Where's the party at?"

I know this situation sounds contrived, but I do run into it in various forms from time to time. I think part of the reason it sticks out to me is that there wouldn't be a problem if it was just your house or just Bob's house. You could easily say

The party's at Bob's house

or

The party's at my house

In fact, those are the responses I'd expect to "Where's the party at?" in everyday speech. But

The party's at my and Bob's house

sounds terrible.

What would you say in this situation?

Answer

"The party's at Bob's and my house."

Despite however "clunky" you think this sounds, this way is correct. There's nothing ungrammatical with this.

See the following references:

https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/possessive-pronoun.html
(scroll down to "Compound Possessive Nouns and Pronouns")

https://ontariotraining.net/grammar-tip-possession-with-compound-nouns-and-pronouns/

https://erinwrightwriting.com/compound-possessive-pronoun-strings-or-who-owns-that-dog-anyway/