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).

poetry - Should it be "you and I" or "you and me" in the song "We are the world"

In the song "We are the world" by Michael Jackson and Lionel Ritchie, there are these lyrics:

"We are the world,

We are the children

We are the ones who make a brighter day

So, let's start giving

There's a choice we're making

We're saving our own lives

It's true we'll make a better day

Just you and me"

Should the last line be "you and I"? Because the meaning is "you and I will make a better day".

Actually Michael Jackson asked this same question in the recording session, and someone (likely Quincy Jones) told him to sing "you and me". Is there any principal reason for this choice of words?

Answer

Grammatically speaking, you and I is correct, but clearly the wording was changed to make the song sound better. Try imagining the song with the word I instead of me and you'll get what I mean.

Why do these verbs take bare infinitives?

[a] It makes the tree grow. [b] I never heard him speak.

I’m wondering why causative and sense verbs (make, hear) license bare infinitives for their complement, instead of taking to infinitives? What semantic difference is there between bare and to infinitives?

I glimpse a clue that this adjective complement is “more immediately or directly visible (CGEL,p.263)” in ‘she looked happy’ than in ‘she looked to be happy’; to infinitives have meaning of modality, change, and potentiality (CGEL, pp.174, 1242, 1243). And I guess those verbs would take bare infinitives to denote concurrence of matrices and complements' actions. But I’ve not found any accounts of this. Why do they license bare infinitives?

(I've read the difference between their taking infinitive and gerund, in ELL and CGEL (p.1236-7): the verbs have the "whole event" of the infinitives and "a segment of" the gerund.)

Answer

It was not always thus...see the following http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Psalms-23-2/

grammaticality - A number of questions "has been" or "have been" asked?

Formally, is it correct to write:

A number of questions has been asked here.

or:

A number of questions have been asked here.

As a non-native speaker of English, I would prefer the former: the subject seems to be "number", therefore the verb ought to be singular, I'd say. However, the latter seems more common, and therefore I believe that my gut feeling is just plain wrong — but I would really like to have a definite answer.

Moreover, is it the same for "a myriad of", "a plethora of", and so on?

Answer

"The number" is singular. "A number", however, is plural, and takes a plural verb. Thus, for both informal and formal usage, the following is correct:

A number of questions have been asked here.

See the usage note not quite halfway down the page at Dictionary.com, or this daily writing tip.

subjects - "who is entitled" or "whom is entitled": which is correct?

Which is correct?

A certificate is a statement that states who is entitled.

A certificate is a statement that states whom is entitled.

Is who a subject?

Is there any such thing as noun pronoun proximity?

I have read of Concord (or noun-verb agreement) and was wondering if, is as I have been told, there is a similar grammar rule for noun-pronoun agreement/proximity.

When there's a sentence where two nouns are given and a pronoun used, to which noun will the pronoun be assigned?

1. Carol visited Mary. Mary is the lady living next door. She had barely eaten that day.
   Or



2. Carol visited Mary. Mary lives next door. She had barely eaten that day.

Are the above sentences even grammatical?

Assuming they are, I am tempted, in the first example, to assign the pronoun to the subject in the preceding sentence, but I'm not absolutely certain because I've heard that the pronoun(just as in noun-verb agreement) should be assigned to the noun closest.

3. Carol and Mary had been best friends for years. Until she got sick.

To who does the pronoun refer? Why?
Is there any such rule as alluded?

Answer

The name of the linguistic principle that governs how pronouns are resolved to entities mentioned in the discourse is:

anaphora resolution.

Not all languages are identical in anaphora resolution, but the simplest rule is mostly universal, the closest preceding noun that matches number, gender, person, etc. Exceptions tend to start from this. (as to a literal answer to your question, no, there is no name for this rule. But 'anaphora resolution' is what you're talking about, it's the name for what any such rule is trying to do.

grammaticality - Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular?

I'd say Microsoft have a way of bending the rules and I know that McLaren have won the championship. While this sounds strange, I believe it is correct English (sorry, I'm not native).

But when it's a small company, would you still use it this way? Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? I.e., would you say Bakery Johnson makes fine bread or Bakery Johnson make fine bread? Is it My book seller, Woody's, have moved or is it has moved?

Answer

american-english

These company names are collective nouns. In general, in American English collective nouns almost always trigger singular verb agreement (after all, "Microsoft" is grammatically a singular noun, even if semantically it denotes an entity made up of many people). It is apparently much more common to use plural verb agreement in British English. It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the company.

Lots of good information here: Language Log on collective nouns, etc.

How to choose verb after "there" in beginning of sentence?

Cambridge "Advanced Grammar in Use" provides following rule in Unit 95C:

If the noun phrase consists of two or more nouns in a list, we use a singular

verb if the first noun is singular or uncountable, and a plural verb if the
first noun is plural:

• When I opened the fridge there was only a bottle of milk, some eggs, and
  butter.


• When I opened the fridge there were only some eggs, a bottle of milk, and
  butter.

But Grammar Girl in episode 278 Oddness When You Start a Sentence with
"There Is" gives completely different explanation:

A listener reader named Joe wants to know whether he should say, "There is a
couch and a coffee table in the room," or "There are a couch and a coffee table
in the room."

...

It's a compound subject since it has two nouns connected by the word "and,"
which makes it plural ... Now that you know the subject is "a couch and a
coffee table" and that it's plural, it's easy to choose the right verb:
"are."

I'm somewhat confused by these contradictory rules. Could someone explain what I'm missing here?

grammar - "Challenged by" or "Challenged with"? How to decide whether to use "by" or "with"?

Freedom was challenged with/by the clashing wills of powerful states and evil designs of tyrants.

Which one to use "by" or "with"?

Answer

For this example, you should use "by". "Freedom was challenged by the clashing wills..."

"to challenge with" is a transitive verb that requires some object that acts usually appears as an -ing gerund phrase. You'd see that usage in sentences like "The representative was challenged with fixing the problematic issue." or "Arlene was challenged with fixing the clogged drain that she knew nothing about how to fix."

The difference may be subtle, but if you use "challenge by", then you need some object that can literally "do" a challenge (often animate)—whereas "challenge with" is an inanimate issue that itself "is" a challenge to be overcome.

conditional tenses

please can anyone help me analyse the tenses in this conditional sentence:

"If we did not stay up so late, we would not be so tired."

What's the tense of "did not stay up" here? It's not past perfect, because that would be:

"If we had not stayed up so late, we would not be so tired."

The implication seems to be that we're in the habit of staying up late, both in the past and also the present. But there is also the 'hypothetical' implication that if we were not to stay up late (in the future), we would not be so tired.

Thanks for any help anyone can offer.

grammatical number - Verb agreement of "heaps"/"lots": uncountable nouns

I am a non-native English speaker and I recently started noticing that most people do not do the correct agreement of the verb with the noun when saying "there is"/"there was"/"here is". They say, for example,

There's two things in my pocket

instead of

There are two things in my pocket

as it should be. In discussing this issue in two distinct occasions I was asked whether the word "heaps" also should be preceded by the plural form of the verb (and the same for "lots"). I could not answer it, but I think the answer depends on whether the noun is countable or not. So, for example, I could say

There are heaps of glasses on the table.
There is a heap of glasses on the table.

but if the noun is uncountable, I am not so sure. I would think that the only correct option is to say

There is a lot/heap of water in the glass

but native speakers say

There is lots of water in the glass

Is the latter correct in terms of usage ("lots of"/"heaps of" + uncountable noun) and in terms of verb agreement ("there is" + "lots"/"heaps")?

Answer

You cannot determine the correct agreement of a noun phrase prefixed by

• a lot of


• lots of

Without looking at the noun they modify. They should not be understood as a prepositional phrase at all, or you will be misled into thinking the first is singular and the second plural. In fact, neither has any number whatsoever. Instead they work more like some works:

• Some stuff is new.


• Some people are ready.

See how some has no number? It is the same with a lot of and lots of.

You seem to have been misled into thinking that the prefix “lots of” changes the number. It cannot. The following are all correct:

• Stuff is new.


• Lots of stuff is new.


• A lot of stuff is new.


• People are ready.


• Lots of people are ready.


• A lot of people are ready.

See how that works? The prefix does not change number. You must not analyse this as a prepositional phrase, or you will get the wrong answer.

I do not know where they use “heaps of” instead of “lots of”. It sounds like slang to me.

capitalization - Should valedictions be capitalized?

Recently I was proof reading an email that a coworker was going to send to a superior and I pointed out that the valediction wasn't capitalized. He said it didn't need to be because it was the start of a phrase or clause and not a sentence, and that people only do it because other people do it. But in the back recesses of my mind I'm thinking that there is a rule that says that it should be capitalized.

Is my coworker right and capitalization is unnecessary in this case? If I'm correct, what rule or guide can I point to, to prove my stance?

(T/t)hanks,
Jeremy

that - "... similar to what ..."

"A high school, a private hospital and several apartment blocks are among the buildings identified with combustible cladding similar to what fuelled the Grenfell Tower fire."

I read this sentence and it seemed to me that there was something not right about it. I don't know why but the use of "what" seemed wrong to me. I think a better sentence would read as follows.

"A high school, a private hospital and several apartment blocks are among the buildings identified with combustible cladding similar to that which fuelled the Grenfell Tower fire."

I'm interested to know, am I correct and if so why ?

usage of an indefinite article

I'm stuck on the sentence.

May we put an indefinite article in the sentence below if we talk about the object in general?

Here is the example:

• Is it possible to find out the height of a triangle if we know the length of its sides?

Here is the article a after the preposition of and I'm not sure is it correct.
Could you point out my other mistakes if I made?

What is the origin and extent of the Indian English usage of "only" to emphasize something?

I live in southern India, and for a long time I've been curious about this phenomenon that I've observed.

Indian English uses the word "only" in a special way. It's used to emphasize things. Sort of like US/UK/AU/NZ people would use the word "indeed."

Some examples (several of which shamelessly stolen from this answer):

I was born in Calcutta only.

You're just stating clearly where you were born.

It's a new movie only.

You're not suggesting anything with the word "only". You're just confirming that the movie is definitely new.

It's on that branch only.

Again, you're sure and you're stating it clearly.

They are Punjabi only.

Same deal.

He is a garbage collector only.

This is not necessarily meant to be offensive, as in UK/US/AU English "He's only a garbage collector." Rather, the speaker is stating what someone's job is, unambigiously.

He paid me 5000 Rupees only.

You're not trying to imply that the amount is too low or insufficient, as in "He paid me only 5000 Rupees." You're saying it was exactly 5000 Rupees, and emphasizing that you recall the matter clearly and are sure.

We went to the beach only.

Nothing negative about the beach. That's simply where you went, and you want to state that clearly.

- Excuse me, I have a parcel for Mr. Kumar.

- That's me only.

Kumar is confirming that he is indeed the person they are looking for.

What is the origin of this usage of "only"?

I certainly don't recognize it from US/UK/AU/NZ English. I know that many unique features of Indian English are actually old features of British English that have since died out elsewhere but remain in India. Is that the case here?

Another theory I have is that it developed as a means to substitute a feature of certain Indian languages. For example, in Hindi, people say "hee" at the end of sentences all the time, for the sake of emphasis. Similarly, in Tamil (which I partly know), they say "tha" at the end. It has exactly that function. For example, "Athu tha" means "That, indeed." So another possible theory is that this usage of "only" developed as speakers felt the need to have such an intensifier at the end of sentences, as many Indian languages do. Without it they may have felt that the sentence would lack credibility or sincerity.

Does anyone have any insights, research or knowledge about the origins of this usage of "only"?

Are there regions/countries other than South-India that also use this? What about North India?

grammar - A better way to express this sentence to clarify its meaning?

I apologize if this is a broad question.

My friend and I have been arguing about the following sentence for 2 hours.
I think that there is something missing in the following sentence. Though, I am not a native English speaker, the sentence doesn't sound good to me. Are there any tips or guidelines to know whether a sentence is meaningful or not? Or is this is just based on personal English knowledge and intuition? I agree that there are English Grammar rules for writing correct sentences, but I am also looking for clarity in the sentence. Moreover, I think that there should be a better word instead of describes.

Could someone resolve this, please? It would be great if you pointout any grammatical mistakes in the sentence.

In this article, he describes how a choice made by three computer science legends 30 years ago produced dangerous consequences and in the worse it took 15 years for getting a realization about this.

Answer

The part of the sentence that seems dubious to me is:

... and in the worse it took 15 years for getting a realization about this.

The part preceding that, 'describes' and all, is completely acceptable (and could be terminated as a sentence before the 'and').

The part afterwards is wrong. Explaining why is harder than stating the fact.

One trouble is 'in the worse' is not an English idiom. I think that 'what is worse' would fit the context reasonably well.

The other trouble is 'for getting a realization about this'; that is not regular English either. Again, in the context, something like 'before people realized that this was a problem'.

Assembling these variants yields:

In this article, he describes how a choice made by three computer science legends 30 years ago produced dangerous consequences, and (what is worse) it took 15 years before people realized that this was a problem.

You might want to insert a 'that' before 'it took', though it isn't 100% necessary.

word choice - Pluralization of currencies like the baht and the ringgit

Some currencies like the baht (Thailand) and ringgit (malaysia) seem to be either singular or plural depending on context. As far as I know, these two countries don't use bahts or ringgits to denote more than one unit of their currency. For example:

1 baht, 100 baht; 1 ringgit, 100
ringgit.

When we want to use the plural in writing and speech, should we use bahts and ringgits or baht and ringgit?

Merriam-Webster gives the plural of baht as:

baht, also bahts;

and the plural of ringgit as :

ringgit, also ringgits.

What should I write?

grammaticality - Why do we use the word "Do" when connecting a sentence?

I was reading a news paper article of Times Of India, and came across a sentence-

To begin with, a woman's right to property has already been established under law. This means that she has equal rights to her parental property as her male siblings. In such a scenario, according women an extra legal right over their husbands' residential property - which too could be inherited - is unfair. Neither do men have the same rights over their wives' property nor can they claim emotional damages during divorce.

Why there is a word "do" in between "Neither" and "men have".?

From my pointing of view It might be -
"Neither men have the same rights over their wives' property nor can they claim emotional dames during divorce".

I have also heard people saying that
"I do agree with your statement".

Why could not it may be "I agree with your statement".

Is There any grammatical mistake in these sentences or both I can use interchangeably?

Answer

The most common form of sentence inversion in English is called subject-auxiliary inversion. In order to perform this inversion, the sentence needs an auxiliary verb. If the sentence doesn't have an auxiliary, one is added. Often, that auxiliary is "do".

Inversions are most commonly used for questions. In this case, the inversion is used to create an embedded question, and there are actually two embedded questions in the sentence each with inversions. The first one uses "do" and the second one uses "can".

Neither

• do men have the same rights over their wives' property

nor

• can they claim emotional damages during divorce.

The embedded questions are complete sentences in this case, so you can say:

• Do men have the same rights over their wives' property?


• Can they claim emotional damages during divorce?

Note that not all embedded questions use question order, e.g.,

I know who he is. (correct)

I know who is he. (incorrect)

The second example is different.

I do agree with your statement. (correct)

I agree with your statement. (correct)

In this case, "do" is used for emphasis.

single word requests - Hypernym for laws and rules

I need to find the proper abstract noun that can describe rules that are either issued at ministry level in some government and laws that are issued at the nation/presidential level.

After making some research on dictionaries and Wikipedia I found that:

• Law is only at the country level not at ministry level (My understanding)


• Rule can better be used for lower authorities (My understanding)


• Pronouncement does not necessarily imply rules


• Edict "often associated with monarchism, but it can be under any official authority."


• Decree "usually issued by a head of state"


• Proclamation "usually issued in the name of the head of state"

I checked also ordinance, dictum, ruling with no luck to get a clear idea

I need a term that can be generally accepted for use in most countries in official use (like in courts)

If it is hard to find a term that can generally fit, let's consider Egypt.

Answer

In the United Kingdom, this is all legislation.

Acts of Parliament and some other instruments such as Church of England Measures are called primary legislation.

Regulations issued by a minister are secondary legislation. They have force because some piece of primary legislation allows those regulations to be made.

legislation noun

[mass noun]

1. Laws, considered collectively.
   ‘housing legislation’

[Oxford]

grammatical number - Pluralization rule is different when we say, 10 pound note and 10 pounds?

We usually say "10 pounds", but for a single bill we say "10 Pound note" and not "10 pound(s) note". And when we have a lot of notes we say again "10 Pound notes". Why this disparity?

Answer

There is a general tendency in languages that when a word that inflects is incorporated into a word or a phrase as a modifier, it loses its inflection.

Since we don't have many inflections left in English, this is not as obvious as in some other languages; but it is generally the case that when a noun is used as a modifier in English it does not take plural inflection irrespective of the sense:

cow house, dog kennel, car park(ing), tree surgeon, window cleaner, bookseller, flea circus, language lessons, container ship, crop spraying, child poverty ... the list is endless.

There are exceptions of course: "drinks cabinet" is an example. But in the overwhelming majority of cases (including all measurements used attributively) the qualifying noun is in the singular.

grammatical number - "What {is/are} the meaning and connotations of this phrase?" Which is correct here, "is" or "are"?

Consider the question:

What is/are the meaning and connotations of this phrase?

---

Clearly you would say:

What is the meaning of this phrase?

What are connotations of this phrase?

and obviously you could just restructure the sentence to avoid the ambiguity:

What is the meaning of this phrase, and what are it's connotations?

But supposing you want to use the original phrase, which form of the verb is correct? Is there a correct form?

grammatical number - What is the correct possessive form of "Drs. Smith"?

I want to address two Doctor Smiths via the abbreviation "Drs. Smith"; what is the correct possessive form of that (plural) noun phrase? Is it "Drs. Smith's"?

An example sentence:

Drs. Smith's house is in an ideal location.`

Answer

I'm going to make an educated guess, which isn't necessarily the best option but:

Technically, if you rewrite the phrase, you get:

The house belongs to the Drs. Smith.

Smith is singular, so the possessive form would be:

The Drs. Smith's house.

Similarly, if the sentence was:

The house belongs to Drs. Joe and Jane Smith.

The possessive would be:

Drs. Joe and Jane Smith's house.

Regardless, "Smith" is singular, so it doesn't make sense to pluralize it.

Now, contrast this with the known method for "The Smiths'":

The rewritten phrase would be:

The house belongs to the Smiths.

It's plural here... so it makes sense that the possessive would be:

The Smiths' house.

grammar - a confusion about answer "yes" and "no" to some complicated question

I got confused about the usage of "yes" and "no".

I knew in English,"yes" or "no" should response to the meaning of sentence.

take a example. assuming a stuff is available.

     is it available? -yes.
     isn't it available? -yes.

but I not sure to say "yes" or "no" when someone ask a complicated question with double-negatives.

     is it unavailable? 
     isn't it unavailable?

Answer

Is it unavailable?

(a) If it is unavailable then you answer:

"Yes." or "Yes, it is unavailable."

(b) If, on the other hand, it is not unavailable then it is available. You have a choice and can answer:

"No." or "No it isn't unavailable.

or you can say:

"No, it is available." or "No. In fact it is available."

---

Discussion

So far I have only dealt with the first part, i.e. the question "Is it unavailable?" In theory I should now go on to explain the second part, i.e. "Isn't it unavailable?"

However

In real-life, no-one would ever ask that.

If you try to memorise all these different responses you will become hopelessly confused. The key is not memorisation, it is understanding the purpose of the question.

A question is a request for information. The best way to deal with it is simply to give the information! You know whether X is available or not. Therefore you can simply say which is true. No matter how complicated the question, reply by talking about availabilty.

Example

Me: Good morning, I want some X. Is true or not true that X is available or isn't available, or is it?

You: We have plenty of X available. How much would you like?

or

You: I'm sorry, we don't have any X available today. Would you like me to order some for you?

Conclusion

In real life we don't try to imitate the form of a complicated question with double-negatives -- we simply answer.

Why is "where" used in this sentence?

A student showed me the following sentence in her English textbook. She asked me to clarify why where is used in the sentence. Since I cannot read Japanese, can someone please explain why? I have been taught that where is only used for places or situations. In this case, it seems to be describing the noun (a type of corn, whatever it is) in more detail.

Answer

I think you hit it with the word "situation". The condition of the corn kernel is a "situation"

See use 3 & 4 here:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/situation

3. condition; case; plight: He is in a desperate situation.


4. the state of affairs; combination of circumstances: The present international situation is dangerous.

The desparate & dangerous examples should not lead one to believe that the situation must always be negative.

grammar - Which date's? What date's? Of which date?

Let's say there are daily interest rates available for calculation but I am not sure which date's interest rates to use. What would be an appropriate question in this situation?

Of which date's interest rate should I use?
Which date's interest rate should I use?
What date's interest rate should I use?
Or better options.

Thanks in advance!

possessives - ACME technology or ACME's technology

EDIT 2: The nuance difference may be subtle, maybe even subliminal to most people, but still important to me. I don't think there's one right answer to this question (but maybe there is), as any answer is subjective, so I'm interested in any opinion from anyone.

Let's assume we have a company ACME that has some technology used in some product. To your ears, what would be the difference between saying

• "The benefit of using ACME technology to accelerate the development of [...]"

and

• "The benefit of using ACME's technology to accelerate the development of [...]"?

The former sounds to me as if the technology was developed by ACME, regardless of who owns it. The latter makes it sound like ACME owns the technology (patents etc.), but didn't make it themselves. At the same time, saying "our technology" should be analogous to the second variant (assuming you work for ACME), but it doesn't feel quite the same.

EDIT: I ran a few searches on Ngram, substituting ACME for various well-known industry names, and the two forms seem to run hand in hand, occurring with about the same frequency. I still don't think the two are entirely interchangeable.

grammatical number - using only in plural

This is the question:

A: Does she have many books?
B: ................. She only has two books.

a. Yes, she does.
b. No, she does not.

My answer is B, am I wrong?
My friend absolutely stands to say that my answer is wrong.
He said that, two books are plural, even, there is a word "only".
So, even only two books, it is included in plural, and the answer is A.

I'm really so confused.

(sourse: Use of the singular or plural "is" or "are" in ambiguous situations)

grammar - "from where I hail" vs "where I hail from"

When to use the two? Is the sentence "England is from where I hail" grammatically correct? (It sounds ok to me but it looks funny.) Or do I have to write "England is where I hail from"?

grammar - What is the difference between a part of speech and a syntactic function / grammatical relation?

What is the difference between a part-of-speech and a function? In other words:

1. What is a part of speech. (e.g. noun)





2. What is a grammatical function. (e.g. head, subject)

[read "grammatical relation" or possibly "syntactic role", if you prefer that terminology to "grammatical function" - see John Lawler's comments below]

3. What is the difference?




4. If we use a part of speech which is often used in one function, in a different function, does it change the part of speech of the word? For example, if we use a noun (let's say some nouny word that we can often observe functioning as a subject) as an adjunct, does it become an adverb?

Bounty Edit Note

These don't have to be addressed in different sections. One well illustrated paragraph which addresses the different concerns would be as welcome as a longer post with several parts!

I am hoping, though, that an answer to this question will, of course, give a description of what a grammatical function and part of speech actually are and not skip straight to the noun/adverb illustration!

I originally also asked about whether a noun used to modify another noun becomes an adjective as an example of a change of function. However, that has been covered in another question recently - though feel free to use it to illustrate your answer, if you'd like.

Motivation

Here's an example of why the question is interesting. In answers in rseponse to this question:

... several posts seem to indicate that a word's part of speech is determined by its function in a particular sentence. In other words, most answers on that page seem to argue that a part of speech is determined by how a particular word is being used. This is underlined in the top-voted and much linked-to answer:

... you will find that they have a category of adverb called a noun-adverb, meaning a noun used in a slot expecting an adverb, analogously to how a noun-adjective is a noun used in a slot expecting an adjective.

I wonder, however, whether functions and parts of speech can in fact be conflated in this way.

Answer

Parts of speech are categories, their members sharing various properties. One of these properties is the functions that the members can perform. These functions are relations, and each should be capable of coming before of. For example, in faculty office, faculty is a dependent (more specifically a modifier) of office. It generally makes no sense to say that something is a noun of or verb of.

If we look at families. Man and woman are categories (like parts of speech). You can see a man or woman outside of a family situation and generally still put them in the right category based on various properties such as facial hair, breasts, size, voice, etc. One of the properties of men is that they can function as 'husband of', 'brother of', 'parent of'. Women can be distinguished from men partly in their inability to function as 'husband of' or 'brother of', but both men and women can function as 'parent of'.

Back to words, the members of the category of English nouns share a range of properties including (typically) inflecting for number and ability to function as 'subject of' or 'object of' verbs. Adjectives have other properties, like inflecting for grade (tall, taller, tallest) and ability to function as 'modifier of' nouns. Number and gradability are distinguishing characteristics, but functioning as 'modifier of' nouns is a shared characteristic. But we can still distinguish them based on their other characteristics. Only when the word takes on many characteristics of another category (like fun--traditionally a noun--being inflected funner and funnest) would we say that it actually now belongs (also) to that new category.

grammar - adjective or adverb before ing-form?

Let's consider the example sentence

Alice's trying to frame him had left Bob wary of anything she might do or say in his presence.

If I now wanted to express that Alice allegedly tried to frame him, would I insert it as an adjective or an adverb?

Put differently: is "trying", in this case, considered a noun or a verb?

Personally, I'm thinking it would make sense for it to be a noun, s.th. the sentence would end up being

Alice's alleged trying to frame him [...]

And though I cannot help but feel this sounds wrong, I can produce no good reason why I should use an adverb with "trying", here.

Answer

It could be either one, depending on whether "trying" is a noun (then you use "alleged") or a gerund, which is a verb form (then you use "allegedly"). This is because adverbs can't modify nouns, and adjectives can't modify verbs. The ambiguity of structure arises because "-ing" has multiple uses in English, and here, we might be dealing with the "-ing" that derives nouns from verbs or the "-ing" that accompanies gerunds, which are verbs.

Some English speakers might not accept the adjective "alleged" here, because they could be missing a lexical noun "trying". This is a difference between inflectional endings, like the ending in the gerund (which does not change the part of speech), and the derivational ending in the noun "trying". Derivational forms are not basic to the structure of the language -- individuals may differ in whether they are acquainted with specific words in the lexicon.

What is going on is clarified if we change the example so that "trying" has a direct object, since nouns do not take direct objects:

Alice's trying ice cream had left Bob wary of any gourmet foods she might suggest.

Now, you can't use the adjective "alleged".

meaning - 'of yet' and 'as of yet'

Can ‘of yet’ be used with the same meaning of ‘as of yet’? For example:

Most importantly, he’s found footprints of dinosaurs that we haven’t found bones of yet.

Does this mean the same thing as the following?

Most importantly, he's found footprints of dinosaurs that we haven't found bones as of yet?

Answer

The second of doesn't belong to yet but to dinosaurs. He has found dinosaur footprints, but we haven't found bones of those dinosaurs yet. Keeping closer to the given structure, but expressing it formally, you would say:

He's found footprints of dinosaurs of which we have not yet found bones.

So of yet is meaningless. And as as of yet is prolix and graceless, so avoid both and just say yet as tchrist tells you.

modal verbs - Saying about many related events in the future

My question relates to these questions :

What is the common way in English (and American English) to say about many related events that can happen due to some condition:

I suppose if this gadget [will be] packed in cardboard box there [will be] less chances that the package [will be] stopped at customs for any additional inspection of its contents.

or even:

I suppose if this gadget [will be] packed in cardboard box there [will be] less chances that the package [will be] stopped at customs for any additional inspection so there [will be] no delay in delivery.

Note: I used "[will be]" to depict that action will occur in a future - I understand that it is incorrect.

grammar - Difference between "taking into account" and "considering" when used as conjunctions of contrast

How do I explain the difference between "taking into account" and "considering" to ESL students and can they be used interchangeably in the following sentences?

"Taking into account that my sales are the highest of anyone on our team, I feel that I should get the corner office."

"Considering how long I've worked for this company, I think I should be promoted to a managerial position."

I realize that "that" must come after "taking into account" in the first sentence, but I could also say "considering that" - correct?

Also, I'd love any other specific pointers about how to place these phrases in sentences (e.g. only before nouns etc.). Thanks!

grammar - Why is "that" preceded by a comma in this relative clause? What does it mean?

As you know, there are two types of relative clause:

Type 1

The woman who lives next door is a doctor.

In this example,the relative clause tells us which person or thing (or what kind of person or thing ) the speaker means. We don't use a comma with this clause. Also, we can use that.

Type 2

My brother Ben, who lives in Hong Kong, is an architect.

In this example, the relative clause does not tell you which person or thing the speaker means. We already know which thing or person is meant. The relative clause in this sentence gives us extra information about the person or thing. We use a comma with this clause. Also, we cannot use that.

Now, I came across a sentence that doesn't follow these rules:

Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans. Many a brave soul did it send hurrying down to Hades, and many a hero did it yield a prey to dogs and vultures, for so were the counsels of Jove fulfilled from the day on which the son of Atreus, king of men, and great Achilles, first fell out with one another.

(It comes from the Illiad translated by Samuel Butler, and I thought that grammar rules haven't changed much since then.)

Please explain this contradiction, as far as you are able.

grammaticality - "There is a plethora..." or "There are a plethora..."?

A simple question that has sparked some debate, and I couldn't find a concrete answer anywhere. There seems to be two camps: The word plethora indicates plural, so therefore it should be "There are a plethora"; and the other camp says that there is only one plethora (which contains multiple), so it should be "There is a plethora".

I've seen many examples of both. Is there a consensus, or is it just one of those things that can go either way?

Answer

This look at the matter of the grammatical plurality of single groups of plural items is well worth reading in full.

To summarise:

1. Some do hold it must always be singular.


2. Both can be found, from the middle of the 18th Century on.


3. The plural is the more commonly used, has been for some time, and its relative popularity is growing.



4. Respected writers who use the plural include Charles Batteux, William Hazlitt, John Keats, William Makepeace Thakeray and Mark Twain. (John Keats' was once considered a grammatical rebel for such things as the double be in "...how diligent I have been, & am being", but I doubt many would even notice why that was considered bad grammar by some in the nineteenth century. Mark Twain made heavy use of non-standard forms, but that was a conscious use and he was not doing so in the example).

I'll also note that John Cowan (who often remembers such things) is quoted thus:

J.R.R. Tolkien once received a letter (addressed to "any Professor of English Language") asking him about the rectitude of "A large number of walls is/are being built", and saying that "big money" was riding on the issue. He answered, of course, that you can say what you like. His original reply is not in print AFAIK, but a letter to someone else referencing it is in The Letters of JRRT.

My own opinion, is that the singular is easily understood as attaching to the noun that describes the group, just as the plural is easily understood as attaching to the individual members of the group. Neither clash horribly for most readers, though some do hold strong opinions.

My own use doesn't even side firmly with one or the other (my preferences here are given not as prescriptive decrees, but using myself as an example to demonstrate that usage may not even be firmly on one side or the other with a given individual).

If a phrase clearly refers to the individuals, I would strongly favour the plural:

The group of protesters were holding placards.

Some clearly to the group:

The group of protesters was twice the size as an hour ago.

Many could be interpreted either way:

The group of protesters was/were blocking the entrance.

In which I am likely to just mentally place in one of the first two categories, and write accordingly. Note that even with the first two, my strongly favouring one or the other does not mean I find other choices to be incorrect in others' writing.

From what I say above, you might expect that I would always favour the singular if the individuals aren't mentioned (even if I wouldn't "correct" another for doing otherwise):

There was a plethora.

The plethora of piñatas was/were gaily coloured.

But a group almost always at least suggests its members, and this question deals with one example of that, but there are others.

There are technical contexts where I would much more strongly suggest that expressions specific to the group or to the individuals be distinguished: The distinction between sets and their items in mathematics, or between collections and their contents in object oriented computer programming. Even here, I wouldn't so much say that a given form was wrong, just that there is a heavy benefit for precision and often you are working to help readers understand that very distinction, so an extra bit of prissiness may pay off.

word usage - "Two types of user" or "Two types of users"?

Which is the correct sentence to use?

1. Two types of user are identified: . . .


2. Two types of users are identified: . . .

I would have said the former (#1), but a colleague has suggested the latter (#2). The first one just sounds right to me.

Which is correct (if indeed either of them is)?

Thanks.

Answer

• Two types of user are identified.
  


• Two types of users are identified.

Both of them are correct sentence. They both can be used in formal and informal style. kinds/sorts/types are followed by both singular or plural nouns. I noticed that "two types of user" is more common in BrE, than AmE; AmE prefers "two types of users".

The following constructions are possible -

i) These/Those kinds/types/sorts of [(singular or plural form of countable noun) or (uncountable noun)]
ii) These/Those kind/type/sort of [(singular or plural form of countable noun) or (uncountable noun)] [INFORMAL]
iii) All/two kinds/types/sorts of [(singular or plural form of countable noun) or (uncountable noun)]
iv) This/That kind/type/sort of [(singular form of countable noun) or (uncountable noun)]
v) This/That kind/type/sort of [(plural form of countable noun)] [Most people think it unacceptable, better be avoided]
vi) This/That kind/type/sort of a singular form of countable noun [INFORMAL]

For details, see below -

---

When it’s this type of, the word following is normally singular, as in
this type of accident/game/garden/sausage. The corresponding plural
phrase: these types of is much less common in both American and
British English, by a factor of 1:7 in CCAE and 1:10 in the BNC. These
types of takes both plural and singular nouns following, as in these
types of drama and these types of plays. The compromise form these
type of is rare in both databases, and mostly found in speech. Some

uses such as these type of things show it as a routine pause filler,
but others are deliberate: these type of games/links/specials/
victim-based surveys.

_{Source - The Cambridge Guide to English Usage by Pam Peters}

Partitive constructions -

Both count and uncountable nouns can enter partitive constructions,
i.e constructions denoting a part of a whole. such constructions
express both quality partition (eg: a kind of paper) and a quantity
partition (eg: a piece of paper). Quality partition is expressed by
a partitive count noun like kind, sort, or type followed by an
of-phrase, eg:

1. a) a new kind of computer [SINGULAR PARTITIVE]
   


2. b) new kinds of computers [PLURAL PARTITIVE]
   


3. a) a delicious sort of bread [SINGULAR PARTITIVE]
   


4. b) delicious sorts of bread [PLURAL PARTITIVE]
   


5. a) another type of research [SINGULAR PARTITIVE]
   


6. b) other types of research [PLURAL PARTITIVE]

But in informal context, the following is also acceptable -

These/Those sort/kind/type of parties are dangerous. [INFORMAL]

_{Source - A Comprehensive Grammar of English Language by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik (Page No. 249 and 764) ENTRY 10.43}

The words kind, sort, and type can be troublesome when they are
used with plural nouns and modifiers. Sentences like I hate these
kind of movies may occur with some frequency but are awkward, and
some would say, grammatically incorrect. The Usage Panel frowns upon
these usages. In our 2005 survey, 81 percent rejected the use of
kind with a plural modifier and plural noun in the sentence Those kind of buildings seem old-fashioned. Fully 88 percent of the Panel

found unacceptable the use of kind with a singular modifier and
plural noun and verb in That kind of buildings seem old fashioned.
In these examples kind would presumably function as a determiner
like number in A great number of people have crowded into the
lobby. (Note that number here is singular, but the plural verb
have agrees with the plural noun people, so number is not really the subject of the sentence). This problem can be avoided by making
the phrase entirely singular (as in That kind of movie is always
enjoyable) or by revising so that the noun is the plural subject (as
in Movies of that kind are always enjoyable). Bear in mind that
plural kinds often implies that the phrase refers to a number of

different categories of things—more than one genre of movie, for
example. Perhaps the best solution is to drop the kind phrase
entirely (Those movies are always enjoyable) or to be specific
(Those spy movies are always enjoyable).

_{Source - Usage Note from The American heritage Dictionary Of
the English Language}

Kind, sort and type are countable nouns.

_{Source - Macmillan Dictionary}

As they are countable noun, after words like all, many, two etc. we use kinds, not kind. We don't say All kind of ..., to make it correct we use All kinds of ...

The article a/an is usually dropped after sort of, kind of and
type of, but structures with articles are possible in an informal style:

That's a funny sort of (a) car.
What sort of (a) bird is that?

When we are talking about one sort of thing, we can use sort of, kind
of or type of followed by a singular noun.

This sort of car is enormously expensive to run.
I'm interested in any new type of development in computer science.

Singular sort of, kind of and type of can also be followed by

plural nouns, especially in an informal style:

I'm interested in any new kind of developments.

Plural demonstratives (these and those) can also be used:

Those sort of cars are enormously expensive to run.
Do you smoke those kind of cigarettes?

This structure is often felt to be incorrect, and is usually avoided
in a formal style. This can be done by using singular noun (see
above), by using plural sorts/kinds/types, or by using structure
...of this/that sort/kind/type:

This sort of car is ...
These kinds of car(s) are ...
Cars of that type are ...

_{Source - Practical English Usage by Michael Swan}

relative pronouns - "To ensure" vs. "To ensure that" + subject + predicate

Is any of these two sentences incorrect:

-(without that): "To ensure the voters are not influenced by mass-media, the campaign will end 7 days before the elections take place."

-(with that): "To ensure that the voters are not influenced by mass-media, the campaign will end 7 days before the elections take place."

Is the presence of that mandatory?

Answer

I agree with both the previous commentators. WS2 is correct in saying that the relative pronoun here 'that' is frequently elided. I share Hot Licks's view that inclusion of 'that' is stylistically preferable.

grammar - Where to put a period when you quote a title at the end of the sentence?

Which one is correct?:

1. I have never heard of "Oranges".

or

2. I have never heard of "Oranges."

usage - Pronoun “you” can be omitted as subject in imperative form, what other pronouns can be omitted, when and why?

The pronoun you can be omited as a general rule, but sometimes I’ve seen sentences that should have used I or it as the subject but it was omitted.

Answer

In Standard English, the subject can be omitted only in an imperative sentence:

• Go to the store.

Colloquially, you can sometimes sneak by with an implied subject if there’s enough context:

• Got something to say?


• Went home sick — fell asleep immediately.


• Am not!

grammar - Is "keep updated" proper usage of those words?

I'm far from being an English major, but I have a simple question. If someone were to say keep updated in a sentence, is that correct? I know the usage, tense, and other things matter, but is it incorrect to use those two words together?

If you were to suggest that someone keep updated [a statement], would that be correct?

I read another post here (which was similar), but it didn't say anything specific about "keep" or "updated" together.

Update: Thanks to a comment written in response to an answer below, a good example of this would be the sentence, “Whom should I keep updated about our progress?” (Is this correct?)

word choice - Is “the girls are want to gossip” correct?

Is this the correct use and placement of want?

The girls in the office are want to gossip.

Does anyone have a reference citing this use?

grammaticality - I and am

I sometimes find myself writing something like this:

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

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

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

Answer

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

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


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

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

• I admire and am very interested in the project.

which comes from

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

by a perfectly normal application of Conjunction Reduction.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with this sentence.

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

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

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

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

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

participle phrase or to-infinitive phrase

In response to the long-term measures recommended by the School Board,
the then Principal initiated the Pledge Day on “Clean LA", to encourage
all schools to make the “Clean LA” commitment on that day.

I wonder if it sounds better to replace the to-infinitive clause with a participle clause:

In response to the long-term measures recommended by the School Board,
the then Principal initiated the Pledge Day on “Clean LA", encouraging
all schools to make the “Clean LA” commitment on that day.

because I think it is seldom to use to-infinitive clauses after a comma.

Answer

"To encourage" and "encouraging" both sound fine to me. There's a subtle difference:

the Principal initiated the Pledge Day, to encourage ....

This answers the question, Why did the principal initiate the Pledge Day?

the Principal initiated the Pledge Day, encouraging ....

This means that through initiating the Pledge Day, the principal was, in this way, encouraging....

(Note, the comma is fine.)

There's a third option:

the Principal initiated the Pledge Day, and encouraged ....

This one suggests that perhaps the principal held an all-school assembly, where he explained the concepts and provided encouragement.

Words describing types of conversation

I have three related questions, all concerning words descriptive of conversational habits.

(1) How would you choose a word to describe someone who likes to talk about things around them and things happening in their whereabouts?

[The opposite of absent minded]

Actually, absent minded though would not do a very good job at describing someone who likes to talk/think, perhaps not on their own, about abstract things or things they imagine).

(2) And how would you choose a word for someone who likes to talk about things happening elsewhere?

(3) And how would you choose a word for describing someone who likes to talk about the past?

capitalization - which one : A or An European?

It seems like "A European" is the correct one but why ?

Is this a general rule about Capitalized words?

grammaticality - Is "teenage mutant ninja turtles" grammatically correct?

I think one of the attractions kids and teens have with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT) is that the name itself is quirky and sounds fun. Those particular words mashed together are sort of an absurdity. An adjective followed by three unlikely juxtaposed nouns -- it's just weird. But is it grammatically correct? I've always thought it to be, until last night when I happened to hear it, and it didn't sound right.

Extended noun phrases are uncommon in English. As I understand it, they are common in Finnish and German (and probably other languages as well). They even remove the spaces between the words of the phrase. In English, though, it sounds, well, "off".

I understand the fun-factor is in itself a marketing tool. Around 1990 a TMNT movie came out. To take advantage of the brand awareness, a commercial bakery began mass-producing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Cookies. They came in a bag like Oreos. If that's okay, how far can you take it? Can one speak of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Cookies bag? And the bag has a label -- TMNT Cookies bag label??

This is a current topic. I could not find a page talking about the prepackaged, ready-to-eat TMNT cookies already discussed. But I did find this: Betty Crocker Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Shell-Shocked Sugar Cookie Mix. (I think I'll buy and make it, and save the BCTMNTSSSCM box. 😍 ) Let's see -- 8 nouns, 1 adjective, and one compound adjective. They are taking the "fun name" concept to a whole new level. But again, can that be correct?

Answer

There are a couple of ways of analyzing the noun phrase 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles'.

The first unsatisfying way is to claim that it is a one-time invention or idiom that was created rather desultorily, and as an invention (or idiom) it is correct by fiat. Even though it might be out of order according to conventional rules, it is grammatical because that ordering is the way it is created to be. This is unsatisfying because you are looking for a reason for that particular sequence and this justification works for anything.

The second way, which I think is closer to what you seek, is to analyze according to the rules of ordering adjectives. You can find this addressed quite well here at "What is the rule for adjective order?". To combine the slight variations there, the general rule in English is

article, number, judgement/attitude, size/length/height, age, color, origin, material, purpose, attributive-noun, target noun

All that is needed is to judge each of our modifiers to be these roles.

One may have more than one of each role and then anything goes (subject to vague 'sounds better' rules).

And there may be difficulty in assigning role.

• 'teenage' is pretty obviously an age


• 'mutant' is ... hm, is that an adjective or a noun? If it is an adjective it seems likely to be one of judgement (coming earlier in the order). But it feels more like a noun.


• 'ninja' is a noun, so it acts as an attributive noun here



• 'turtle' is the target noun

If you accept mutant as a noun then teenage comes first, then mutant and ninja could be in either order, followed by turtle. 'Teenage ninja mutant turtles', ignoring the prominence of the existing idiom, I think sounds fine. But the one we hear everyday sounds fine also.

So the end judgement is that the ordering is grammatical.

Of course, your inner assignment of roles to these words may well be different ad that may account for your questioning.

As a side note, newspaper headlines tend to convert numerous qualifiers into a pile-up of attributive nouns which tends to overwhelm our parsing mechanisms, but presumably they are parsable somehow to be considered 'correct' as in "Slough sausage choke baby death woman jailed". TMNT is just a large mouthful to swallow and because of that sounds 'off'.

Why can positive statements end with a negative question and vice versa?

I had a hard time phrasing the actual question title—hopefully this doesn't mean it's too subjective—, but I'm curious about why positive (or negative) statements can be terminated by negative (or positive) questions:

• You do like apples, don't you?



• We can't all be rich, can we?

Why is it (arguably) common to turn a general statement into a question like this when the intent remains the same? Is this a common use of a rhetorical question? If so, what is afforded by not simply making a statement without turning it into a question?

Answer

As a rhetorical device, I argue that it is a leading question.

... a leading question is a question

that suggests the answer or contains
the information the examiner is
looking for.

In law, a leading question should be avoided. I don't think that is necessarily true in informal (or even formal?) writing.

grammatical number - Should we treat "information" as a plural term in the following context?

I'm writing a thesis on web information extraction. I use the term information a lot in my thesis, but I'm not sure I should treat it as a plural term or singular term. The following are some cases where I have doubt.

How are faculty member information presented in web pages?

Information extracted from multiple sources are integrated based on some rules.

As you can see from the examples, I use it as a plural term in the context. However, I don't feel right when I actually read it. Anyone please shed some light on this?

Answer

I see information as an uncountable noun, like water or sand. If you add information to information, you get more information, not two informations.

In the sentences you have used, it reads better if you treat information as singular:

How *is* faculty member information presented in web pages?

Information extracted from multiple sources *is* integrated based on some rules.

verbs - I thought I'd buy a gun

Well, I was watching Gone Girl and there's an scene where you can see this text on Amy Elliott-Dunne's dairy (Rosamund Pike).
I've asked people that I know about it, but the only answer that I got was that it means something more like: I thought I'd (I would) like to buy a gun.
Also I was told that this is pretty common during daily conversation. I think it has a name or at least its tense has a name.
I'm not a English native speaker so I'll really appreciate if someone could advise me, and maybe if I made a mistake (grammatically or orthographically) I'd really appreciate your corrections as well.

grammatical number - When does "shadow" become plural?

If two objects in close proximity create an area of shade which is contiguous, would you call this a shadow or shadows? For example, which of the following sentences are correct, assuming that multiple palm trees create a contiguous shaded area:

The crowd gathered in the palm trees' shadow.

or

The crowd gathered in the palm trees' shadows.

My intuition is that it is the former (assuming the palm trees create one contiguous shaded area). If that's correct, when would you use shadows? When the shaded areas become non-contiguous? When the two objects are grouped separately?

If I'm wrong, what is the rule? Does the numerosity of "shadow" have to follow the numerosity of the objects which create the shade? Consider a case where at first I see a shaded area without knowing what is casting the shade. I would obviously just call it a "shadow." But if I then learn that there are multiple distinct objects creating the shade, would I then have to say "shadows?" That would be awkward.

I'm not interested in the figurative usage of the word "shadows," nor any usage where "shadows" does not mean multiple "dark areas or shapes produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."

contractions - Is it okay to say "Yes you're." instead of "Yes you are."?

I was having an SMS conversation with a friend and somehow "Yes you're" came into play in retaliation to a comment.

Example:

Person 1: "You are bad at English".

Person 2: "No I are not.".

Person 1: "Yes you're".

Is that acceptable?

I would assume that it is.

Think of "don't".

You can say:

"No, don't."

or

"I don't."

and it is a contraction like "you're".

So, is it okay?

Answer

No, this is unidiomatic. "You're" always requires a subjective completion. (And to my ears, it sounds completely wrong.)

Why does the contraction of "I will" sound strange in certain sentence constructions?

Recently, while chatting with a friend via text, my friend asked me, "Can you ask them tomorrow?"

I responded with:

I will when I go.

It occurred to me when writing this response that it would be really weird sounding to say:

I'll when I go.

However, it would have been normal sounding if I had said:

I'll ask when I go.

Is there any formal reason why the version without "ask" following "I'll" is incorrect? Or maybe it is correct, but merely awkward?

I suppose there may not be any explanation deeper than, "it just sounds weird," but any informative insights into why, ideally with examples of similar cases, would stand as an answer.

orthography - Should the prefix "re" be added to a word with or without a hyphen?

In science we often invent words, but that doesn't mean we know how to spell them. Most of the time words are invented by adding prefixes. In that case should there be a hyphen or not? Specifically, I need to use

• reexcite or re-excite (reentry is similar and a official word)


• repolarize or re-polarization

The second seems fine in the no-hyphen form, but for the first, the double "e" makes the word difficult to read. I've seen similar use with a diaeresis over the e: ë as in reëxcite, but that looks strange; any pointers?

Answer

It depends on how recent the words are. If you are concerned that your meaning will be unclear, by all means use the hyphen. Words like reentry and reelect have been in usage for a long time and pretty much no one has a problem with them. Reexcite has not, so you would do better to stick with re-excites. If you want to edit something again, you are probably better off to re-edit it if you are worried that reedit will cause the reader to stumble.

Where the prefix is not followed by a vowel, however, you are not honor-bound to add the hyphen. If you want to repolarize something, go right ahead. According to Etymonline, the word repurpose is less than 30 years old, having dropped its hyphen somewhere in the early 1980s. So if you are the first to repolarize something, you are not likely to be the last, and you will probably start a trend. In any case, your meaning will be clear.

grammatical number - One of the many things that (have or has) affected me was...?

Which is appropriate?

One of the most significant adversities that (have or has) affected me was …

pronouns - Something versus anything

"They disregard social conventions without being conscious that they are doing anything extraordinary."

Is it also fine（or more appropriate） to replace "anything" with "something" in the sentence above.?

Whole paragraph:
True eccentrics never deliberately set out todraw attention to themselves. They disregard social conventions without being conscious that they are doing anything extraordinary. This invariably wins them the love and respect of others, for they add colour to the dull routine of everyday life.

Answer

Any and its extensions anything, anywhere, anyone, etc. is a negative polarity item. In other words it is more usual in negations than its some (something etc.) equivalent. For example:

• I don't have any money. (?I don't have some money.)


• I don't have anything to wear. (?I don't have something to wear.)


• I don't know anyone who thinks that. (?I don't know someone who thinks that.)

The sentence They disregard social conventions without being conscious that they are doing anything extraordinary is a far less clear-cut example of negation. But negative polarity is present in the word without. The sentence could be rephrased:

They disregard social conventions and are not conscious that they are
doing anything extraordinary.

This explains the use of anything in the original sentence. Nevertheless, something is also fine in this context - albeit with, for me, a different connotation.

In the original version, the writer is simply saying that eccentrics don't think they are doing anything extraordinary. I get no sense of whether the writer thinks they are or are not doing anything extraordinary.

The version with something (They disregard social conventions without being conscious that they are doing something extraordinary) can be interpreted that the writer does believe they they are doing the extraordinary.

Such an interpretation is given some support by the sentence that follows:

This invariably wins them the love and respect of others, for they add
colour to the dull routine of everyday life.

grammaticality - Using the word 'Only'

I am confused about using the word only. I often hear it being used in many contexts that sound wrong to me - but I'm not sure if it's me or them.

Let me give some examples:

A: Where were you yesterday evening?
B: I was at the coffee house.
A: Hey, I was there only; how come we didn't meet?

I guess the correct usage here would be I was also there or I was there too, right?

How about this:

A: Did you complete that task?
B: No, but I am doing that only

The word only is used here to stress on the fact that he is doing that (and not something else). I guess this usage stems from an equivalent usage in Hindi and other Indian languages. What's the correct way to express this? I feel I am still working on that is not the same - it sounds more like I haven't figured out how to do it, as opposed to this is a difficult task, it'll take some time

Another one:

A: How many questions have you asked in this forum?
B: I have asked only one question.
C: I have asked one question only.

Who is correct - B or C?
I'm with B on this one, but I don't know if C is correct too.

---

PS: In case you haven't guessed it already, I'm not a native English speaker :)

Answer

Example 1
seems to be legitimate Indian English, see

Something which Indian English has
that is not found in other varieties
of English is the use of only and
itself to emphasize time and place. It
comes from the Hindi word hi and
produces sentences like "I was in

Toledo only" and "Can we meet tomorrow
itself?"

extract from language in India

More discussion on 'only' in Indian English here Dustin Freeman

Example 2 is probably Indian English too. You could say you are concentrating on that task, if you wanted to be better understood by a foreign audience.

Example 3: either is correct, I would think the 2nd is more colloquial

I don't think you be misunderstood with any of these colloquialisms. To me they are colourful additions to the language

grammatical number - 'is' or 'are' in lists of counted nouns

Which of the following is correct?
Does the is/are depend on the total number of things in the list, or only on the thing immediately following the is/are?

There is 1 apple and 1 orange available.
There are 1 apple and 1 orange available.

Also, would it make a difference if one would put the is/are near the end, like so?

1 apple and 1 orange is available.
1 apple and 1 orange are available.

Answer

This one is right:

There is 1 apple and 1 orange available

This is wrong:

There are 1 apple and 1 orange available.

I would personally say

There is an apple and an orange available.

---

This is now wrong

1 apple and 1 orange is available

This is right (almost):

1 apple and 1 orange are available.

But again, I would say

An apple and an orange are available.

---

These are both correct:

There is an apple and 2 oranges available.
There are 2 apples and an orange available

So it depends on the number of objects the is/are is referring to first.

2 apples and an orange are available.
An apples and 2 oranges are available.

When it is at the end, it refers to the total number of objects.

meaning - "You hear but you don't listen" or "You listen but you don't hear"?

My teacher introduced the quote:

1. You look but you don’t see. You hear but you don’t listen.

But I also saw books saying:

2. You look but you don’t see. You listen but you don’t hear.

So which one is correct? I am between a rock and a hard place.

In terms of grammar, I think the second one is right because it is more
parallel as look and listen are both intransitive while see and
hear are both transitive.

But the first one also sounds reasonable to me as listen implies the

person is doing the action intentionally. You can hear a foreign
language without knowing it but you can only listen to a foreign
language if you understand it, right?

formality - "Heck" in formal writing

So I'm trying to make a proper transition to the next sentence and was wondering if I could use "heck" in such formal context.

The AI will recognize people entering the apartment and greet them with their preference in lighting conditions and room temperature. It’ll play their preferred music and record their favorite shows. It’ll even make them their desired blend of coffee. Heck, It’ll even help me reduce costs by monitoring electricity and gas usage. In short, it’ll be amazing.

Answer

To heck with heck, let's fix that transition.

The AI will recognize people entering the apartment, greeting them with their prefered lighting and temperature conditions, playing their preferred music, recording their favorite shows, and make their desired blend of coffee. It will even help reduce costs by monitoring electricity and gas usage. In short, it will be amazing.

If only it could drive me to work while I took a nap in the back seat.

grammar - Is it: My apples and orange are/is wrong?

Simple question:

My apples and orange are wrong

or

My apples and orange is wrong

I am not a native English speaker, and I am having some trouble choosing between plural are or singular is for that kind of example.

Answer

It's hard to conceive of a situation in which apples and oranges could be wrong, but let's suppose there is.

Assuming you really mean apples (plural) and orange (singular), the first construction is correct.

My apples and orange are wrong.

You are speaking of multiple things, and even if both were singular

My apple and orange are wrong.

the copula (verb of being) would still be plural.

Should one stick to American style of placing punctuation marks within quotes if one uses the American spelling?

According to Wikipedia, there are two ways to use punctation marks when it comes to quoting. Basically, we have the British style, where punctation marks that don't come from the quoted material "is put outside the quote", like I just did. In the American style, on the other hand, punctation marks that belongs to the original sentence, that the quoted material is put within, should be "placed within the quote itself," like I just did.

Now, I really, really, prefer the British style, since this is the way I've always done it, including when I write in my native language. However, at the same time, I prefer to use the american spelling and usage of words. Is this mixing behavior on my part acceptable?

It is mentioned in the Wikipedia article linked to above that "many American style guides specific to certain specialties, such as legal writing and linguistics, prefer British style." However, is there a general rule (or maybe a strong recommendation), for example if I'm just writing an essay or, I don't know, a blogpost, regarding how I can mix the different spellings and punctation mark rules?

Answer

Larry Trask deals with this question comprehensively here. Scroll down to the section beginning:

Finally, there remains the problem of whether to put other punctuation
marks inside or outside the quotation marks.