word choice - Correct usage of "which"/"that"

From what I understand the second sentence is correct, and the first is not. What are the rules on using which versus using that?

1. Instead it produces the above, which simply is a silent error.



2. Instead it produces the above, that is simply a silent error.

Answer

The notes about when to use which and that reported from the NOAD are the following:

In U.S. English, it is usually recommended that which be employed only for nonrestrictive (or nonessential) clauses: the horse, which is in the paddock, is six years old. (The which clause contains a nonessential fact, noted in passing; the horse would be six years old wherever it was.) A that clause is restrictive (or essential), as it identifies a particular thing: the horse that is in the paddock is six years old (not any horse, but the one in the paddock).

To notice that (in sentences similar to the ones you used as example) which is generally preceded by a comma, and that is generally not preceded by a comma.

What is the correct way to write multiple possessives, rather than the common way?

In the phrase, "Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar...," I believe Rice should end in 's, as Webber does, because the show is as much Rice's as it is his partner's. However, whenever I've seen multiple nouns in a possessive, the first noun does not have thhe 's. I cannot fine a grammar rule to address this. Is it a case in which people have written and said it wrong for so long, the incorrect use has become acceptable? Which use is correct?

word choice - "Expectations from" vs "Expectations for"

I have good expectations from traveling.

I have good expectations for traveling.

Which one is correct? From this post, it seems that "expectations for" is correct because we are talking about an "anticipated result in store with the future." However, "expectations from" sounds natural to me too.

Answer

This is all about past and future tense.

I have good expectations from traveling.

From infers that the speaker is drawing from experiences of travelling in the past on which they base their ideas (expectations) of a future journey.

I have good expectations for traveling.

The speaker has ideas for a future journey. There is no allusion of where they construct their expectations from.

What’s the subject and verb?

During these sessions, the court could rule on major issues, this time around that includes the case about whether race should be a factor when colleges decide which students to accept.

For ‘this time around ... which student to accept’, what’s the subject and verb?

Answer

Within the "when" clause, colleges is the subject, and decide is the verb.

grammar - When to add "the", "a" or when not to add "the" or "a"?

What's the difference (or correct way of saying it) between the followings:

1. "Review plan" vs "Review a plan" vs "Review the plan"?




2. "Agree on plan" vs "Agree on a plan" vs "Agree on the plan"




3. "Implementation of the plans" vs "Implementation of plans? vs "Implementation of plan"?

I suppose it boils down to when do you add "the" or "a" or not add it at all?

Answer

This isn't an academic answer, but a practical one based on the English language as it is used.

Review plan - this could be a name for an existing plan designed to review something. The name of the plan is 'Review Plan'. Or, it is shorthand or note form (perhaps in a 'To Do' list)

Review a plan - referring to a plan (any plan) being reviewed

Agree on plan - shorthand, note form (wouldn't be spoken). The correct usage in normal speech or writing is one of the other two (both are equally correct)

Implementation of the plans - the correct usage in formal writing or normal speech. The other two are both note form or shorthand.

grammar - The use of the perfect infinitive

Is there any difference between the following sentences?

It would never have occurred to Stormgren, even a few days before, that he could seriously have considered the action he was planning now.

and

It would never have occurred to Stormgren, even a few days before, that he could seriously consider the action he was planning now.

I feel like the perfect infinitive in boldface in the first sentence is redundant since it moves the action further back into the past. I'd personally go with the second sentence.

The quote is taken from Arthur Clarke's book "Childhood's End".

tenses - Are these two sentences grammatically correct?

Assumption: Samantha is not living in Berlin anymore. (Wasn't mentioned)
Fact: The Berlin wall came down in the year 1989.

1. 'Samantha lived in Berlin for more than two years. In fact, she was living there when the Berlin wall came down.'


2. 'Samantha has lived in Berlin for more than two years. In fact, she was living there when the Berlin wall came down.'

Questions:

1. It is stated on the site where I came across this sentence that the former sentence is correct; however, as we don't know the specific time interval when Samantha was living in Berlin, shouldn't we use the present perfect tense?


2. Which sentence is correct, or are they both correct? If both, then which is 'more correct' (or more commonly used)


3. Also, without the assumption mentioned above, shouldn't we use the present perfect progressive tense, as we don't know if Samantha is still living in Berlin?

Answer

Without the assumption (or, even better, facts) I wouldn't use either sentence.

Unless you do know that she is still living in Berlin, the first sentence is arguably more common—but only because, after twenty-eight years, it's more likely that she's left Berlin than remained.

From a purely grammatical perspective, neither is right nor wrong—but, from a practical perspective, neither should be stated without sure knowledge.

Even the first, although technically correct, has some semantic difficulty unless it's assumed or known that she left at some point.

If you really don't know if she's still there or not, and you want to write a sentence that is the most accurate (regardless of her current living arrangement), I would suggest something simple like this:

Samantha had been living in Berlin when the Berlin wall came down.

It doesn't make any assumptions at all, and it's perfect correct no matter what the current facts are. (Assuming that it, itself, is a true statement.)

---

As noted in a comment (and caught by me in a revision) the information about Samantha having lived in Berlin for over two years doesn't indicate when those two years took place. (In other words, how long she'd been there when the wall came down.) So, I removed that from my simplified sentence.

Gerund or infinitive / Difference in meaning

In my classes, the subject of gerunds and infinitives comes up. Students find this a confusing and frustrating subject. They accept that one can say "I like watching movies," or "I like to watch movies," but they will usually ask, "Which one should I use?" This question makes sense. I have seen most teachers answer this by saying "It doesn't matter, they both mean th same thing. Pick one that you like and use it."

I feel that there is a difference and that as native English speakers we intuitively know the difference and will choose the expression that conveys our meaning.

Sometimes, I feel that this choice is language mirroring. If someone asks you "What do you like doing," you will probably answer with the gerund, "I like watching." If they ask "What do you like to do," you will probably answer "I like to watch."

However, if you say to someone "Tell me about your interests," the person is free to answer, and some will give the gerund version and others will give the infinitive version.

My feeling is that infinitives express potential and gerunds express active things. If you say "I like to watch TV." it means that this is something you like but don't really do it that much. If you say "I like watching TV." it is probably something you do a lot. On the flip side, you could also interpret "I like watching TV." as you like the activity but it doesn't mean you do it. "I like mountain climbing," doesn't necessarily mean that I do it, have done it, or will do it.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

Answer

The verbs where you have a choice between gerund or to-infinitive is very limited, a handful I would say. Actually there is no difference whether you say I like cooking/I like to cook. But I assume the "cooking" is more frequent as you refer to a general kind of activity.

Comment added to this post
The to-infinitive has noun character. The "to" might have been the neutre form of the definite article , but gender was given up very early in English. As the gerund has verbal and noun character English has two possibilities for verb +object. The to-infinitive as object is more frequent, in some cases the speakers prefer the gerund. That is more a convential thing and a problem for learners, because there is no simple rule for gerunds in object-position.

single word requests - “Non-rhotic” is to R-droppers as “non-?????” is to L-droppers

Certain speakers of English have a tendency to “drop” L’s that occur after a vowel but before another consonant, as in balm, calm, golf, gulf, palm, wolf, and many more.

Often these aren’t completely dropped, but instead change the preceding vowel a little bit. So instead of wolf, they have woof; instead of palm they have pom or pawm; instead of golf, they have gawf.

People who drop their R’s in a similar position are said to have a non-rhotic pronunciation there, or to speak a non-rhotic dialect. What then is the corresponding term for someone who routinely drops their L’s, so “a non-????? speaker”? Lambdacism and lallation seem like dead ends.

This isn’t a new thing either, considering the historical L’s no longer heard in words like could and stalk. Whether it’s growing, I’m not sure, but perhaps so.

Answer

It would appear that the word you’re looking for is L-vocalization, which, to quote the wikipedia page on the topic, “is a process by which an [l] sound is replaced by a vowel or semivowel sound”, which appears to be what is being described here, specifically with regards to English L-vocalization — where “an /l/ sound occurring at the end of a word or before a consonant is replaced with the semivowel [w]”, such as the palm/pawm issue (the example given in the article is of milk [mIwk]).

I don’t think there is a term for someone who does this in the non-??? speaker fashion, although L-vocalizer could be a valid construction.

grammaticality - "Anyone has" or "anyone have" seen them?

So I thought I'm sure about this and my instincts say that: "If anyone has seen them .." would be right but then again when I said it like: "If anyone have seen them .." I started thinking which one would be the right one.

Can you please guide me through which is the right one and why?
P.S. English is not my first language.

Answer

It's "if anyone has", because "anyone" functions as third person singular. It probably just seems right to use "have" because you would for any other number or person.

grammar - Grammatical name/function of "what" in the following sentence

I came across this sentence fragment among the instructions for a writing lab report: "Simply describe what the data that you collected."

I feel like it should have an "are" at the end (minimally completing the sentence), or better, shouldn't have the "what" in the sentence.

How would you diagram that sentence if it read, "Simply describe what the data that you collected are."?

My best guess is the following:

• (You) -- implicit subject


• describe -- verb


• what the data that you collected are -- relative clause
  
  
  
  • what -- relative pronoun of relative clause
  
  
  
  • data -- subject of relative clause
  
  
  • are -- verb of relative clause
  
  
  • that you collected -- embedded relative clause
    
    
    
    • that -- relative pronoun of embedded relative clause
    
    
    • you -- subject of embedded relative clause
    
    
    • collected -- verb of embedded relative clause
    
    
  
  

apostrophe - Odd possessive form of a proper name: Why does Dryden write “Lord Nonsuch his” instead of “Lord Nonsuch’s” but “Bibber’s” instead of “Bibber his”?

While researching a question posed on EL&U, I came across this list of the characters in John Dryden’s The Wild Gallant (1663), from a 1735 collection of Dryden’s works:

DRAMATIS PERSONAE.

MEN.

Lord NONSUCH, an old rich humorous Lord.

...

BIBBER, a Taylor.

SETSTONE, a Jeweller.

WOMEN.

Lady CONSTANCE, Lord Nonsuch his Daughter.

Madam ISABELLA, her Cousin.

Mrs. BIBBER, the Taylor’s Wife.

I was struck by the fact that Mrs. Bibber is identified as “the Taylor’s Wife” while Lady Constance is described as “Lord Nonsuch his Daughter.” The chief difference that I see between the two is that “a Taylor” is a common noun (for the occupation of tailor), whereas “Lord Nonsuch” is a proper name.

In Act 1 Scene 1 of the play, a character named Failer repeats the formulation in a conversation with his fellow hanger-on Burr:

Failer. I gad we two have a constant Revenue out of him [Sir Timorous] : He would now be admitted Suitor to my Lady Constance Nonsuch, my Lord Nonsuch his Daughter ; our Neighbour here in Fleetstreet.

But less than a page later, this stage direction appears:

Enter Loveby and Boy ; followed by Frances, Bibber’s Wife.

Since Bibber is the tailor’s last name, it appears that Dryden is handling the two proper names by entirely different rules. Elsewhere in the play, Dryden has the character Loveby say “Call me at my Lord Nonsuch his house, and I’ll go with you,” and somewhat later he has some bailiffs say “We arrest you, Sir, at my Lord Nonsuch his Suit.” In contrast, Dryden has various characters refer to "Will Bibber's humour," "Madam Bibber's name," and "Mr. Bibber's name."

My question is, why does Dryden use these different forms to express a possessive: “Lord Nonsuch his” versus “Bibber’s”? Is “Lord Nonsuch his” a survival of an antiquated form that had died out by Dryden’s time except with regard to persons of eminence, or was it never common except in certain particular circumstances, or does some other circumstance explain the difference in treatment?

---

I am aware of a book from 1576 by George Pettie titled A Petite Pallace of Pettie his Pleasure, contayning many pretie Hystories by him, set foorth in comely Colours, and most delightfully discoursed, where "Pettie his Pleasure" seems equivalent to "Pettie's Pleasure."

And Robert Dodsley, Theatrical Records: or, An Account of English Dramatic Authors and Their Works (1756) has this item among the entries for Shakespeare:

The whole Contentione betweene the two famouse Houses of Lancastre and Yorke, wythe the Tragical End of the good Duke Humphrey, Richarde Duke of Yorke and Henrie the 6th. In two Partes.

These two Plays are printed without a Date, but we are assured they must be acted about this Time ; for at the End of Romeo and Juliet, printed for Andrew Wise in 1597, is the following Advertisement. At the Shoppe of Andrew Wyse, Mr. William Shakespeare his Henrie the 6th. in two Parts, may be boughte. The 3d Part is printed in 1600, but we make no Doubt that it was printed before that Date, tho' the Edition is not in our Possession.

But here again the wording “Shakespeare his Henrie the 6th" is old (from 1597). I also note that editions of Dryden’s works from as early as 1808 change “Lord Nonsuch his” to “Lord Nonsuch’s”).

And likewise from The Private Diary of Mr. John Dee (1842), an entry dated December 12, 1587, lists several books burned on a table, including these:

the copy of the man of Badwise Conclusions for the Transmution of metalls ; and 40 leaves in 4°, intitled, Extractiones Dunstani, which he himself extracted and noted out of Dunstan his boke, and the very boke of Dunstan was but cast on the bed hard by from the table.

So "Pettie his Pleasure," “Shakespeare his Henrie the 6th," and "Dunstan his boke" were all used in the sixteenth century. But I can't explain from these instances the differential treatment in 1663 of "Lord Nonsuch his daughter" and "Bibber's wife."

terminology - What is the English term for a word meaning a shortened/contracted version of itself?

I remember being taught this by my Literature teacher in school long ago but I can't remember the actual term, maybe complicated sounding like 'onomatopoeia'.

I don't mean apostrophes e.g. wouldn't.

An example is:

elongated = long,
where the second word can be formed by removing certain letters from the first word, and retain somewhat the original meaning.

A list of such words would also be cute.

Answer

...where the second word can be formed by removing certain letters from the first word

They're called Kangaroo words. The small synonyms are joeys.

From wikipedia:

A kangaroo word is a word that contains letters of another word, in order, with the same meaning. For example: the word masculine contains the word male, which is a synonym of the first word; similarly, the word observe contains its synonym see.

grammatical number - Question about correct verb

Which is correct:

All you need is two nights a week.
OR
All you need are two nights a week.

verb agreement - Can a collective noun denoting a collection of inanimate objects be treated as plural in British English?

This grammar page on ‘Matching verbs to collective nouns’ provided by Oxford Dictionaries says:

Collective nouns are nouns which stand for a group or collection of
people or things. They include words such as audience, committee,
police, crew, family, government, group, and team.

In American English, most collective nouns are treated as singular,
with a singular verb:

• √ The whole family was at the table.




• √ The government is doing a good job.




• √ He prefers an audience that arrives without expectations.

In British English, most collective nouns can be treated as singular
or plural:

• The whole family was at the table.[singular collective noun; singular
  verb]




• The whole family were at the table.[plural collective noun; plural
  verb]




• The government is doing a good job.[singular collective noun; singular
  verb]




• The government are doing a good job.[plural collective noun; plural
  verb]

There are a few collective nouns (in both British and American
English) that are always used with a plural verb, the most common of
which are police and people:

• √ She's happy with the way the police have handled the case.




• X She's happy with the way the police has handled the case.




• √ It's been my experience that people are generally forgiving.




• X It's been my experience that people is generally forgiving.

Although Oxford says collective nouns stand for a group or collection of things as well as people, every example word provided by Oxford stands for a group or collection of people only (audience, committee, police, crew, family, government, group, and team), possibly except for group, because there can be a group of things as well as a group of people.

In general, "things" can include animals as well as inanimate objects. But I don't think that the Oxford grammar editors intended to exclude inanimate objects from the "things". So, I'd like to interpret the "things" as inanimate objects.

Can you treat the collective noun 'group' denoting a collection of inanimate objects as plural in British English as follows?

A group are located on the mountain's south ridge. [Assuming that 'a group' here refers to a group of houses.]

Also, are there other collective nouns that denote a collection of inanimate objects that can be treated as plural in British English as shown by Oxford?

grammatical number - Should I use singular or plural after "there are many cases where"?

Should I use singular or plural after "there are many cases where"?

Example:

There are many cases where patient/patients lack/lacks the required
knowledge yet they/she work/works it out.

As we are speaking generally in this kind of sentences, singular sounds more natural. But then is it OK as "cases" is plural?

grammar - What is this ‘-ing’ structure?

Consider the following sentence:

The Bactrian camel is well adapted to the extreme climate of its
native Mongolia, having thick fur and underwool that keep it warm in
winter and also insulate against summer heat.

My question is about the italicized part. My usage of English is grounded mostly in “what feels right” and not in solid grammar knowledge, so I am struggling with this one. I have been using such structure quite frivolously myself, but I never knew an ‘official’ name for it, nor when it is appropriate. Here is a generic example:

Bob is a great guy, wanting to do great things no matter what the circumstances are.

Is this correct? What is this -ing ‘thing’ called, if it has a name? Could you briefly list when it is or isn’t appropriate to use a verb+ing form, perhaps noting the most common misuses or mistakes?

Answer

It’s called a participial phrase, specifically one using the present not the past participle. If you want more than that, you’ll have to chase down all about VPs (verb phrases) in English.

verbs - "They knew what mercy is" vs. "they knew what mercy was"

They knew what mercy is.
They knew what mercy was.

Mercy is something that always exists so can I say is as in the quoted example?

Referring to an event that occurred before another event in the past

I'm writing about an event(A) in the past and relating this to another event (B) which occurred before the first event. Which is a better way to frame this:

In the backdrop of the September 11 attacks which happened two months ago, the capture of Kabul ...

Is it better to use 'prior' or 'earlier' instead of 'ago'?

nouns - Capitalisation in texts where the title is also a concept that is referred to within the text?

I'm going to use Karpman's drama triangle as an example for my question because I can't seem to find any consistency around its capitalisation (although I'll admit I don't own the book).

Say you have a book, in this example, 'The Drama Triangle', and you also refer to the drama triangle within the text because it's the key concept. Is it correct to capitalise it because it's the title of the book, or incorrect because it's not a proper noun? Or does it become a proper noun in this case? And if it should be capitalised, should 'the' be capitalised as well?

For example, 'breaking The Drama Triangle', 'when using The Triangle', and so on.

I barely know what to look up to research this. The closest I can find seems to be this question, which suggests the title including 'the' would be capitalised as it's part of the name. I really am confused so any help would be appreciated, thank you.

Answer

Here are a few guidelines:

1. The first word of any sentence is normally always capitalized. Regardless of whether or not the would otherwise be capitalized, it is capitalized if the sentence starts with it.




2. You generally always capitalize every part of a proper noun. (Some people or organizations might use different styling in the use of their own proper nouns. But some words within a proper noun not being capitalized would be a case-by-case exception.)




3. When you use title caps, every word in the title is capitalized except for articles and some prepositions that are not part of proper nouns. The specific rules vary from one style guide to another.




4. Any word not capitalized because of the first three guidelines would normally be in lowercase.




5. Particular styling for the sake of unique presentation can always change any of these guidelines.

Here are some examples:

• It's true that President Trump is the president of the United States.


• The United States is made up of united states.


• The book The Drama Triangle talks about drama, triangles, and a particular drama triangle that's known as The Drama Triangle. It discusses the reasons why the drama triangle to be given this special status is so complicated.


• Bruce Springsteen is known as The Boss. Whenever The Boss comes to town, the boss of my company takes us out to see him.

---

From the official White House website (emphasis mine):

Every president since John Adams has occupied the White House, and the history of this building extends far beyond the construction of its walls.

Note the capitalization. Although most sentences on the website start with the phrase The White House, so it appears as if the article is part of the proper noun, in this sentence it's clear that it isn't—the article is only capitalized when it appeared as the first word in a sentence. As in this sentence, when it is not used at the start, it becomes clear that the proper name of the building is White House, not The White House—even though we add a the in front of it anyway for the sake of grammar.

However, this is arbitrary. Those people who coined the name of the white house might have chosen to name it The White House instead, making the article part of its actual name. In that case, it would appear with a capital The in the middle of sentences as well.

This follows my example of Bruce Springsteen. His nickname isn't Boss, it's actually (deliberately) The Boss.

---

Note that sometimes what sounds natural can supersede what is technically correct from a syntactical point of view.

For example:

✔ Those are the Gucci shoes I was talking about.

Here, we have a proper noun acting to modify a common noun.

But while the next sentence follows the same syntactical rule, it doesn't look right:

？ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about.

Even though the second article is not actually an article per se (it's part of a name), it's not possible to look at the duplication and think it's appropriate. If something is technically correct, but is still incredibly awkward, it's better to rephrase it.

In this case, we could omit one or the other word (knowing the meaning would be understood anyway) or we could actually restructure the sentence so it's not awkward to start with:

✔ That is the ticket to The Boss I was talking about.
✔ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about.
✔ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about.

In the last two sentences, we know perfectly well which words should be capitalized—it's just that we're choosing to omit one or the other for the sake of comprehension. (And which we omit would be a matter of style or personal choice.)

grammaticality - How to phrase "my time and Bob's time" more succinctly?

I can say "Bob and I are going" instead of "I'm going and Bob is going." I want to say something like "This is a waste of my time and Bob's time," but only saying "time" once. I can't say "our" because I'm introducing the other person's name in this sentence. The best I can think of is "This is a waste of me and Bob's time," but that seems incorrect.

Answer

Something like

Bob's and my time

or (less common)

Bob's time and mine?

Omissions of indefinite articles

I've noticed that today lots of publications, such as textbook, newspapers, magazines, etc, often don't use the indefinite articles "a", "an" with indefinite singular and countable nouns especially in adverbial phrases and clauses. I don't see any consistency in the use along with a strict following of a grammar rule - every countable singular noun should be preceded by an article (with exceptions).

Examples from media:

The CDC came under scrutiny last year

...delaying life events like marriage, having a child, buying a home,
or starting a business...

...prospective students put cost at the top of their priority list.

The University of Oslo says Friday July 17, 2015, convicted mass
killer Anders Behring Breivik has been admitted to...

...as O'Malley, a former Maryland governor, was interviewed on stage.

... and she was taken to county jail.

Buckingham Palace voiced disappointment after...

All the aforementioned nouns in bold can be used as plurals, which means they need an article when singular.

Please help understand.

Answer

This is known as Zero-marking.

And it isn't just the omission of indefinite articles, it's the omission of the article completely. In all of your examples you could still have used a definite article... or an indefinite one.

of genitive - Noun case and case usage for "of you" in the clause "that was kind of you"

The clause or sentence, "That was kind of you," uses what seems like a genitive case "of you", but I'm not sure what type of genitive it should be considered.

The form of the answer I'm looking for is "CASE: case-use", i.e. "Genitive: apposition" or "Genitive: genitive nominative" or "Genitive: subject".

Research:

1. Nouns in English fall into one of five commonly-accepted "cases": Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, and Vocative. The preposition "of" usually allies with Genitive, and I think it would be Genitive here since it is a matter of the nature, substance, and origin for "of you". If I'm wrong, please say so.




2. But, Genitive nouns can be used different ways. A cup "of water" is about contents or substance, being "Genitive: Substance" or "Genitive: Contents". We talked "about you" treats "you" as a direct object, but it has a Genitive way of being in the sentence, so it would be "Genitive: Direct Object". What would be the use here?

I would think it would be a "Genitive: Subject" because "That was kind of you" technically has "that" as the subject, but "you" is the word who actually was the subject of whatever action was deemed kind.

As for the "close" vote that wanted more research, I consider that an "elaboration", but if it's all the same, can the community please weigh in on the actual question and share knowledge please? If not, is it alright if I answer the question myself. Please what does everyone think?

I later edited to include, to be complete in background: These "5 noun cases" I refer to may be seen in English Grammar for Language Students by Frank Xavier Braun, but his explanation was brief, which is why I ask here. TY all for helping me clarify my very first question on this forum!

Answer

In "kind of you", "you" is (apparently) an "experiencer NP"

According to "Predicate-Argument Structure of English Adjectives", by Akira Ikeya, the prepositional phrase headed by of in an adjective phrase like "kind of you" expresses the "thematic dimension" of the adjective, and has the thematic role of "experiencer" (2.2.3.1).

I found another post on this site that also seems to suggest that the object of "of" in these contexts might be categorized as an "experiencer NP": John Lawler's answer to the question "How does the to infinitive work with adjectives like “wrong” and “wise”?.

The predicate adjectives (be) wrong and (be) wise are flip psychological predicates, which means they have an experiencer argument, which may be the subject, as in the first sentences above.

But the experiencer NP can also be expressed as the object of a preposition (of with these predicates) [...] This experiencer NP is coreferential here with the subject of [a following] infinitive clause.

I'm pretty mystified by the meaning of "experiencer" in this context: I would guess that it is some kind of jargon, since it doesn't make much intuitive sense to me to call the person who is being kind an "experiencer". But maybe you will be able to find some explanation if you look at some more sources that use this term.

There may be some more relevant information in "Syntax and Semantics of of in the Construction "It is A(djective) of NP to VP"-Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches", by Fuminori Matsubara (2000). Matsubara agrees with CGEL (quoted in Shoe's answer) in classifying the "of" prepositional phrase in this construction as a complement of the preceding adjective (p. 72).

Matsubara says

we can summarize the semantic characteristics
of of and the relation between the adjective and of NP in
this construction, as in (26) and (27), respectively:

(26) The core meaning of of:

Of denotes Provenance and Inherence of something

characterized by an adjective.

(27) The relation between the adjective and of NP:

Of NP is selected by the preceding adjective as its
complement.

(p. 79)

The idea that of denotes "Provenance and Inherence" is attributed to "Hosoe (1942: 35, fn. 1/103, fn. 1)"; the cited source is given as "Hosoe, I. (1942) An Advanced English Syntax, Taibundo, Tokyo."

There seem to be references to other relevant papers in section 2.1.1. of The Description of Adjectives for Natural Language
Processing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives. I particularly want to get my hands on "Arnold, D., Theoretical and descriptive issues in machine Translation, Phd dissertation, University of
Essex, 1989" and "Silva, G. and S.A. Thompson, “On the syntax of adjectives with ‘it’ subject and infinitival complements
in English”, in : Studies in Language, 1:1, 1977, pp. 109-126," but I haven't yet.

Other adjectives like kind

The prepositional phrase "of you" acts as the complement of the adjective "kind" in the sentence "That was kind of you". The grammar of complements often depends on the identity of the head word, so I think that it would help to look at the grammar of the adjective kind.

There are a number of other adjectives that behave similarly to "kind", and I am familiar with some literature on this category of adjectives that I summarize in my answer to the question "Is the sentence “Queueing is so thoughtful of you.” grammatically correct?"

Based on the literature that I have been able to find so far, there seems to have been more interest in explaining how the adjective and prepositional phrase relate to a following to-infinitive (as in "It was kind of you to do that") than in explaining how the of-prepositional phrase functions.

Why I avoided using the term "genitive" in this answer

A side point: I think I would disagree about modern English having five cases. That analysis seems overly based on the grammar of other European languages. No English word has a distinct vocative form, or a dative form that is distinct from the accusative form. Furthermore, the functions that are carried out by the "genitive" form in other languages are divided among several distinct constructions in English: e.g. our, ours, of us, of ours. So I would call "of you" a prepositional phrase (headed by the preposition of) and avoid calling it any kind of genitive.

I don't think this really affects the substance of your question much, if at all: I have just treated it as equivalent to the question "what kind of prepositional phrase is 'of you'?"

grammar - Is the preposition "in" needed here? "Find the jury sheet in pertaining to..."

1. 
   

   Find the jury sheet in pertaining to the sports event held at central sports club between 6:30 am and 8:00 am today.

   
   




2. 
   

   Find the jury sheet pertaining to the sports event held at central sports club between 6:30 am and 8:00 am today.

   
   

Which of above two lines are more grammatically correct to write?

grammatical number - "production and incorporation of X as Y 'have' or 'has' been widespread"?

Which word is appropriate to use in the following sentence, have or has?

Production and incorporation of the polymeric materials as modern
materials in the civil engineering [have or has] been widespread.

grammatical number - What is the correct plural form for multiple bachelor degrees?

I am helping a former intern ready their resume for distribution. The candidate used an abbreviation I was unfamiliar with:

B.S.s in Physics, Computer Science, and Mathematics

I am familiar with the student's educational background so after a moment of thought realized "B.S.s" was their attempt to indicate multiple bachelor of science degrees. That said I can see those unfamiliar with the student's background being confused. Unfortunately, I do not know how to provide the correct punctuation to indicate the correct grammatical number for multiple degrees in the same discipline.

What is the correct plural form for multiple bachelor degrees? Additionally, are there variations for other degree levels: associates, masters, Ph.D, etc.? In addition to the abbreviation what's the correct way to indicate plurality for the unabbreviated form?

Answer

I think this may be one of the rare cases where 's is used to denote plurality:

B.S.'s

This seems to be supported by a bunch of places:

and many more.

computing - Is there a verb that reverses the source and the result of rendering (e.g. rendering a document from a template)?

Suppose I have a template for creating documents, and I want to render a document from the template. It would be grammatically correct to call this action "rendering a document" or "rendering a document from a template," but calling it "rendering a template" or "template rendering" would be grammatically incorrect, because the template isn't the object that's being produced -- it is the source from which the document is being produced.

Is there a verb that represents the action being done to the template when the document is rendered from it?

etymology - Talkies, Motion Pictures, Movies, Films and 3D

The term talkies, i.e. talking pictures, I was surprised to learn was not coined in 1927 after the release of The Jazz Singer, but in 1913. The term is now obsolete whereas motion picture, meaning moving pictures on a screen, has existed since 1896, although it's become more dated. Movie, its shortened and more modern version, dated possibly from 1908, is still very much in vogue in the US.

The Online Etymology Dictionary says that film (the more popular BrEng equivalent for movie) was

First used of "motion pictures" in 1905.

British speakers will say:

1. Have you seen the new James Bond film?




2. We watched a film about prison life.




3. The film was made on location in India.

American speakers, if I'm not mistaken, will use film in sentence number two, and movie in the others. Movie is connected more with entertainment, whereas film is considered more of an art form, an undergraduate will take Film & Media Studies, not Movies & Media Studies.

My questions:

• I'd like to know when the term talkies as in "talking pictures" died out. When was it no longer considered a novelty and people reverted back to saying motion pictures/movies?


• Why the term, film, was adopted by British speakers and most European countries when motion pictures is arguably the authentic expression and therefore, the more accurate term.


• Lastly, which term is more common: 3D film or 3D movie? (The latter does sound odd to my ears.)

grammaticality - "Julio and I" vs "I and Julio"

"Julio and I went to the schoolyard." is a valid sentence.

How about "I and Julio went to the schoolyard."?

It's impolite (putting yourself first) and awkward, but is it
grammatically incorrect?

[I realize the original lyric "see me and Julio..." is a grammatically
correct imperative sentence]

Answer

It's impolite (putting yourself first) and awkward, but it is correct grammatically.

articles - 'A' or 'an' before word in parentheses

If you have a word with an abjective between parentheses where you would normally use an instead of a, should you do this in this case too?

It's a little hard for me to explain, so here a concrete example: (acoustic) piano.

Should it be a (acoustic) piano or an (acoustic) piano, since you can choose to not pronounce acoustic?

omissibility - Has 'there' been omitted?

I want to explain my problem by the following sentence.

Among those scientists recently exploring 'terra cognita' were psychologists from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.

1. In that sentence, what is the subject of the auxiliary verb "were"? I think, subject of auxiliary verb is 'there' and it has been omitted in this sentence. Am I right?




2. If I wish to place 'that/who' before the word 'exploring' in that sentence, will it be legal? And if I do this, the form of 'exploring' will be 'explore'. Am I right?

time - How to express worry about a near date?

Let's say John and I agreed that at April 6h he and I would have a work done. Thus, I would like to send him an e-mail saying something like this:

Hi John,

1. the agreed date is approaching. Do you have any news for me?




2. the agreed date is coming. Do you have any news for me?




3. we are quickly reaching the agreed date. Do you have any news for me?

How could I express this and sound like an American native speaker?

Answer

I'd rewrite it as the following. I partly agree with @Josh, except I would change his version to "As the deadline is drawing near, I was wondering if you have any news for me" (as opposed to "deadline date", which in my opinion is a bit redundant).

As the agreed-upon date/deadline is quickly/rapidly approaching, I was wondering if you have any news/updates for me.

Note that in the above sentence, it's your choice whether you use "quickly" or "rapidly", "date" or "deadline", or "news" or "updates". I just thought I'd give you some more options to work with.

verbs - When do you use "Did + 1st form" instead of "2nd form"

I often notice such sentences as:
"EEG did show tumors"(from this week House M.D.)
Why not "EEG showed tumors"? Is that form used to emphasize something?

Answer

Your guess is correct. Normally a simple indicative statement like this doesn't use the word did:

The EEG showed tumors.

However, when you want to emphasize the fact that the result was positive, you can use the auxiliary did:

The EEG did show tumors.

This puts extra weight on the fact that the tumors really were found. If you listen closely, you'll probably also hear the actors putting extra emphasis on the word did in this construction.

Why is the subjunctive mood used in this sentence?

"Flesh," said the boy, and he pronounced the word with slow relish, as though he were tasting it.

I was analyzing this sentence with my high school class, and one student pointed out that "he were" should be "he was." I didn't know how to respond to the student, but I have since discovered that the subjunctive mood is being used.

Are there any ideas at to why the author would be using subjunctive mood in this case?

word choice - "He is I" vs "He is me"

A while ago I heard a preacher say during a speech the following personal anecdote:

When I arrived at the Atlanta airport, I saw a man with my name written on a card approach me and say 'are you reverend G…?' And I said 'He is I'…

He is I? Is that correct? I guess if we apply the rule “when the pronoun is the subject of a verb” it might be technically correct, but even Shakespeare wrote “Oh, woe is me.…” not “woe is I.”

I wonder if the preacher knocked at doors saying “it is I.”

grammar - Generalised rule for verb usage in simple present tense using participle

I'm doing a school exercise where I have to give an explanation of the underlined (or in this case bold) verb usage in given sentences, following this format:

I was waiting.

past continuous (or progressive) =
subject + was / were + verb + ‘-ing’ (or present participle)

The last sentence I am to anaylse is giving me trouble:

Toyota cars are made in Japan.

I've indentified the tense as present simple, and cars is clearly the subject, and "are" at least one of the verbs. But what is the rule for past participles in simple present tense? I've done fairly extensive searches online and found grammar websites that give examples of the same format as present simple tense, but none that give any explanation or rule for how the past participle is used in this case.

My best guess for the desired analysis is:

cars are made

Simple present =
subject + is / are + past participle

But this is only an inference, and I don't know if it accurately reflects any actual grammatical rule.

Any help will be appreciated. (And don't worry, I'm allowed to use the internet, several links are even included with the exercise, so you're not helping me cheat)

prepositional phrases - Wikipedia's definition of "Adverbial"

On the Wikipedia page for Adverbials, it says [emphasis mine]

In grammar an adverbial is a word (an adverb) or a group of words (an adverbial phrase or an adverbial clause) that modifies or tells us something about the sentence or the verb.

Further down the page it says that “in the water” is an adverbial complement in:

John put the flowers in the water
_^Wikipedia

But in the sentence above, “in the water” is not a modifier of the verb put. It is a complement and a prepositional phrase because it begins with the preposition in. Why is it called an adverbial? If we remove the complement we are left with:

*John put the flowers.

This sentence is clearly incomplete. If we use an adverb instead of in the water we have:

John put the flowers here.

The sentence makes sense, here is an adverb, and it tells the listener “where” the flowers are put. According to Wikipedia an adverbial is either an adverb or a group of words, so is here also an adverbial? Considering its position within the sentence, does here also function as a complement? If I add further information is it an adverbial phrase, or something else?

John put the flowers here in this vase.

The subject of the clause is John, the verb is put (past simple), the flowers is the direct object, and “here in this vase” is: What?

Questions

1. Why does Wikipedia say in the water is an adverbial?


2. Is “here” also acting as a(n) (adverbial) complement?


3. Is in this vase the modifier of the object (the flowers) or the verb? How do I tell?


4. What effect does the adverb, here, have on the sentence?


5. Is here in this vase an adverbial phrase, or an adverbial complement. Is it called something else?

---

_{This post was adapted and inspired by an edit (now deleted) in the question: Adverbial phrase. For those who wish to see the original "edit" see the meta post here.}

Once you've introduce an acronym / initialism should you always use it?

When writing a large document with technical terminology (in this example I'll use 'Content Management System') I would use the full term itself and alongside introduce the acronym / initialism:

...When using your Content Management System (CMS) you should first....

However, once I've done this should I always refer to it by the initialism throughout the document, or is it advised to refer to the term by its full name at periods throughout the text?

I don't want people getting confused by the term if they repeatedly come across it and not understanding what it means, so would be tempted to occasionally reuse the full 'Content Management System' wording in order to associate that with the initalism again, but then equally I don't want people thinking "they've already told us what CMS means, why are they using the full words again?"

Should I just stick with the initialism throughout?

Answer

You should just use the abbreviation in almost every case the rest of the way through. It is a technical document and you have already given context on the abbreviation. Not only is the user expecting you to use it but by using it you are making the user more familiar with the term. By jumping back and forth you are confusing the reader and you are making them read more.

The case where it would be used again is if you were discuss what a Content Management System is or something like that.

adjectives - new difficult question or difficult new question?

I want to know which one is correct ?
"New" is age and "Difficult" is observation so it should be difficult new question but I think it's not ! why?

Questions about using "to+ ing"

I heard this sentence in a film:

We are one step closer to ending this.

I do not know why we have to use "ending" instead of "end".

Is "Step to" a phrasal verb?

word usage - When I'm referencing a undefined person, when should I use "she" or "he"?

This is something I realized in some text I read (books and articles), I don't identify it when speaking to people. When a pronoun is used replacing an undefined person sometimes "he" is used (I would say most of the time) and others "she" is used. Like in the sentence "The user is very clever, she found an error.", in formal Portuguese writing the pronouns for undefined person are always masculin, is it optional for English?

grammaticality - Collective nouns treated as singular and plural in the same sentence

I have a problem with a sentence in a news announcement I'm writing. This is the sentence:

1) Company X is expanding and hires Person Y as their new CEO.

I've previously understood that it is correct to treat collective nouns, the company in this case, as singular or plural depending on if one refers to "the company itself" or "the people in the company". In this case, I'm referring to both (the company in itself is expanding, but the people are hiring someone as their new CEO). As such, the number of the pronoun does not agree with the number of the verb.

Two other possible versions that don't sound as right as the above are:

2) Company X is expanding and hire Person Y as their new CEO.

3) Company X is expanding and hires Person Y as its new CEO.

Which one is correct / do you prefer?

grammar - A question to ask about birth rank or serial number

Are you the third of your parents' children? or the second issue?

Or, you are the third guy, eh?

What is the question for which "he came third in the race" is an answer?.

Instead of resorting to such a questioning is there a single word to interrogatively seek information of placement on a time marker line ?

All Indian languages have such a word, none in English afaik..

grammatical number - Grammar: Singular Plural subject

In the sentence below, would this be considered a singular subject or a plural subject?

"Looking forward to the excitement, and the wonderful appearing of the great King and our teacher, Mr. Jones."

King & Mr. Jones = 1 person

King & Mr. Jones = 2 persons

** I've been told that the comma after "teacher" makes it a plural subject. Is this correct?

If true, is that the only thing that makes the sentence a plural subject?

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.

american english - What source explains the different pronunciations of "hol" in "alcohol" and "hollow"?

According to Merriam-Webster, the pronunciation of alcohol is "ˈal-kə-ˌhȯl" while the pronunciation of hollow is "ˈhä-(ˌ)lō." Why are they pronounced with different vowels? I think I've figured out the reason (my explanation is further below) but I haven't been able to find any source to confirm my guess.

Background explanation of the two sounds /ɑ/ and /ɔ/ in American English

In case you're wondering how they could possibly be pronounced differently, or what Merriam-Webster's pronunciation symbols mean, here is some background information. For many American English speakers, the words "cot" and "caught" don't rhyme because they have different vowels. (For many others, they do: speakers like this have merged the vowels.) In this question, I'll use the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) and follow the usual convention of representing the North American vowel in words like "cot" and "lot" as /ɑ/ and the vowel in words like "caught" and "thought" as /ɔ/ (for speakers who have not merged this vowel with with /ɑ/). Standard British English also makes this distinction, but uses slightly different vowels; the usual IPA transcription for the British "cot"/"lot" vowel is therefore slightly different (it's /ɒ/) and the British "thought" vowel is standardly transcribed as /ɔː/ (with a vowel length marker ː). Anyway, Merriam-Webster uses a different transcription system that represents the vowel in cot (IPA /ɑ/) as \ä\ and the one in caught (IPA /ɔ/) as \ȯ\.

Generally speaking, the "lot" vowel, /ɑ/ (or for British speakers, /ɒ/), is used in words spelled with "short o" (like don, cot, body), and the "thought" vowel, /ɔ/, is used in words spelled with "aw" or "au" (such as dawn, caught, bawdy). There are several other more minor spelling patterns that you can generally find described in works on English phonology.

Background explanation of the lot-cloth split

The most important exception to the generalization I made above is that certain specific words spelled with "short o" in American English are pronounced with /ɔ/ instead of /ɑ/. This group of words is exemplified by the word "cloth" /klɔθ/, and is the result of a historical sound change, the LOT-CLOTH split, that has gone to completion in American English, but not in British English. Generally, the sound change occured in specific, predictable contexts.

Wikipedia says:

The lengthening and raising generally happened before the fricatives
/f/, /θ/ and /s/. In American English the raising was extended to the
environment before /ŋ/ and /ɡ/, and in a few words before /k/ as well,
giving pronunciations like /lɔːŋ/ for long, /dɔːɡ/ for dog and
/ˈtʃɔːklᵻt/ for chocolate.

All the sources I have found agree with this: they say that this change affected "short o" before the sounds f, th, s, ng, g, and a handful of words with n (gone and on).

An odd spelling pattern: ol at the end of a word

I have not found any source that says that words spelled with "ol" are included in the "cloth" set. As you can see, Wikipedia doesn't mention words like "alcohol" or "golf," and even though I've done some Google searches to look for more information on the "cloth" set, I didn't find anything that discusses "ol" words.

The dictionaries that I've looked at only list /ɒl/ in the British pronunciations of these words; I would expect this to correspond to American English /ɑl/ (as it does in the words dollar /ˈdɑlər/ and tolerate /ˈtɑləˌreɪt/).

However, I have found many words spelled with "ol," such as alcohol, parasol and aerosol, that dictionaries say are pronounced in American English with /ɔl/ (as if they were spelled with "awl").

What I think the reason is

I believe I have identified the condition for this sound change, thanks to the helpful comments from people like Peter Shor who described their pronunciations. The /ɔl/ pronunciation seems to occur mainly when "ol" is at the end of a word or before a consonant. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the preceding consonant: complare golf, alcohol, aerosol (all words that may be pronounced with /ɔl/), and golliwog, hollow, solid (words that as far as I can tell are always pronounced with /ɑl/).

Pronunciations with /ɔl/ are listed for a few words where the "l" is between vowels, such as alcoholic and cytosolic, but when this occurs it always seems to be due to analogy from the above set of words (Merriam Webster only lists a pronunciation with /ɑl/ for melancholic, which does not have a corresponding noun melanchol to influence its pronunciation).

What I still would like to know

1. Is there any source that mentions the existence of this sound change before /l/?


2. When did words like "alcohol" start to be pronounced with the sound /ɔl/? Some parts of the LOT-CLOTH split are attested in earlier British English (like "orphan"/"often"); are there any parallel attested cases of British /ɔl/ instead of /ɒl/? I'd guess not, since as far as I know lengthening before /ŋ/ and /ɡ/ never occured in British dialects.


3. Is the pronunciation with /ɔl/ currently universal (for at least some words) among American speakers without the cot-caught merger, or do some of them pronounce "ol" as /ɑl/ exclusively? In other words, are there any American English speakers for whom "alcohol" does not rhyme with "all"? Are there any speakers that use /ɑl/ in some of these words, and /ɔl/ in others? Merriam-Webster only records /ɔl/ for "alcohol," but for many other words like this it records both /ɑl/ and /ɔl/ as alternate pronunciations. It also only records /ɔl/ for words like "awl." If we assume this is 100% accurate, it would mean there are some speakers that have /ɔl/ in "alcohol" but /ɑl/ in other words, such as "alcoholic." However, I'm not sure that it is accurate, and in any case, it still doesn't clearly describe the overall pattern of variation that would be expected from a single speaker.

As a bonus, I would appreciate if an answer addressed the phonetic reason for this sound change. Is it due to the lengthening process that seems to have created most of the rest of the CLOTH set? Or is it a separate change caused by the rounding/backing effect of "dark l"? Ben Trawick-Smith has a post about "The Cloth Set" on his dialect blog where he suggests that velarization may have been the reason "o" is pronounced /ɔ/ before some words with /ŋ/, /ɡ/, and /n/; since "dark l" is velarized, this seems like it would also be applicable here.

Examples

Here is a list of words spelled with "ol" that are, or can be, pronounced with /ɔl/. I consulted online versions of the Merriam-Webster dictionary (MW), the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (OALD), and the American Heritage Dictionary (AHD):

Two pronunciations /ɔl/, /oʊl/ listed in MW, AHD

thymol

Two pronunciations /ɔl/, /oʊl/ listed in MW; only /ɔl/ listed in AHD

menthol

Two pronunciations /ɔl/, /oʊl/ listed in MW; three pronunciations /ɔl/, /oʊl/, /ɑl/ listed in AHD

ethanol
methanol

Two pronunciations /oʊl/, /ɔl/ listed in MW; two pronunciations /ɔl/, /ɑl/ listed in AHD

diol

Only /ɔl/ listed in MW; /ɔl/, /ɑl/ listed in AHD and OALD:

alcohol
alcoholism (pronunciation with \-kə-hə-\ also listed by MW)

Two pronunciations /ɔl/, /ɑl/ listed (MW, AHD, OALD all agree):

alcoholic
workaholic, workaholism
parasol

Two pronunciations listed: /ɔl/, /ɑl/ in MW, AHD and /ɑl/, /ɔl/ in OALD

chocoholic/chocaholic

Two pronunciations listed: /ɑl/, /ɔl/ in MW and /ɔl/, /ɑl/ in AHD, OALD

aerosol

Two pronunciations /ɑl/, /ɔl/ listed (MW, AHD, OALD all agree):

golf (MW says l can be dropped)
solv- in solve, absolve, resolve, solvent, solvency...

Two pronunciations /ɑl/, /ɔl/ listed in MW, OALD; only /ɑl/ listed in AHD:

-volv- in evolve, revolve, involve, devolve...

Two pronunciations /ɑl/, /ɔl/ listed in MW, AHD; only /ɑ/ listed in OALD:

dolphin

Two pronunciations /ɑl/, /ɔl/ listed in MW; only /ɑ/ listed in AHD, OALD:

doll
moll

Two pronunciations /ɑl/, /ɔl/ listed in MW; no entries in OALD

sol (as a unit of currency, or "a fluid colloidal system") 
cytosol, cytosolic
hydrosol

Similar words for which MW only lists /ɑl/

Sol (the Roman god) (AHD lists /ɑl/, /oʊl/)
pol (short for "politician") (AHD lists only /ɔl/)

For comparison:

Similar words for which dictionaries list only /ɑl/, not /ɔl/ (MW, AHD, OALD all agree)

col
loll
hydrosolic (not in OALD)

melancholic

metabolic
vitriolic 
diastolic

Similar words MW, AHD list with /ɑl/,/oʊl/ (but not /ɔl/)

olfaction, olfactory

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.

possessives - User’s Guide vs Users’ Guide

I’ve been looking over what has been posted regarding the use of ’s.

I used to be a Technical Writer (years ago). The title of one of our training documents was Users’ Guide. Once, a coworker said every time he saw that title he expected users to start coming.

Never made any sense to me, but I have to admit that the majority of us didn't understand the use of s’ in place of ’s. What is the difference?

differences - I like "the" music or I like music?

1. I like music.


2. I like the music.

I know the difference between the previous two sentences is that 'the music' is specifically talking about a music.

Is there any more difference in meaning? Can you tell me some cases where the definite article isn't required?

Answer

I think you got it just fine:


You use the article when refering to some specific instance of something,

without article, you are making a general statement, often about the type of something.

Some examples:

"I like fish" (...but don't like pork) vs. "I like the fish" (...which is on my plate.)

"I dread christmas" (...because it's always such a hassle) vs. "I dread this christmas" (...because my Mum died last month.)

"I see clouds" (here, whereas you, somewhere else, see sunshine.) vs. "I see the clouds" (...threatening to rain on my laundry and yours.)

grammar - Serial is produced by ... and me

At the end of every episode of Serial, Sarah Koenig says:

Serial is produced by Julie Snyder, Dana Chivvis and me.

The word "me" sounds wrong to me there. Is it? If it's wrong, what is correct there - myself, I, or me but in a different location? And if it's not wrong - why not?

Answer

I'm quite certain that "me" is correct here, and in fact I have absolutely no problem reading or hearing it. Personally, I'm not sure why the confusion.

To use "myself" in this case would come across to me as someone trying to sound more formal or more "proper" and making a misstep in doing so.

Really, "myself" should only be used reflexively when the same person is both the subject and the object: "I washed myself" rather than "I washed me" but "I washed her" rather than "I washed herself".

In the case of your example, it is just a straightforward objective pronoun, and so "me" is correct. The inclusion of other people pushes "me" to the end of the list out of politeness, but has no other bearing at all.

(Note, "myself" can also be used as an intensifier, but it doesn't seem necessary to expand on that here.)

grammaticality - Jameson whiskey commercial construction with implicit verb

While watching the Daily Show, a commercial came on. Here is the construction:

"...When the Hawk of Achill took a barrel of John Jameson's whiskey, well that was another matter. But Jameson was generous, the Hawk, greedy, very greedy..."

The issue is "Jameson was generous, the hawk greedy." There is no verb in the second construction, and we are asked to fill in the verb from context. This is a no-no in a generative description of English grammar.

Are these sentences acceptable English?

1. "The doctor put his gown on the table; the nurse, on the cabinet."


2. "The soldier eats his bread with cheese; the general, with caviar."


3. "The soldier eats his bread with cheese; the general, his pita with olives"


4. "The bum sleeps in the streets; the oil magnate comfortably, without snoring, in a bed with sheets."



5. "The maid spreads the sheet on the bed; my kitchen knife butter on the bread."


6. "He pitted the two contestents in battle; she, a date"


7. "He drove a car; she, a point home."


8. "The surgeon walks to surgery, quickly, and without thinking about all the patients that he lost over the years; John, on the beach."

Is there a discussion of the rules for mystery implicit verbs? Has anyone encountered an implicit verb construction in a newspaper context?

Answer

As others have said, there's nothing wrong with the construct of sentence in the ad. It reads gruffly, which works well in the context of the ad. Your sentences, meanwhile, are more of a mixed bag:

The soldier eats his bread with cheese, the general, with caviar.

I have no problem with this one, although, as John and JLG said, a semi-colon should be used after the word cheese.

He drove a car, she, a point home.

This one reads like a clever pun. I'm reminded of Groucho Marx: "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

"The surgeon walks to surgery, quickly, and without thinking about
all the patients that he lost over the years, John on the beach."

Um, no. It's not wrong per se, but it reads as if you were trying to deliberately stretch the rules. It reads awkward, because the two parts clash as unrelated. Just because you can write this way, doesn't mean you should.

"The doctor put his gown on the table, the nurse, on the cabinet."

Wait... the doctor put the nurse on the cabinet? Then what happened? (This reminds me of some of those humorous newspaper headlines, like "4-H Girls Win Prizes for Fat Calves").

capitalization - Title for student organization

I'm updating the website for my student organization. Link. Officially, we are the Texas A&M University Student Branch of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

The banner at the top has the title of the national organization, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a subtitle describing this organization:

A Professional Society for Aerospace Engineering (a)

1. Shouldn't the P and S be lowercase?

A professional society for Aerospace Engineering (b)

I vaguely remember reading in elementary school that the last word of a title should begin with a capital letter, so Engineering. If engineering is capitalized, then Aerospace should be capitalized as well, otherwise the title would look weird. However, I then feel that the resulting subtitle b looks funny. Is it funny or am I just used to capitalizing letters?

2. Also, which is the correct abbreviation of our title: AIAA-TAMU, TAMU-AIAA, or neither? I would like to learn the rules behind your logic.

--An engineering student who cares about grammar (except for any mistakes in this post. It's late and I'm tired)

Answer

There's no firm rule. Consider looking at a style book for your own college. If you don't know what that is, ask someone at, eg., the college newspaper.

Personally I would "A professional society for aerospace engineering" (or indeed aerospace industry) because I loathe excess capitals.

Note that - very simply - there is absolutely no reason, at all, for capitals in that sentence; any more than say this sentence.

A "subtitle" is nothing more than a sentence.

(By all means, you could note that for example, highway billboards often have all caps .. DRINK MILLER BEER. And maybe just a design matter it should be all caps. But that's sort of, not English you know, that's a design issue. Like, sure, maybe it should be done in a circle like a stamp ... whatever.)

If it's a sentence, it has no caps.

"I vaguely remember reading in elementary school..." that was complete crap, forget it.

TAMU-AIAA versus AIAA-TAMU. If this is your official name: "Texas A&M University Student Branch of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics" - official meaning it appears thus on some sort of government document, or any similar "registration" document - then the best choice is exactly that order.

So, TAMU-AIAA.

grammaticality - Is this grammatically correct?

Using MS Word, I typed, "As Roblin and Adelaide are reading the reviews, Roblin thinks that women may get the vote and their rights after all.

MS Word puts a green squiggle under "reviews," and it asks me to change the comma to a semi colon. If I do, however, my entire sentence is wrong. What can I change to make it correct?

grammatical number - Which is correct: "Real Madrid compete very well," or "Real Madrid competes very well?"

I think there's a difference in the ways in which sports announcers from the U.S. and U.K. refer to the teams. If my memory serves me correctly, I think announcers in FIFA from the U.K. will use forms of verbs corresponding to a singular noun; in the U.S., I believe it's the reverse. Please, correct me if I'm wrong about the two different styles across countries, but I think my question's clear enough.

nouns - Why can we say 'an American' but not 'a British'?

I am confused with the use of an indefinite article in front of British or Chinese.
To my understanding, we can place an indefinite article in front of any “countable noun”.
So, we can say a cup and an orange.

But when it comes to nationalities, it is very confusing. For example, we can say an American or a German. But we cannot say a British or a Chinese.

I looked them up in a dictionary as at first I thought British and Chinese are adjectives in the above statement and that is why we cannot place an article in front of it.

However, the dictionary mentions that they are nouns. Does that mean they are uncountable nouns?

expressions - forget or forget about?

Apart from the difference between forget it and forget about it, what do you forget and what do you forget about?

Do you forget a face, someone's birthday or your date who is waiting for you?

Do you forget about your keys or the money you borrowed your friend? What are the criteria for which is/are acceptable?

In the M-W Learner's Dictionary is found the following, by Peter Sokolowski:

[W]hat's the difference between forget and forget about?

Forget about is used with a couple specific senses of forget. In the following senses, the use of about is optional.

1. When forget is used to mean "to stop thinking or caring about
   (someone)":

   
   
   
   
   
   • He was once a famous actor, but now most people have forgotten (about) him.
   
   
   
   • You shouldn't forget (about) your old friends.
   
   



2. When forget is used to mean "to stop thinking or caring about (something) on
   purpose":

   
   
   
   
   
   • We need to forget (about) our differences and learn to get along.
   
   
   • “I'm sorry I'm late.” “That's OK. Forget (about) it.” [=don't worry about it]
   
   
   • Forget about finding a way to escape—there's no way out of here.
   
   
   • I had almost forgotten about my car accident last year.
   
   
   

About can add some emphasis when something specific is forgotten, but sometimes the structure of the sentence changes:

• I forgot to pay the bill. = I forgot about paying the bill.

But can anyone add other details to the different usages?

Answer

You can forget about a lot of things, but you can forget less things.

Forget is a general word, forget about is more specific.

Generally speaking, both expressions are equivalent. The differences pop up in context. Forget about is used for properties of an item mostly, or an action with an item. Forget is to completely remove the item from "context".

For example,

• "I forgot my keys.": Person forgot their keys, as in it was left somewhere, and the person doesn't have it.


• "I forgot about my keys.": Person might have the keys, but forgot to Use it at the appropriate moment.


• "I want to forget about my keys.": Person would like to "un"know about its keys, or wants to bury the memories of it.


• "Forget about the keys!": Intent is to indicate that whoever it was addressed to won't get what the person asked for - right now, the keys.


• "Forget about it!": Not going to happen.

Take your forget a face example:

• "I forgot that face.": Person doesn't remember how someone's face looked like, like "I forgot how my Mom's face looks like.", when that person's mother might be dead, or unseen for a long time.


• "I forgot about that face.": Again, the didn't bring/didn't know/didn't use pattern. Or a more kind, non-direct way of saying one doesn't remember all the facial features - but not the entire face.

There can be different interpretations, but these are the general cases, i believe.

grammatical number - Forming the possessive of a username that is a contraction

Suppose there was a user of one of these sites whose handle was Won't. How would one form the possessive of this username to refer to that user's post?*

Won't's answer

Given that the 's possessive construction is apparently derived from a contraction, and the existence of a fair number of double contractions, I suspect this first one might be correct, but frankly, it looks weird to me.

Won'ts answer

One apostrophe in its usual place looks a little better to me, but it also looks like it might be a pluralization,** even though that doesn't make sense in context. This choice might read confusingly.

Wont's answer

This seems to be a non-starter, since it changes the name for the sake of forming the possessive.

Is the first one right, or is there a possibility I've missed?*

---

*Aside from using "the post by Won't" or similar rewriting.
**Especially given "Do's" and "don'ts" or "do's" and "don't's"?

Answer

Your first formation (Won't's) is correct. It looks weird, perhaps, because it's an unusual situation, but there you have it. If somebody uses a contracted word as his/her username or handle, forming the possessive is going to look strange. Just gotta live with it!

grammaticality - Changing plurality in parentheses

If a set of parentheses lies between a subject and its verb, and the parentheses contain an substitutive subject whose singularity/plurality disagrees with the original subject, whose singularity/plurality should be chosen for the verb?

In other words, in the following example, should "questions" (and its verb "are") be singular, or should they remain plural as shown?

Many (if not every) questions on this StackExchange are answered.

My intuition tells me that the two words in question should remain in plural forms, since the text in parentheses only interrupts the sentence (and the sentence would be grammatically incorrect if everything in parentheses were removed and the words were in singular form). On the other hand, when read aloud (assuming one reads the text in parentheses), this has an uncomfortable sound to it, and I've seen others write in what would be the above example's singular-form case, so I'm curious to find out which is correct.

And, thinking about it, I suppose the same question would apply when commas are used in place of parentheses.

Answer

The "uncomfortable sound" of the example is due to the clash, or lack of parallelism, of "many questions are" with (in effect) "not every question is". The problem can't be fixed just by substituting something for "questions" and something for "are"; instead, rewrites along the following lines are needed:

Many questions (if not every question) ... are answered.

Many (if not all) questions ... are answered.

All but a small number of questions ... are answered.

All of these are correct forms. The first one still has a difference in number between the main subject and the parenthesized one, but with parallelism more properly established than in the original sentence, that problem of style is less glaring. The second form is quite similar to your original, with all in place of every.