hyphenation - Should "in-cabin" be hyphenated in "the dogs must ride in-cabin on the airplane"?

Would the term in-cabin be hyphenated or not? As in, the dogs must ride in-cabin on the airplane.

grammar - How to determine what an attributive clause modifies

I was wondering how to determine what an attributive clause modifies?

For example:

1. 
   

   It has been associated with
   neoclassical economics and with the
   neoclassical synthesis, which combines
   neoclassical methods and Keynesian
   approach macroeconomics.

   
   
   

   
   
   

   Does "which combines neoclassical
   methods and Keynesian approach
   macroeconomics" modify "the
   neoclassical synthesis"?




2. If without the second with, i.e.,

   
   
   

   
   

   It has been associated with
   
   neoclassical economics and the
   neoclassical synthesis, which combines
   neoclassical methods and Keynesian
   approach macroeconomics.

   
   

   
   
   

   How can one tell if the attributive
   clause modifies "the neoclassical
   synthesis", "neoclassical economics
   and the neoclassical synthesis" or
   
   "It has been associated with
   neoclassical economics and the
   neoclassical synthesis"?

Answer

While attributive clauses don't always modify the immediately previous noun, that is the default assumption, as the other answer says. If this reading produces nonsense, the attributive clause can be assumed to modify something else.

As written:

It has been associated with neoclassical economics and with the neoclassical synthesis, which combines neoclassical methods and Keynesian-approach macroeconomics.

the attributive clause modifies neoclassical synthesis. Removing the second with would not change this.

To make it modify neoclassical economics and the neoclassical synthesis, you need to change the verb from singular to plural. In this case, the sentence reads better without the second with:

It has been associated with neoclassical economics and the neoclassical synthesis, which combine neoclassical methods and Keynesian-approach macroeconomics.

To make an attributive clause modify "It", you need to rewrite the sentence.

This technique, which combines neoclassical methods and Keynesian-approach macroeconomics, has been associated with neoclassical economics and with the neoclassical synthesis.

(where the appropriate noun should be inserted instead of technique, which is my best guess at what "It" refers to.)

Finally, Keynesian-approach needs to be hyphenated, because it's a phrase being used as an adjective.

grammaticality - Use of “What kind”, and “What kind” vs “Which kind”

If we want to know the exact kind of a group of brids, should we say:

A: "What is the kind of these birds?"

or

B: "What kind of birds are these birds"?

If the questions above are phrased correctly, then there is a new question raised. Suppose there are three kinds of birds: A, B, and C, and the kind C is facing extinction. If we want to know the name of the kind that is facing extinction, how should we ask:

A: What kind of birds is facing extinction?

or

B: What kind of birds are facing extinction?

or

C: Which kind of birds is facing extinction?

Which one is correct?

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?

grammaticality - "Not only should I" in declarative sentence

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

Can anyone give me an explanation why that is?

Answer

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

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

and here:

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

grammar - In the sentence "The wallet has fallen." Is the verb "fallen" being used in the passive form and is it grammatically correct?

I feel like it is grammatically correct, but as a native speaker I am aware that I will say and write things that are not "by the book" when it comes to grammar.

I also know that you can have a sentence that is in a prepositional-passive tense such as "This roof has been fallen from by many people" but I don't think that's this unless the unspoken "onto the ground" or other surface counts towards the correctness of the sentence.

Answer

"The wallet has fallen" is a perfectly grammatical, normal, English sentence.

It is not passive: "fall" is an intransitive verb, and does not normally have a passive.

Passives in English are formed with the Past Participle (which "fallen" is) and parts of the verb "be" (or, in colloquial speech, "get").

"This roof has been fallen from" is passive, but it's an odd sort of passive because "the roof" is not the direct object of the corresponding active "Z has fallen from the roof". It is grammatical in current English, however.

Can the "don't" contraction be expanded when used as a command?

I refer to the usage of "don't" as an imperative to tell someone what not to do. As in,

Hey! Don't you dare touch that button!

When it is used in the interrogative or as part of a statement, "don't" can be expanded like most other contractions. It either just breaks up right in the sentence, or surrounds the subject.

Don't you love me, Juanromeo? -> Do you not love me, Juanromeo?

I don't love you, Marijuliet. -> I do not love you, Marijuliet.

However, I have no idea how one breaks up the imperative. "Do you not dare[...]" sounds like it's a lead up to a question, "You do not dare[...]" comes across as a statement moreso than a command, and "Do not you dare[...]" just sounds silly.

"Don't" is a bit unique among "not" contractions (at least that I know of) because it is the only one that can be used in an imperative sense. Couldn't, shouldn't, wouldn't, haven't, isn't, doesn't, aren't, can't... none of these can be used in an imperative sense because you cannot command someone to could, should, etc.

Is it possible to expand the don't contraction when it is used as part of a command? Or is its unique case such that it exists as its own linguistic construct?

Answer

WesT's answer points out that expanding the contraction works if you allow the subject to be omitted. In fact, rather than don't being an unusual feature of the examples in the question, it's the you that was the unusual feature; it's more usual with the English imperative to omit it, though it can be included for emphasis.

Part of the question that wasn't dealt with is:

"Don't" is a bit unique among "not" contractions (at least that I know of) because it is the only one that can be used in an imperative sense. Couldn't, shouldn't, wouldn't, haven't, isn't, doesn't, aren't, can't... none of these can be used in an imperative sense because you cannot command someone to could, should, etc.

It's not so much don't that is unique in this, as do.

Some constructs can only happen in English with an auxiliary, particularly inversion and negation.

Inversion first:

He will make up his mind.

Will he make up his mind?

He decided.

*Decided he?

This last isn't allowed because decided isn't an auxiliary, and so we use do (inflected as did):

Did he decide.

Similarly with negation:

I will eat it.

I will not eat it.

I eat it.

*I eat not it.

Again this is not allowed in English (not in contemporary standard English, anyway), so we use do again:

I do not eat it.

Since the negative imperative is of course a case of negation, if the verb used is not an auxiliary (as it generally won't be, more on that later), then this same "do-support" is needed, and hence "Don't touch that button" is the negative of "Touch that button".

The other auxiliaries tend not to be used with the imperative, not so much because it would be grammatically incorrect, as it would be meaningless. What does it mean to instruct someone with will (in the auxiliary sense), or can?

With might, mote, may (in most senses) or would trying to form an imperative clause finds no reasonable target except perhaps fate or the divine and turns into a wish or a blessing: "May you be happy!", "Would that the rain would stop!". Describing this as imperative is a bit of a stretch!

Some dialects (some in Ireland certainly, and I gather some in India), do use may in the imperative to express a polite command (though the politeness can be sarcastic): "May you please join me tomorrow", "You may reply as soon as possible". Other dialects wouldn't use this and those who speak them perhaps misinterpret these expressions as giving permission rather than request (indeed, precisely where the form comes from originally; giving permission and letting the command be implied).

Outside of that example, do is the only auxiliary that would be meaningful in the imperative.

prepositions - Meaning and usage of “be of”

As I'm preparing my GMAT test, I see the "be of" structure very frequently.
for example

By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records, earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were of dangerously experimental design.

This really bothers me as it contradicts the conclusion from the post
Meaning and usage of "be of", because in GMAT writings the "be of" looks very flexible. I find it's very difficult to understand sometime, but I know these are really fine and efficient writings.

I guess my question was, in this case, can you get rid of the "of" and what the usage of it here?
If I take off the "of" here, does it modify the meaning of this sentence?

By 1940, the pilot Jacqueline Cochran held seventeen official national and international speed records, earned at a time when aviation was still so new that many of the planes she flew were dangerously experimental design.

Answer

This is a different phemomenon from the one discussed in the "Meaning and usage of "be of" post. That one describes a set of idiomatic predicate prepositional phrases -- be of assistance/service/use/help -- that have special pragmatic uses.

This phenomenon is a headless relative clause that happens to have a prepositional phrase. If you put back all the stuff that has been left out and unwind the transformations you get something like

• ... the planes that she flew were planes that were of dangerously experimental design.

That-deletion results in

• ... the planes she flew ...

and Whiz-deletion results in

• ... the planes she flew were planes of dangerously experimental design.

And, since planes just occurred a few words back, it gets deleted here, producing a headless relative clause meaning "[ones that are] of dangerously experimental design".
These are all optional, and unordered, and independent, like most syntax.

English deletes a lot of stuff from relative clauses, producing sentences that look like other sentences with very different uses and conventions.

meaning - Are there any pairs of words like "beloved"/"belovèd", "learned"/"learnèd" that maintain a semantic difference to the present day?

When I first read Romeo and Juliet in high school, I remember being intrigued by pairs of words such as,

beloved/belovèd

and

learned/learnèd

where there's an accent grave on the 'e' of the last syllable of one of each pair of word.

One thing I've always thought is that, strictly interpreted, beloved can really only be used as an adjective; if one wants to refer to the noun, as in my beloved, it should properly spelt as belovèd. Similarly, I've always thought that learned is, strictly speaking, only acceptable as the past tense of the verb to learn, and that if one wanted to refer to the adjective form meaning "educated", as in learned scholar, it would properly be spelt as learnèd. I don't remember where exactly I got these impressions from, and I don't know if they are correct.

So my question is: Were there or is there any semantic difference between such pairs of words, or is it just a spelling idiosyncrasy? If there were such differences, do any persist to the present day?

Addendum: These aren't the only such pairs; there are others, I distinctly remember seeing many in lots of Shakespeare's plays...

grammar - Contraction [SUBJECT] + is with proper noun ending in s?

The possessive form (the car of Jesus) would be Jesus' car.

If we say Jesus is 11. Would it also be Jesus' 11? Jesus's 11?

commas or no commas

Can ANYONE here tell me if commas go between (people and and) and between (surrounding and were) in the following sentence, or not. And can you please give the reason for your answer. Thanks.

"Ever since he first appeared with his black veil on that bright, sunny Sabbath morning to preach as was his usual, the village people and those who lived in the surroundings were both terrified and mystified."

meaning - How to say that food is hot (temperature) without the listener thinking that I mean "spicy"?

There is an excellent discussion of spicy vs. hot here: Difference between "spicy" and "hot"

However, having read the previous question, I did not see any answer that tells how to say unambiguously that food is hot (temperature) without being misunderstood.

If I say that my food is spicy, a listener will unambiguously understand that I am referring to the sensation associated with eating.

However, I can't think of a good way to say that my food is hot (temperature) without a listener possibly thinking that I mean spicy.

In the referenced question, a poster described how to unambiguously say that food is spicy. How can I unambiguously say that food is hot?

Answer

It's a genuine inadequacy in English vocabulary, with no simple fix:

• "Hot" is ambiguous


• "Spicy" is also ambiguous (certain kinds of cake, for example, are spicy but not hot)


• "Piquant" is not frequently used, so could seem pretentious.

You must therefore keep an eye on context, and add information where necessary.

Most of the time, when talking about food, "hot" refers to temperature, except in the context of mustard, horseradish, and non-Northern-European cuisines. So unless you have explicitly established that those foodstuffs are in-scope, it's pretty safe to assume that "hot" refers to temperature.

grammar - "Employee list" or "employees list"

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

grammaticality - Adding a possessive to a singular noun phrase that ends in a plural noun

Which of these sentences is correct: "The clock under the curtains' hour hand broke off", or "The clock under the curtains's hour hand broke off"? The actual thing being made possessive, "The clock under the curtains," is singular, suggesting that you should add 's to the entire phrase to make it possessive. This would make the latter sentence correct, but it looks funny to me. Of course you don't add 's to a plural noun already ending in "s" in order to make it possessive, but what do you do if the possessive noun phrase itself is singular but it ends in a plural noun?

Answer

I'm going to quote a comment that I think efficiently lays out some of the presuppositions that this question is based on, in order to express some disagreement with those presuppositions:

in principle one of these two options should be grammatically correct (albeit awkward), right? Which one?

It is not acceptable to add the -'s genitive (or "Saxon genitive") to all noun phrases, and in the contexts where it is acceptable, there is not always only one "correct" form. So I don't think it's right to assume that this is a binary question.

The paper The English “Group Genitive” is a Special Clitic", by Stephen R. Anderson, gives some examples of (single word) noun phrases where it is fairly clearly not acceptable to add -'s or -'.

(20) a. *These’s illustrations are more competently drawn than those’s.

b. *Of the books I lent you, two’s/some’s/many’s covers were soiled when you brought them back.

I think these examples establish that it is not impossible in principle for there to be no acceptable way of forming a -'s genitive from a particular noun phrase.

To address the specific noun phrase given in the question, I think that most speakers who tolerate the use of the -'s genitive with the noun phrase "The clock under the curtains" would pronounce the genitive construction no differently from the original noun phrase, which would support the spelling "The clock under the curtains' hour hand." Anderson brings up the topic of noun phrases ending in a word suffixed with /z/ that is not the head of the noun phrase: he says that Zwicky (1987) describes these as not taking an additional [z] sound, but Carstairs (1987) "claims that the sentences with two /z/s are often acceptable".

I would agree with tchrist's advice to "write what you say", if you use this construction at all (my preference would be to avoid using it). But overall, this is a rare construction, linguists don't give uniform descriptions of the usage, and it's simple enough to rephrase in formal contexts, so I don't see any point to being dogmatically prescriptive about there being a single "correct" usage in this context.

grammaticality - Is it proper to use "that" instead of "at which" to refer to speed?

On a physics assignment, I believe that these sentences are grammatically incorrect, but some other students disagree (especially on the second one).

What is the maximum speed that the mass can be whirled without breaking the string?

What is the maximum speed that this car can round this curve without skidding

(NOTE: 33 1/3 is the frequency that it turns -- 33 1/3 revolutions per minute)

I think the use of that is incorrect, and "at which" or "that ... at" must be used to be grammatically correct. "that ..." is used above as restrictive clauses.

They accepted that the last one is incorrect.

the frequency [that it turns __ ]

Something cannot turn the "maximum speed".

For the second part, it doesn't seem like proper use of restrictive clauses.

the maximum speed [that this car can round _? this curve _?]

-> this car can round __ this curve

-> this car can round this curve __

"the maximum speed" is not the object of the clause. The car cannot round "the maximum speed".

Using "at which" or "that ... at" is better:

the maximum speed [at __ which this car can round this curve]

the maximum speed [that this car can round this curve at __ ]

Compare this to some valid examples:

Subject: This is a sentence [that I wrote __ ].

Object: This is a sentence [that __ was written by me ].

Preposition: This is a sentence [at __ which you looked ].

Detached preposition: This is a sentence [that you looked at __ ].

Am I correct?

grammar - He changes while.....he says/is saying

1) He changes his facial expression while he says...

2) He changes his facial expression while he is saying..

3) He changes his facial expression as he says...

4) He changes his facial expression as he is saying..

Is it possible to use all four sentences in the context decribed below? Would they all mean the same?

A native speaker told me it is possible to use both (while he says/ while he is saying) with no difference in meaning. However, there
is one aspect that seems to be overlooked and makes it little confusing to me. In this situation the context is that I want to describe one situation in one certain video.
I want to describe what happens in one part of the video (that may take 5-8 seconds in total). Therefore I originally expected that only while he is saying would be the only correct choice. Why? Because in the following sentences it works as follows:

Don't call me when I do my homework. INCORRECT

Don't call me when I am doing my homework. CORRECT Here the "calling" happens WHILE something else is happening.

Similarly for my original sentence. He changes (in my context, it just happens once, it is a "one-time" moment) his facial expression while something else is happening (it has duration, it is happening while something else happens during that time).

Therefore I am surprised it is possible to use both while he says/while he is saying. I would expect "while he is saying" to be correct only. Maybe I would use "while he says" if I wanted a simple description of what happens in that part of the video without going into details. At the same time, I am not sure if the native speaker I asked understood what I was after. Is it really interchangeable or would I have to, if I wanted to express the context described above, use "He changes.....while he is saying" ?

Lastly, would using "as" instead of " while" change anything?

Thank you!

How can you tell which noun a clause modifies?

I'm a ESOL teacher, and I'm having trouble answering a question that a student asked me recently. We were going over long sentences, and found this one from the New York Times:

Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that it was halting a nearly month-old bombing campaign against a rebel group in neighboring Yemen that has touched off a devastating humanitarian crisis and threatened to ignite a broader regional conflict.

It's clear to me, as a native speaker, that the clause "that has touched off a devastating humanitarian crisis and threatened to ignite a broader regional conflict" applies to the noun phrase "a nearly month-old bombing campaign" and not the noun phrase "a rebel group in neighboring Yemen," but I can't exactly explain why. I think I know this mostly from the context, but it wouldn't necessarily be obvious to someone learning English.

It would be possible to write this sentence with a clause modifying " a rebel group in neighboring Yemen." Something like, "Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that it was halting a nearly month-old bombing campaign against a rebel group in neighboring Yemen, which has been opposing Saudi influence for nearly three years."

Is it just the comma that makes it clear that one clause applies to the rebel groups, and the lack of comma that shows the clause applies to the bombing campaign?

Any help would be much appreciated! Thank you,

Lee

contractions - "If you don't do it, I'll". Why does that sentence feel so awkward?

Earlier today while writing a very informal email, I expressed:

If you don't do it, I will.

Upon looking at it, I realized that "I will" could be contracted to "I'll", however, this is completely unheard of and feels quite awkward. I am now quite curious, is there a reason why ending a sentence with "I'll" feels (or is) so inappropriate?

I understand that the use of contractions is generally an informal use of language so rules of usage can be a bit loose. Therefore, this is a case that to me doesn't make logical sense and I'm a bit confused. Why does it feel wrong when an "I'll" is placed at at that end of a sentence, even though such an expression is informal and not, technically, an incorrect usage of the contraction "I'll?"

Answer

Contractions can only be used in English when the thing they're contracting does not have any sentence-level stress. (Sentences have stress in them much like words do.) In this sentence, the word I carries a heavy stress:

If she doesn't do it, I will.

Because of this, I cannot contract with any of its neighbors. The same thing explains why we don't use contractions in sentences of the following sort:

Do not go in there.

I would go to the store, but I have to study.

idioms - Why can 'X as well as Y' be written as 'as well X as Y'?

Prof. Brooks Landon, U. Iowa, Ph.D., U. Texas at Austin, Building Great Sentences: How to Write the Kinds of Sentences You Love to Read (Great Courses), 2013, p 193:

        More on Dr. Johnson shortly, but it’s useful to note the extremes to which Lyly took parallelism. And a little Lyly goes a long way. Here’s a brief excerpt from his dedication of Euphues to his patron, Sir William West. Lyly is making the case for the essential honesty of his depiction of the youth Euphues:

Whereby I gather that in all perfect works as well the fault as the face is to be shown. The fairest leopard is set down with his spots, the sweetest rose with his prickles, the finest velvet with his brack. Seeing then that in every counterfeit as well the blemish as the beauty is coloured I hope I shall not incur the displeasure of the wise in that in the discourse of Euphues I have as well touched the vanities of his love as the virtue of his life.

        So patterned and so mannered, paralleled and balanced was the prose in Lyly’s Euphues that it has given us the rhetorical term euphuism. Terming euphuism “the rhetorical prose style par excellence,” Richard Lanham explains in his Handlist of Rhetorical Terms that it “emphasizes the figures of words that create balance, and makes frequent use of antithesis, paradox, repetitive patterns with single words, sound-plays of various sorts, amplification of every kind, sententiae and especially the ‘unnatural natural history’ or simile from traditional natural history.” Somewhat discouragingly, Lanham adds: “Lyly’s style has been studied largely to be deplored.”

I'm assuming that “as well X as Y” = “X as well as Y”. The latter is a constituent and can’t be decomposed.

1. But why does English permit “X as well as” allowed to be decomposed into “As well” + X + “As”?




2. Can anyone explain why “as well X as Y” is obviously less readable, and is unnecessarily burdensome? I think that a reader processes X first as the noun, not "as well".

grammaticality - Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities

Consider describing the wedding of X and Y. If I want to avoid the overly-formal and poor-flowing "wedding of", it is more correct to say "X and Y's wedding" or "X's and Y's wedding"?

I acknowledge a very similar question has already been asked: What possessive forms are used for mutual 1st person ownership?

But unfortunately the example given is able to be easily phrased a different way and so respondents have been able to get away with avoiding the direct question.

Let's face it, we come across the need to get across the concept of mutual possession all the time and we don't always want to have to resort to the more tortured "Z of X and Y" as with the French language.

NB: In some cases, people get around this problem by dropping the apostrophes altogether and "adjectivising" the owners, especially if the owners are actually plural entities themselves. Eg. The "Mazda and Mitsubishi combined outputs" instead of the "Mazda's and Mitsubishi's combined outputs". Let's not let this muddy the waters though.

Answer

This site states it very well:

4. A less-often faced decision involves the use of apostrophes where multiple owners are named. Where two or more people own one item together, place an apostrophe before an "s" only after the second-named person. For example:

Incorrect: Bill's and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law.
Correct: Bill and Mary's car was a lemon, leading them to seek rescission of their contract under the state's lemon law.

However, when two or more people own two or more items separately, each individual's name should take the possessive form. For example:

Incorrect: Joanne and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model.
Correct: Joanne's and Todd's cars were bought from the same dealer; both proved useless, even though Joanne's car was an import and Todd's was a domestic model.

("The Legal Writing Teaching Assistant: The Law Student's Guide to Good Writing", by Marc A. Grinker)

So, saying "X's and Y's weddings" (note that it's weddings not wedding) has a different meaning from "X and Y's wedding".

The first one is denoting two separate weddings, and the two subjects named are not getting married to one another, but the second one is the one you are probably trying to say.

grammar - Three of which vs three of them?

Four pits have been unearthed, (three of which/three of them) contained gold

I wasn't too sure which was which because I have heard "of which" in this type of context as well as "three of them" but I wasn't sure which was correct

I am pretty sure that it has to do with Idiomatic phrases and don't know which is correct

while this post looks like the following link, the nuance is different

Is there a well-known secular sentence that uses all three of the imperative, indicative, and subjunctive moods?

Answer

The correct sentence is:

Four pits have been unearthed, three of which contained gold.

'Of which' is correct because you need a possessive form to accurately describe the relationship between the three pits and the gold. Three of the pits contain gold, i.e., the gold is their 'possession' (in the grammatical sense).

---

Reference

Grammar.com, STANDS4 LLC, 2017. "“Whose” and “Of Which”." Accessed July 14, 2017. http://www.grammar.com/whose-and-of-which

Here is the first portion of the Grammar.com article:

When a possessive form is called for by the sentence, the word that

has to bow out and rely on which to borrow a preposition to show
possession. An example will show what I mean:

Congress passed the statute, the purpose of which was to lower taxes.

The words which and that have no possessive form. Here the of which is
showing the state of the statute possessing a purpose. We cannot say,
that’s purpose or which’s purpose. We have to use which, flip it over,
and connect it to statute by using the of which form. The word that
will not accommodate a preceding preposition.

I recommend reading the rest of the Grammar.com article (it is only three more very short paragraphs) for complete comprehension! ;-)

---

EDIT of 14 Jul 2017 @23:39 UTC

The following paragraphs were part of my original answer, but @Flater helped me see that these paragraphs were extraneous. I am leaving them here so interested readers can review the change from the correct but laborious answer to the pithy answer.

---

Extraneous Paragraphs Included in Original Answer

At first I found your question confusing, but I was not sure why. After thinking for a while about why 'this sentence sounds funny', I recognized the problem: "Four pits have been unearthed."

In common parlance, one does not need to 'unearth' a pit. By definition, earth (dirt, soil, rocks, etc.) has already been removed from a pit.

At least this is true when one uses 'pit' to mean "a natural or artificial hole or cavity in the ground."

I suspect you are using 'pit' in a less common--but perfectly valid--sense of the word, viz., a mine or a mine shaft.

Therefore, to avoid confusion, allow me to rephrase the sentence as follows.

The geologists have thoroughly explored and tested four quartz veins, three of which contain gold.

As ab2 succinctly explained in the comment section, 'of which' is correct for the sentence as you wrote it, i.e., with a comma.

'Of which' is correct because you need a possessive form to accurately describe the relationship between the three quartz veins and the gold. Three of the quartz veins contain gold, i.e., the gold is their 'possession' (in the grammatical sense).

If you wrote the sentence like the following example, the relationship between the geologists, the quartz veins, and the gold would be unclear.

The geologists have thoroughly explored and tested four quartz veins, three of them contain gold.

Do three of the geologists contain gold, perhaps in their teeth? Or do three of the quartz veins contain gold?

Yes, most readers would, after pausing to think about it, conclude that it's not three of the geologists who contain gold; it's three of the quartz veins that contain the gold.

However, effective prose does not force readers to pause, ponder, and parse meaning from a sentence. Effective prose enables readers to glide across well-crafted sentences, absorbing meaning effortlessly.

Thus, you want your reader to apprehend immediately that three of the quartz veins possess gold--and that's it.

Sources

i) "pit." American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. 2011. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company 14 Jul. 2017 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pit

ii) California Gold Quartz Veins

ordinals - How do you convert the sentence "George Washington was the first president." to a question?

How do you convert the sentence:

George Washington was the first president.

into a question, preferably one in the form:

****Missing Phrase**** president is George Washington?

---

If no equivalent sentence that is not awkward sounding exists, why is there no English equivalent for the word how-many-th?

hyphenation - When should com­pound words be writ­ten as one word, with hy­phens, or with spaces?

Some compound words are written without hyphens (nonaggression, nonbeliever), some with hyphens (well-intentioned), and others with spaces (post office).

Is there a rule or good guide as to which option should be used?

Answer

In English, there are three types of compound words:

1. the closed form, in which the words are melded together, such as firefly, secondhand, softball, childlike, crosstown, redhead, keyboard, makeup, notebook;




2. the hyphenated form, such as daughter-in-law, master-at-arms, over-the-counter, six-pack, six-year-old, mass-produced;




3. and the open form, such as post office, real estate, middle class, full moon, half sister, attorney general.

For the most part, compound words that are created by adding a prefix are not hyphenated. For example, there are the words anteroom, extraordinary and coordinate. Some exceptions to this rule are (from the link above):

1. compounds in which the second element is capitalized or a number:
   anti-Semitic, pre-1998, post-Freudian


2. compounds which need hyphens to avoid confusion:
   
   un-ionized (as distinguished from unionized), co-op


3. compounds in which a vowel would be repeated (especially to avoid confusion):
   co-op, semi-independent, anti-intellectual (but reestablish, reedit)


4. compounds consisting of more than one word: (poster's note: these are phrasal adjectives)
   non-English-speaking, pre-Civil War


5. compounds that would be difficult to read without a hyphen:
   pro-life, pro-choice, co-edited

Your original example of "well-intentioned" is also explained here:

The other time we must use hyphenation is to join a word to a past participle to create a single adjective preceding the noun it modifies: "a well-intentioned plan," for example, or "a horseshoe-shaped bar."

So, why isn't nonaggression hyphenated? It can be broken into non + aggression, so it is formed by adding a basic prefix onto the noun. In doing so, it breaks none of the exceptions to the rule: "aggression" is not capitalized, hyphenating the term doesn't avoid confusion, a vowel isn't repeated, the compound only consists of 2 words, and it is perfectly readable without a hyphen.

grammar - Jon and I or Jon and me?

How do I know when to use Jon and I, or Jon and me? I can't really figure it out. I've tried to teach myself, but I just can't seem to do it. Will someone please help me figure this problem out?

grammar - Correct construction for "easily protected against"

What I am trying to express is that I have a problem P and a good G and it is easy to protect G from P.
However, G is not the focus of the sentence and P was described in the previous sentence.

So I would like to say something like:

There is the additional problem P. However, it is easily protected against.

With it referring to the problem P and without going into what G is again. However, the construction seems complicated and possibly plain incorrect. What we would be a good expression?

I also considered:

There is the additional problem P. However, it is easy to protect against.

grammaticality - Can you use an article in front of the word "software"?

Can you say "a software" or "the software"? E.g.

That is how you use the software.

Answer

Software is uncountable which means that it does not accept the indefinite article "a". In some cases, you can say "some" to convey this more indefinite meaning. It is perfectly acceptable to use a definite article on an uncountable noun and say "the software".

Note: In more rare cases "a software" can be used to denote "a piece of software". Piece, being countable, allows this to happen. Another example is that while the word beer is typically uncountable, "a beer", often comes to mean "a glass of beer".

How can you tell which noun a clause modifies?

I'm a ESOL teacher, and I'm having trouble answering a question that a student asked me recently. We were going over long sentences, and found this one from the New York Times:

Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that it was halting a nearly month-old bombing campaign against a rebel group in neighboring Yemen that has touched off a devastating humanitarian crisis and threatened to ignite a broader regional conflict.

It's clear to me, as a native speaker, that the clause "that has touched off a devastating humanitarian crisis and threatened to ignite a broader regional conflict" applies to the noun phrase "a nearly month-old bombing campaign" and not the noun phrase "a rebel group in neighboring Yemen," but I can't exactly explain why. I think I know this mostly from the context, but it wouldn't necessarily be obvious to someone learning English.

It would be possible to write this sentence with a clause modifying " a rebel group in neighboring Yemen." Something like, "Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that it was halting a nearly month-old bombing campaign against a rebel group in neighboring Yemen, which has been opposing Saudi influence for nearly three years."

Is it just the comma that makes it clear that one clause applies to the rebel groups, and the lack of comma that shows the clause applies to the bombing campaign?

Any help would be much appreciated! Thank you,

Lee

grammatical number - Are these plural or singular?

I was surprised when I heard zero is plural, and even 1.00001 is plural.

Then, what about following numbers ?

(1) 1.00

which means the value measured between 0.995-1.004, having possibility that it was exactly 1.

(2) 0.99999.....

which is mathematically equal to 1. Also, are others that are mathemattically equal to 1 than this, treated completely same as 1?

(3) -1

Is this singular? Or negative numbers are generally plural?

(4) i = square root of -1

I know it's weird to count things with imaginary numbers, nonetheless, if you were to count, which form, plural or singular, would you be to use?

That's it.

Answer

It has less to do with the actual number, and more to do with how the number is said or written.

Singular nouns:

Any time the number is "one", or a fraction with "one" in the numerator, the result is singular. This also applies to negatives. See Is -1 followed by a singular or plural noun?

• One apple


• 1 apple ("one apple")


• Half an apple


• One half of an apple


• 1/2 apple ("one half apple" or "half of an apple")


• 1/4 apple ("one quarter apple" or "one quarter of an apple" or "one fourth of an apple")


• -1 volt ("minus one volt", "negative one volt")

Plural nouns:

Any decimal number, including 1.0, is plural. See Should we use plural or singular for a fraction of a mile?

• 1.0 apples ("one point zero apples", "one point oh apples")


• 0.5 apples ("zero point five apples", "oh point five apples")

Complicated cases:

Fractions with numerators larger than one can be handled both ways. This also applies to percentages. The plural form is used for countable objects, and the singular form is used for non-countable objects. See Is two-thirds plural?

• 2/3 of the people are here. (We are counting people.)


• 2/3 of the soda was left over. (We are not counting soda.)


• 75% of the computers are broken. (countable)


• 75% of the rice was eaten. (not countable)

Complex and imaginary numbers:

Complex and imaginary numbers only appear in technical contexts. I can only think of examples with units, for example:

• 5.7+3.1j kΩ at 500 Hz


• -1.0+0.9j mV at 10 kHz

Note that engineers usually use "j" instead of "i" to avoid confusion with I, the symbol for current. Mathematicians use "i".

In technical contexts, quantities for should be written with numerals and units should be written with abbreviations, which do not take plural. So "5 V" is okay, but "five volts" is only okay in non-technical contexts.

articles - Difference between "a" and "the"?

I have a question regarding the usage of articles.
What is the difference between "a" and "the"?

Why do I need to use "a" in "that was a winter I"ll never forget."? Can I use "the" instead?

Also, why do I need to use "the" in "that was the winter we went to Norway"?

Thank you very much!!^^

Answer

The is used to refer to specific or particular nouns; a is used to modify non-specific or non-particular nouns.

the = definite article

a = indefinite article

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.

Another example, "I went to a forest. *The forest was big.". In this first forest was indefinite one, and after I said the first sentence it became definite one and used the instead.

And in your example, winter is indefinite on "that was a winter I"ll never forget." and become definite and used the in "that was the winter we went to Norway".

Reference

One or two apostrophes for two subjects in the possessive case?

Which is correct: [Bonus question: should there be a question mark here instead of a colon?]

The book contains Marx and Engels' theories about the nature of
society and politics.

or

The book contains Marx's and Engels' theories about the nature of
society and politics

It seems to me that the former is more common, but I am confused here since the latter seems more logical to me (and matches what you would see in my native language Icelandic).

grammar - Use of the word "entire"

Why should I use the words "entire group of boys" instead of "entire boys". I know the first one is correct but can't explain why other than it sounds right. I need to explain why as part of a paper.

grammar - Concessive "as much as" and "much as". Which came first?

Related:
"Much though" vs "much as",
Use of 'Much as' [closed],
Using “as much as” at start of sentence

Consider the following two variations:

As much as I hate to admit it, I cannot swim.

Much as I hate to admit it, I cannot swim.

Both seem to be standard, as they both enjoy wide use, but based on the answers to the linked questions above, one gets the impression that the latter derives from the former (and that the former is preferred). I find this suspect for a couple of reasons.

First, I have a much easier time parsing the bare "much as" variation because one of the definitions of "as" is precisely a conjunction meaning "though" (#9). Hence, these should be equivalent:

Much as I hate to admit it, I cannot swim.

Much though I hate to admit it, I cannot swim.

Though I much hate to admit it, I cannot swim.

Whereas "as much as" I interpret as idiomatic.

Secondly, the bare "much as" seems to be closely related to other concessive expressions that strictly preclude any initial "as":

But, fool as he is, I won't have him drowned.

Try as we may, none of us can be free of conflict and woe.

Very much as I hate to admit it, I cannot swim.

The last one I made up, but I can't see why it wouldn't be possible, though admittedly I haven't been able to find it in the wild.

So, all that said, I'm led to believe that "much as" is the original expression, but am not sure how to verify it apart from asking you all.

Answer

To investigate this question via Google Books, I ran searches for a small subset of potential matches: "but as much as," "but much as," "and as much as" and "and much as." My goal was simply to look at what these "core samples" (to use a geological term) turned up, and to see whether the results supported any larger inferences about the relative age of the concessive "as much as" versus the concessive "much as."

The earliest match for a concessive "but as much as" in a Google Books search appears in Edward Stillingfleet, Origines Britannicae, or The Antiquities of the British Churches (1685):

But, as much as this looks like a Monkish Legend, Alford and Cressy are much displeased with Sir H. Spelman for calling it in question.

The next-earliest match is in Peter Pett, The Happy Future State of England (1688):

But as much as it is the inclination of the unthinking or brutish part of Mankind, that power should be like the Crocodile alwaies growing, the soberer few do know, that power will destroy it self if it shall be still ascending and hath not a Center wherein to rest and be quiet, just as a fire would perish in nature and destroy it self, if there were not an Element allow'd it wherein to leave burning :

A couple of fairly early instances come from very prominent authors. From Richard Steele, The Tatler, No. 48 (July 30, 1709):

But as much as I was curious to observe the Reception these Gentlemen met with upon Change, I could not help being interrupted by one that came up towards us, to whom every Body made their Compliments.

From Daniel Defoe, The Fortunate Mistress (1724):

But as much as I was hardened, and that was as much as I believe ever any wicked creature was, yet I could not help it, there was and would be hours of intervals and of dark reflections which came involuntarily in, and thrust in sighs into the middle of all my songs ; and there would be sometimes a heaviness of heart which intermingled itself with all my joy, and which would often fetch a tear from my eye.

The first match for a concessive "but much as" in the Google Books search results is from "Summary of Proceedings in the present Session of Parliament, Thursday, Feb. 17," in The Gentlemen's Magazine and Historical Chronicle (April 1785):

These he considered as insignia of notable services tendered by the patentees for the advantage of the state; but, much as he respected patent interests, he would not go so far as to admit, that the patentees had a right to consider the enormous unforeseen accumulation of profit arising from the distresses of their country as a property sacred, which no reform was ever to touch.

The phrase "and as much as" used concessively first appears in a Google Books match from William Sherlock, "A Sermon Preach'd at St. Paul's Cathedral, November 22, 1699" (1699):

And as much as some Smile at the Conceit , I can't but think, That the General Exhortations in the New Testament, to Sing to God, To admonish one another in Psalms, and Hymns, and Spiritual Songs, Singing and Making Melody in our Hearts to the Lord ; Though they are not an Apostolical Institution of a Quire, nor do prescribe the particular Forms of Cathedral Worship ; yet they justify it all, as far as it I fitted to the True Ends of Devotion ;

Three years later, from Charles Trimnell, "An Answer to a Third Letter to a Clergyman in the Country, in Defence of the Entry of the Parliament-Writ, &c." (1702), we have this:

And as much as you pity my Weakness upon this occasion, you have said nothing to alter my Thoughts, but that if the Entry of the Provincial Writ by it self, much more that of the Parliament, had been reputed necessary according to custom ; this Forma wou'd have directed the Exhibition of them.

The first match for a concessive "and much as" in the Google Books search is from "The Tears of Cambria" (1773):

Yet could I once untir'd have heard thee sing,

And dwelt for ever on the syren string ;

And much as grief has quench' d my thirst of praise,

Ev'n now not proof to such seducing lays,

Rapt with the noble purpose of thy lyre,

Fain would I catch the same congenial fire ;

The first prose example of "and much as" appears in the Google Books search results appears in "Summary of Proceedings in the present Session of Parliament, Tuesday, Jan. 3," in The Gentleman's Magazine (February 1786):

Mr. Pitt rose, to return his thanks to the honourable gentleman, for having so properly brought under the consideration of the house a matter of such truly national importance as the militia ; the interval of peace was undoubtedly the fittest moment possible for them to unite in endeavouring to put that great and most constitutional defence of the kingdom upon a respectable footing ; and, much as he professed himself the friend of oeconomy in that, as in every other branch of the public service, he was not so much a slave of his opinion, as by any means to wish to lesson [sic] the advantages the country had felt from a well-regulated militia ; but, he confessed, he did not entirely think, with the honourable gentleman, that it was so entirely necessary fro the militia to be embodied every year..

To sum up, my Google Books searches for concessive "but as much as" and "and as much as" yielded matches from the late 1600s forward. The corresponding Google Books searches for concessive "but much as" and "and much as" turned up valid matches in prose beginning in 1785 and 1786, respectively—both, coincidentally, from reports of Parliamentary debates—with one earlier poetic occurrence from 1773.

Since my sample is narrowly defined, I can't draw any definitive conclusions, but the search results I obtained certainly suggest that concessive use of "as much as" is considerably older than concessive use of "much as."

pronouns - "Who to follow" or "whom to follow"?

Twitter has a "who to follow" button on the upper side of the screen. Shouldn't it be "whom to follow"?

Wikihow suggests that whom is the correct usage in a case like this.

Answer

Whom to contact is the standard way of saying that. This was amply discussed in many cases on this site, including there and there.

grammar - Is ''How many stops is Tokyo from here?'' grammatically correct?

When do you want to ask which stop you want to get off at, can I say how many stops is Tokyo from here?? In this situation, I expect an answer like '5 stops.'

Answer

Yes, the question is perfectly valid English.

Another way to say the same thing would be: "How many stops until Tokyo?"

grammar - Avoiding his/her in technical writing

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

Thanks a lot.

pronouns - "Who(m) will it be?" vs. "Will it be he/him?"

The accepted (and highly upvoted) answer to the question in the question What’s the rule for using “who” and “whom” correctly? states that the easiest way to find out whether to use who or whom is to try with he/him and see which fits.

But that doesn’t seem to fit very well in this case:

1. Who will it be?




2. Whom will it be?

If I replace with he/him there, it becomes:

3. Will it be he?




4. Will it be him?

– and I don’t know which of these is right, either. Is it really true that you can always associate who with he and whom with him? Or does that not always work? And which out of 3 and 4 is correct?

Answer

Check these out: 'Who' vs 'whom': 1, 'Who' vs 'whom': 2

It is usually "Who will it be?" for the reasons given in the second article.

For your second question, I think "Will it be him?" is better. These definitions may be helpful:

he

pronoun used to refer to a man, boy, or male animal previously
mentioned or easily identified.

"Everyone liked my father—he was the perfect gentleman"

him

pronoun used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a male
person or animal previously mentioned or easily identified.

"His wife survived him"

grammar - Is it correct to say "proud of having met you", or should it be "proud to have met"?

Is it correct to say "I have proud of having met both of you"

1. I am proud of having met both of you. (past present?)


2. I am proud to have met both of you. (present perfect?)

What does the first one say? The word "having" sounds like it is happening, but it was done already. Is it right?

The second one sounds like it happened in the past. Does it mean it is finished? Inconclusive?

grammar - When can verb come before subject?

I am not a native English speaker, but I am interested in learning a certain grammar rule. I did come across many sentences where the subject and the verb switched their positions.

For example, I can say that I don't like apples nor does my friend. Here, the modal verb does comes before the subject my friend.

Another example: not only is he a great person, but he is humble.

What is this rule and when is it appropriate to use it?

Answer

English has quite a strong tendency to have the verb second in the sentence (not necessarily the second word, but the second constituent) Normally the subject is the first constituent that precedes it; but there are a number of other items which may serve that function, and in those cases the subject moves after the verb:

• Emphatic negatives:

Never shall I see him again.

Neither could they reach it that day.

At no time did I notice this.

• Other adverbs with negative polarity:

Rarely did they come and visit.

Hardly had I arrived than he spoke.

These are mostly a bit literary, but as you point out "neither/nor does ... " is normal in speech.

Difference between "greater" and "larger"

What is the difference between greater and larger? For example, should we say for time, the waiting time is greater than or the waiting time is larger than?

Answer

Taken literally, "larger" refers to physical size. "Greater" refers to value.

Thus you would say, "An elephant is larger than a mouse". But -- assuming you're talking about size -- you wouldn't say "An elephant is greater than a mouse."

If you want to compare quality, you might say, "Rembrandt's paintings are greater art than Picasso's". If you said they were "larger", that would mean that the piece of canvas was physically bigger, rather than being a comparison of the quality.

Sometimes either one will work. Like if you are comparing two numbers, it is probably better to say "9 is greater than 8". People often say, "9 is larger than 8", but depending on the context, a listener might think you mean that the numeral was drawn taller and wider.

"Larger" is sometimes used metaphorically. Like we might say that one problem is larger than another, meaning it's a more serious problem, not that it necessarily occupies more space.

For a duration of time, we would normally use neither "larger" nor "greater" but "longer" or "shorter": "The wait is shorter on that line." "These batteries last longer."

If you're talking about a particular point in time rather than a duration, you'd normally say "earlier" or "later".

grammar - Using Past-tense or Present-tense for verbs

I found a perfect example on the internet about what I am trying to ask. Take a look at this:

1. "Mr. Dilger wants to see you." Mr. Bruce went on to say. "It's about the same thing. I thought I'd tell you before you saw him. A little bit easier facing the Big Boss if you're wised up beforehand, you know." I thanked him and went down the long aisle of desks to Mr. Dilger's office, the directory manager.

and this:

2. “I thought I'd tell you before you get to the office tomorrow."

Do you see the difference? The first quote and the second quote are both talking about the present time, yet the first quote has the verb "see" in past tense, while the second one has "get" in present tense. They both seem to be okay, but how?

The first quote is obviously taking place before the main character "sees" Mr. Dilger. So why would it be in past tense?

Does the English language not specify which tense that we must use when sentences are constructed like this?

I'd love everybody's opinions.

prepositions - How to capitalize "get out of" in a title according to CMOS?

I need to know how to correctly capitalize this title. I usually go with the Chicago Manual of Style for rules, but wasn't able to find anything regarding something like this:

• This Is How He Finally Got the Hell Out Of Mexico!


• This Is How He Finally Got the Hell Out of Mexico!


• This Is How He Finally Got the Hell out of Mexico!

I know that prepositions should not be capitalized as long as they are shorter than five letters. So is "out of" a single preposition consisting of two words, or does "out" act as a part of the phrasal verb "get out"?

conjunctions - Usage of that with additional information about the subject

My objective is to combine following two sentences:

A. I assume you have access to the books that you were mentioning.

B. I assume you have those books in digital format.

Possibility 1: I assume you have access to the books (in digital format) that you were mentioning.
I thought of removing double brackets but I think “that” should immediately follow “books”.

Possibility 2: I assume you have access to the books that you were mentioning in digital format. This also doesn't look good.

I think in this case there is an additional information about books - that they are in digital format.

Is there a suitable way to combine both of the above sentences?

Answer

To say, I assume, you have the books or you have access to those books is not very different.

So, "I assume that you have in digital format those books you were mentioning about" or "I assume that you have access in digital format to those books you were mentioning about" will do.

punctuation - Is there a comma *after* a list with an Oxford comma?

Explanations of the Oxford comma often use examples that either consist of the list alone or a sentence that ends in a list, e.g.:

red, white, and blue
To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

What is unclear from these answers is whether there should be a comma after the last list item, when using an Oxford comma:

1. When my mom, my dad, and my sister came home ...


2. When my mom, my dad, and my sister, came home ...

Is there a comma after a list with an Oxford comma?

If possible, please provide a reliable source.

Question on indefinite article (Part 2)

when it comes to an English, article really trips me up so I ask another question regarding article(definite/indefinite).
I was studying English grammar and ran into below sentence:

"Make sure the indefinite pronouns and verbs agree in number"

hmmmmm number.. is a noun.. and it's countable(????)

I expected this to be "in a number".
Shall I think that because pronouns and verbs are plural, this is describing more than 1? and there for no article was used?

Based on assumption, is below statement correct?

"Make sure the indefinite pronoun and verb agree in a number" ?

Also, can someone please recommend some site or grammar book best suited to describe all this? (Most grammar book that I saw does not go deep into article(complex case)).
Also, do typical native english speaker know noun is countable vs none countable in real live dialog? I don't understand how this works.

Many thanks in advance!

Answer

It's easy to get tripped up with definite and indefinite articles.

In this case the word "number" is a linguistic term, or a characteristic or a property of something. If you use the word "color" or "beauty" as generic properties in the same way you might say:

• "Make sure the door and the wall agree in color." or


• "Make sure the house and garden are alike in beauty."



• "The rhinoceros and the lion are similar in ferocity."

You would not say "in a color" or "in a beauty" or "in a ferocity".

In the matter of "number" (i.e. is it plural or singular), you are also dealing with a characteristic or property, and not a concrete object.

punctuation - Closed, open, or hyphenated form for "null-space"

What is the correct spelling of the word "null-space"?

Merriam-Webster puts it in a hyphenated form "null-space", (link).

Wikipedia (link) and MathWorld (link) both put it in either open or closed form "null space" or "nullspace".

Firefox's built-in spellchecker knows only "null space" and "null-space".

I've seen all three spellings in the existing scientific literature.

What would be the correct spelling according to grammar? Is there any difference if we are talking about AmE or BrE? Or should I just pick one spelling and use it across the whole article?

Answer

null space

This is what I have always seen, and I did a quick check on google scholar just now, and verified that this is more common than the other two.

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

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

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

History of the non-rule that proscribes ending a sentence with a preposition

Famously, if not accurately, Winston Churchill is supposed to have responding to an editor who had "fixed" a sentence ending with a preposition by writing, "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put." The terminal preposition/adverb construction is often required in German grammar and I am asking if the English "rule" that proscribes the usage arose as an expression of anti-German sentiment around about the time either the two world wars started up. What is the history of this "rule?"

Answer

From Webster's Dictionary of English Usage (1989):

Where did this "cherished superstition" come from? It seems to have originated with the 17th-century English poet, playwright, and essayist John Dryden. In 1672, Dryden wrote a piece of criticism called "Defence of the Epilogue," the main purpose of which was to demonstrate that the English use by writers of Dryden's time was superior to that of an earlier generation of writers. ... The italic line is from [Ben] Jonson's Catiline (1611); the comment on it is Dryden's:

"The bodies that those souls were frighted from.

"The Preposition in the end of the sentence; a common fault with him, and which I have but lately observ'd in my own writings."

As for the supposed anti-German aspect of the rule against ending sentences with prepositions, a Funk & Wagnalls booklet titled "Faulty Diction" (1915) offers this comment:

prepositions. Some authorities object to the use of a preposition as the final word in a sentence, but such usage is in accord with the genius of all the Teutonic languages. The correctness of such usage—often the necessity for it—is to be determined by the meaning intended to be conveyed.

It seems fairly clear that the author of this pamphlet (published at an early stage of the Great War) considered English to be among the "Teutonic languages" and hence capable of exercising its genius by placing prepositions at the end of sentences.

contractions - "If you don't do it, I'll". Why does that sentence feel so awkward?

Earlier today while writing a very informal email, I expressed:

If you don't do it, I will.

Upon looking at it, I realized that "I will" could be contracted to "I'll", however, this is completely unheard of and feels quite awkward. I am now quite curious, is there a reason why ending a sentence with "I'll" feels (or is) so inappropriate?

I understand that the use of contractions is generally an informal use of language so rules of usage can be a bit loose. Therefore, this is a case that to me doesn't make logical sense and I'm a bit confused. Why does it feel wrong when an "I'll" is placed at at that end of a sentence, even though such an expression is informal and not, technically, an incorrect usage of the contraction "I'll?"

Answer

Contractions can only be used in English when the thing they're contracting does not have any sentence-level stress. (Sentences have stress in them much like words do.) In this sentence, the word I carries a heavy stress:

If she doesn't do it, I will.

Because of this, I cannot contract with any of its neighbors. The same thing explains why we don't use contractions in sentences of the following sort:

Do not go in there.

I would go to the store, but I have to study.

word order - "Really" in a negative sentence

I am not really ready to get married.

Did I put "really" in the right place? I just want my sentence to sound stronger than "I am not ready to get married."

Answer

It is ambiguous.

The ambiguity comes from that fact that "really ready" is not the same thing as being plain "ready". So, if you are not "really ready" you might still be "ready".

Some alternatives:

I am really not ready to get married.

I am really unready to get married.

I'm not ready to get married at all.

prepositions - Does using 'by' in this syntax suggest facilitation or purely cause / effect?

Have a look at this sentence:

'We finance better housing for our customers, by helping turn their houses into homes.'

Does 'by' in this sentence only indicate that the logical cause and effect is out of place? That first we help, then we finance? (usage of the gerund, first clause deems to be the first action, usage of the preposition 'by'). Therefore the sentence would be constructed: 'By financing..., we help turn...'.

However, does the sentence sound correct to you? In that 'we finance... by helping turn', the 'by' is a synonym of 'and in doing this' (we help turn...), showing that financing helps transform their lives, facilitating help via financing without need to change the syntax?

In the end, the answer is in the syntax. The linear L-R cause / effect sentence would be coherent in replacing 'by helping' with 'to help': 'We finance better housing for our customers to help turn their houses into homes'.

Also 'by' can be kept and the cause / effect understood R-L when you see the word 'better' as key. Being a comparative, it compares the established experience of helping, the comparative should indicate progress up to and after a main verb in the present tense e.g.: 'We serve better our users by helping understand them'. Hence grammatically 'We finance better (the) housing for our customers, by helping turn their houses into homes.' Thanks for all the input.

grammaticality - Should I use the singular or plural verb in mathematical formulae ("Two and two make/makes four")?

I remember somebody correcting me once when I said, "Two and two makes four", since the conjunction and would imply the use of a plural verb. They would prefer I said:

Two and two make four.

I've been thinking about it and wondering if one or the other is correct, or if both are. It would seem that using the plural verb is grammatical. However, I've heard the singular verb being used more often and feel that it is correct. Is there some exception about using the singular verb in logical statements and mathematical formulae?

Answer

Singular and plural are both correct.

The singular form is also used because "two and two" is an arithmetic formula. The verb agreement in that case is with the formula as a single entity.

• Two and two makes four.




• Two plus two is four.




• Four times four divided by two is
  eight.

In your example in particular, Google indicates that the plural form occurs more often:

"two plus two make four" = 353K results
"two plus two makes four" = 77K results

And while Google hit counts are notoriously, the result is supported by Google Ngrams.

grammaticality - "Haven't you?" or "don't you?"

What is the right question tag (in British English) when we use the verb have?

I have interviewed a few native speakers and none of them could explain why sometimes they prefer "haven't/hasn't" and why other times they prefer "don't/doesn't".
Here are 4 different groups of sentences. Which ones are correct and which ones aren't and why?

Group 1

1. I've got a good voice, haven't I?


2. You've got a dog, haven't you?


3. She's got a new boyfriend, hasn't she?


4. We've got very good friends, haven't we?



5. They've got our address, haven't they?

Group 2

1. I have a good voice, don't I?


2. You have a dog, don't you?


3. She has a new boyfriend, doesn't she?


4. We have very good friends, don't we?



5. They have our address, don't they?

Group 3

1. I've got a good voice, don't I?


2. You've got a dog, don't you?


3. She's got a new boyfriend, doesn't she?


4. We've got very good friends, don't we?



5. They've got our address, don't they?

Group 4

1. I have a good voice, haven't I?


2. You have a dog, haven't you?


3. She has a new boyfriend, hasn't she?


4. We have very good friends, haven't we?



5. They have our address, haven't they?

Answer

From the wikipedia article on question tags:

The English tag question is made up of an auxiliary verb and a pronoun. The auxiliary has to agree with the tense, aspect and modality of the verb in the preceding sentence. If the verb is in the present perfect, for example, the tag question uses has or have; if the verb is in a present progressive form, the tag is formed with am, are, is; if the verb is in a tense which does not normally use an auxiliary, like the present simple, the auxiliary is taken from the emphatic do form; and if the sentence has a modal auxiliary, this is echoed in the tag.

But then later on:

If the main verb is to have, either solution (does/has) is possible

Using this rule, group 2 and group 4 would both be correct. (As an AmE, I prefer group 2 with group 4 sounding awkward to a degree approaching incorrect, but I'm unsure about BritE)

Following the same rule, group 1 would be correct and group 3 incorrect as has/have is the auxiliary verb, and so it should be used in the question. However, as a native AmE speaker, this actually runs counter to my intuition as I would prefer group 3. I have a feeling this has to do with the 'have got' construction somehow affecting things.

Edit: updated because I should have read the whole thing

tenses - Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent

In this clip, Lex Luthor says, "Bruce Wayne meets Clark Kent."

Could he have said instead, "Bruce Wayne is meeting Clark Kent." in the same context?

What's the reason for going with the present simple tense in the actual dialogue?

EDIT

Maybe I should have laid out some backdrop against which this question is posed, in order to solicit a better, more fitting answer.

As far as I know, there's this general rule of the English grammar that is nicely presented as follows:

In particular, we often use the simple present ("I walk to the store") to refer to habitual actions, and the simple progressive ("I am walking to the store") to refer to currently ongoing actions.

Which was quoted from the most upvoted answer to this question.

Doesn't BW meeting CK refer to a "currently ongoing action", as opposed to a "habitual action"? Then, why the present simple?

grammar - Is downtown an adverb of place?

What is the explanation for why we say "I'm going downtown" instead of "I'm going to downtown?"

word choice - Many of who or many of whom?

In the sentence "The convention was attended by hundreds of executives, many of who/whom stopped by our stand to.." should it be "many of who" or "many of whom"?

syntactic analysis - Please explain "play Tiger Woods"

Could you please explain to me this sentence?

Sophie had to play Tiger Woods in golf in just one month"

The sentence should be correct as it is taken from English classes. Why don't the say

Sophie had to play with Tiger woods"

Would it be incorrect if I would use a word "with"?

grammar - Curious about "but with" in a sentence

Please explain how we replace the first sentence with the second one. I do not understand the rule. Could we use "with + noun" for any situation in this kind of context?

1. Thursday will be colder, but we will have less rain.



2. Thursday will be colder, but with less rain.

Thank you very much.

Bare infinitive after "help" with intervening past participle phrase

Which is correct?

Our mission is to help everyone touched by tragedy thrive.

or

Our mission is to help everyone touched by tragedy to thrive.

I know that technically help can admit the bare infinitive, but something about the presence of the intervening past participle phrase makes it strike my ear as incorrect. Thoughts?

grammar - Present perfect for past action with present effect

If I seem tired, can I say: "I haven't slept last night"? If not, why have I been told that we use present perfect for actions that have present effects?

Answer

Why have I been told that we use present perfect for actions that have present effects? Because the present perfect is indeed an appropriate way to talk about a past action whose effects continue into the present. Examples:

• I've bought an iPhone (want to see it?)


• I've lost my keys (can you help me look for them?)


• I've made a cake (would you like a piece?)

However, as soon as you use an expression of finished time, then the past simple must be used:

• I bought an iPhone last week (want to see it?)


• I made a cake before leaving for work this morning (would you like a piece?)

The past simple is needed also when the finished time is not explicitly stated but implied:

• I bought an iPhone in Tokyo (want to see it?) [You are back in London after your trip to Japan.]


• I lost my keys while cleaning the basement (can you help me look for them?) [You are no longer cleaning the basement.]

"Rules" such as the one discussed here can be quite helpful to get English language learners started on the differences between English tenses, but good teachers will make it clear from the outset that actual usage is very much more complex.

verb agreement - Which sentence is correct and why (is VS are)

"The only thing holding me back is the available colours."

or

"The only thing holding me back are the available colours."

It seems to me like a glitch either way. I slightly favour the second one though.

grammatical number - Jury was divided or Jury were divided?

What is correct?
The jury was divided or The jury were divided?
I am told that the latter is accurate because all of the jury do not have the same opinion in the particular case.
Then, how does the subject verb agreement fit in 'The jury is still out' ? I mean, 'The jury is out' would allude to a situation were the opinion on a matter is (are?) still divided.

Advice for using multiple same-gender personal pronouns in the same sentence

I have often struggled with sentences that contain two characters of the same gender. For example, if there are two females, Alice and Carol, then the following sentence can be confusing.

Alice reminded Carol about how she helped her last week.

Clearly, Alice is telling Carol something, but who helped whom?

When the genders differ, the ambiguity is resolved.

Alice reminded Bob about how he helped her last week.
Alice
reminded Bob about how she helped him last week.

Is there a rule that addresses this or a rule of thumb for handling it?

adjectives - "Boys bicycle" vs. "boy's bicycle"

When describing, for example, a bicycle for boys as "a boys bicycle", should it be "boy's" or "boys"? The phrase is not implying ownership but the type of bicycle, in the same way as one for either sex might be described as unisex.