Use of the word "read"

I'm writting a short-story and I'm describing a character who is sitting down and reading a book.

(...) grabbing a small book lying on the floor beside her. The title
read Dark Flame (...)

Is it correct to say "The title read Dark Flame" meaning "The title of the book is Dark Flame"? Because it kinda sounds a little strange, but that's probably because I'm not a native speaker.

Thank you!

Answer

"Read" is two different words -- one pronounced "reed" and one pronounced "red". (I'll leave it to someone else to edit in the IPA if they wish.) The first means to scan text and interpret it as language. The second is the past tense of the first.

But, in addition, the verb "read" (either version) can be used in a context where the subject is not the person doing the scanning and interpreting, but rather is the piece of text (or the object bearing it), and the object is the contents of that piece of text.

In the sentence you quote, "The title" is the subject, "read" (the "red" past tense version) is the verb, and "Dark Flame" is the object.

hyphenation - Hyphenated repeated words

I saw this in one book: Her cheeks were too big and outrageously red-red to bear looking at. What does red-red mean here? Where can I read more on this particular hyphen rule?

grammar - Singular or plural in these sentences . .

I've often written sentences like these:

1. The structure and linearity here is [are?]what is [are?] stifling creativity.


2. Compare: The pencil and pen are in the room. [Where is seems wrong]


3. The project is based on chapter information and book category, which is [are?] useless when guiding you toward the actual objectives.


4. There is [are?] a table and chair in the room.


5. Compare: A table and chair are in the room

Is the is appropriate in these sentences? Especially the first one; I don't quite get the rules at play here, so am only going by what sounds right.

Subjunctive Mood in Second Conditional - Inversion

The sentence

If I were you, I wouldn't do this

One can add emphasis to the sentence, by saying

Were I you, I wouldn't do this

However, I noticed that in everyday English people tend not to use the subjunctive mood, but standard Simple Past tense.

If I was you, I wouldn't do this.

So, is it possible to say

Was I you, I wouldn't do this?

It looks a little bit strange for me.

Answer

If I was you, I wouldn't do this.

While many nuances of the subjunctive mood has now been abandoned, such as "If that's the house you were hoping to buy ...", I would suggest that If I was you ... is still irregular, and sounds odd, and many people would still use "were".

But whatever the state of subjunctive "were", if you do wish to invert it, then Were I you is the correct usage, if somewhat stilted.

How to use fully qualified acronyms

Which is proper/acceptable?

Take for instance this sentence:

We would like to use IBM machines.

Now consider that I needed to fully qualify IBM... How do I make this not read strangely?

We would like to use IBM (International Business Machines) machines.

or

We would like to use International Business Machines (IBM) machines.

(Please note that IBM is not the real acronym but it's similar to what I need to pull off)

EDIT:

I should add that part of my question is that if it's incorrect or less correct to put [Fully qualified name] (Acronym) or [Acronym] (Fully qualified name)

Answer

When using acronyms in writing, the APA Style Guide recommends:

When you do use abbreviations, always give the full name the first time you use it: The Modern Humanities Research Association (MHRA) -- unless it is commonly used as a word (AIDs, IQ, URL). Write out the complete name, and then give the abbreviation you will use (as illustrated above), unless the abbreviation is widely recognized (CIA).

IBM is a fairly well-recognized acronym. If you must write out the fully qualified name, however, then the most proper sentence would be:

We would like to use International Business Machines (IBM) machines.

As @Randolf mentioned, though, you might want to avoid calling them "IBM machines" because of the redundancy.

single word requests - What is the name/term for someone's personal writing style?

I know I got a message from a friend. I could tell by the way they wrote the message, and their vocabulary. There is a name for a personal writing manner, but when I Google to find out, it’s like either a) I’m asking the question in the wrong manner, or Google has no idea that the word exists…

So, it's not lexicon, idiolect, vernacular, 'voice', hyperbole (I have no idea why that keeps bouncing around in my head - I feel that the 'hyp-' maybe relevant).

Any ideas? I knew it up until about 6 months ago, and now it's driving me nuts!

*I understand, and fully appreciate your help. However, I do have to say that the very first thing I tried was to search the internet for synonyms of writing style, personal writing style, personal penmanship etc. The reason I came here is because I needed a deeper level of knowledge (deeper than Wikipedia). Many times have I searched 'Google' for something, only to come up fruitless. Then, I find the exact word/phrase that I am looking for, search for it, and get a million hits. An almost 'Oh, was that what you were looking for..'

The last place I remember hearing it was on a show like Elementary/Sherlock/Death in paradise, where they main character stated they knew something was up by the **** of the letter (-paraphrased), if that helps?

punctuation - Is there an "Oxford semicolon"?

I must admit that I don't use semicolon lists very often. (In some instances, I probably should have.) I will also admit that I'm neither-here-nor-there with the use of an Oxford comma. Sometimes I use it and sometimes I don't, depending on how clear I think my sentence is without it. (I suppose I default to not using it, as is (ironically) the British/Australian custom.)

But I couldn't seem to find a definitive answer on this site for whether there is a semicolon version of the Oxford comma. That is, in Commonwealth English, do semicolon lists go:

Blah blah blah; so and so; and yada yada yada

or:

Blah blah blah; so and so and yada yada yada

or (in the case of potential ambiguity?):

Blah blah blah; so and so, and yada yada yada

I found these two sources, one British and one presumably American.

bristol.ac.uk (British)

In complicated lists.

The semicolon can be used to sort out a complicated list containing
many items, many of which themselves contain commas.

Have a look at this example:

In the meeting today we have Professor Wilson, University of Barnsley,
Dr Watson, University of Barrow in Furness, Colonel Custard,
Metropolitan Police and Dr Mable Syrup, Genius General, University of
Otago, New Zealand.

In a situation such as this, only the mighty semicolon can unravel the

mess.

In the meeting today we have Professor Wilson, University of Barnsley;
Dr Watson, University of Barrow in Furness; Colonel Custard,
Metropolitan Police and Dr Mable Syrup, Genius General, University of
Otago, New Zealand.

^ As seen, no ; and is used.

grammar-monster.com (American)

Look at this list:

• John


• Simon



• Toby

This list would be written like this: John, Simon, and Toby.

Now look at this list:

• John, the baker


• Simon, the policeman



• Toby, the architect

This list would be written like this: John, the baker; Simon, the
policeman; and Toby, the architect.

^ As seen, ; and is used.

Furthermore, the British example lacks an Oxford comma in the non-semicolon list, and the American example contains an Oxford comma in the non-semicolon list.

The order of adjectives: opinion and length

I have studied in most grammar books that adjectives that express opinion, such as wonderful, attractive and lovely come before other descriptive adjectives. But in the following construction, you will notice that the length adjective short came before the opinion adjective ugly.

Mr. Wilson is a short ugly man.

I am just wondering why the speaker used this order. Is it a matter of taste for a native speaker to say it this way? Or is there another interpretation for this?

word choice - How to specify a lover's gender

Can you recognize that her lover is a woman from this part of the sentence?

A doctor’s daughter hides her lover--

I am afraid you cannot, or you automatically think it is a man.

In my language, we use a single word for male or female lover, which is what got me into this situation.

Would the next sentence be more understandable?

A doctor’s gay daughter hides her lover--

Would it be better if I use:

A doctor’s daughter hides her gay lover–

Any other suggestions how to write this without that it is too much on the nose? Is there another, single word for a female lover instead of writing her female lover or gay daughter?

american english - How can I dedicate something to my family and make a special note of my wife?

In a formal media article that describes my achievements, I want to say something like the following:

I want to dedicate this achievement/award to my family and especially
to my wife for all the nights she stayed up to give me company while I
pulled all nighthers.

The all-nighters seems a bit informal and student-ish and I am not a student. Is there a better/concise/formal way of saying this?

Answer

... for keeping me company as I worked through all those nights.

single word requests - What do you call people who answer to the point? (irritatingly, annoyingly)

What do you call people who answer to the point? (irritatingly, annoyingly)

Example

Mr. Hermez is the boss and has an office and his secretary sits in same location with his workstation just outside mr. Hermez's office door.

AMN on phone: Is Mr. Hermez there in the office?
Mr. Hermez's secretary answers back: Yes he is there.

Hermez's secretary knows AMN is desperate to meet Mr. Hermez since morning and has called in for the same reason.

AMN walks quarter mile to Mr. Hermez office to find Mr. Hermez was already busy with top managers from same the office even before the call between AMN and secretary.

In this case as Mr. Hermez's secretary knew AMN was coming, it made sense to inform AMN about Mr. Hermez's prior engagement with some people. So in this case the person i.e. Mr. Hermez's secretary just answer to the point.

AMN is annoyed with the secretary.

AMN to secretary: You should not be so _______ (answering to the point)

What would you call such a person irritatingly.

differences - Spelling protocol (American/British/Canadian) for an International conference

If I'm a Canadian who'll be presenting in an international conference, should I use my country's spelling, which is the Canadian/British spelling like "grey" or the more used American spelling like "gray?"

We also have our own unique spelling for some words, like "centre." I know Americans spell it "center" and I think the British spell it like the Americans.

Things to keep in mind:

• I don't know the distribution of the audience.


• The conference will be held in Germany, which isn't an English-speaking country itself.

Is there a protocol for these sort of situations?

P.S. This is a science conference, but I'm curious if a certain protocol exists.

punctuation - How do you insert a complete sentence quote into the middle of a sentence before a comma?

First off, I do not believe this question is a duplicate of this one:

What is the correct punctuation when quoting a question in the middle of a larger sentence?

I want to know how to insert a complete quote in the middle of a sentence where the quote must be immediately followed by a comma while also preserving the punctual tone (ie, whether or not it's imperitive, declarative, interrogatory, or exclamatory). Here's an example:

Before you walk into a room full of glum-looking people and ask, "Who died?", you should make sure there's not a casket present.

I think there are some who will argue that there is too much punctuation in my example. I disagree, however. There should always be consistency in any linguistic construct. Arbitrarily eliminating crucial punctuation on the grounds that there's simply too much of it is a bad call.

That said, I chose to keep the question mark and add a comman after "Who died?". If I say "Who died,", the interrogatory tone has to be assumed by the reader which is not guaranteed. Preserving the question mark forces the tone of the sentence which gives the writer more control over how it is received by the reader.

grammar - "except for" vs "other than"

Is the phrase

"Are there any vegetables except for asparagus?"

equivalent to

"Are there any vegetables other than asparagus?"

The first feels wrong, and the second feels right, but I have no clear understanding of why that is, or when "except for" should be used rather than "other than", or if they are in fact completely interchangeable.

A second case:

Except for asparagus, I love vegetables.

Other than asparagus, I love vegetables.

These two phrases seem equivalent to me. Are they?

grammatical number - People who is or People who are

I want to know if which one is correct, for example I want to say: "The people who is in charge of this process" or "The people who are in charge of this process". I'm a bit confused because of the "who" word in the middle of the sentence.

Answer

In this case you would say "The people who are in charge of the process". Here, 'people' is plural, and refers to a group of more than one person, hence the use of 'are', rather than 'is'.

If just one person were in charge, you would say "The person who is in charge of the process".

grammar - Reported speech - "last January"

How would you change the time expression in the following sentence into a reported-speech form?
"We have not been to London since last January?"

What about "the last January?" Or, is there no change?

Answer

Next Month Jan 2019 we can say for Jan 2018

"We have not been to London since last January."

This current year (2018) we would not use last

"We have not been to London since January."

for Last year (2017)

"We have not been to London since January last."

The implication is January in the last calendar year.

In all cases if there is any question of doubt it is easier to say the year.

grammar - Should I say "creation of A and B" or "creation of A and of B"? (B being plural)

As a student, I need to write a report about what I accomplished during an internship. I created two things: some indicators (A) and a dashboard (B).
Should the title of my report be "Creation of indicators and a dashboard" or "Creation of indicators and of a dashboard"?

I find "creation of A and B" better, but I'm not really sure, and the fact than the first item is plural while the second is singular makes me hesitate...

I tried to find some help or examples on the Internet, but could only find results about the creation of something, nothing that could help me with the use of this word...

pronouns - The film [that/which] I selected for viewing

1. The film that I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor.




2. The film which I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor.

—At the margins, are both correct?

(When I say "at the margins," I am referring to the stipulation in the Chicago Manual of Style Online that
“[It] is more or less okay (and popular among writers of British English) [...] to use ‘which’ restrictively", i.e., Pianos which have a fourth pedal to mute the strings are popular among apartment owners.)”

Or is there some other reason that either "which" or "that" might be disallowed in this case?

---

NB. If you are troubled by the sentences above for any reason—or are about to post an answer saying something like "It depends on your intended meaning"—please replace "chose" in the sentences with "selected."

Answer

The Original Poster's Question

1. The film that I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor.




2. The film which I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor.

Both that and which can be used with restrictive relative clauses. A third possibility, is dropping the relative word altogether when the verb in the relative clause has its own Subject.

In the Original Poster's example, the relative clause has a subject, the word I. For this reason the OP could use the following version of the sentence:

• The film I chose for the class to watch is called The Life of Igor.

The Original Poster's core question, however, is whether there is any reason not to use which or that here. The answer is, no! There are no situations that I know of where it is wrong to use which for this type of relative clause. However there are several where it is wrong or silly to use that. The original examples don't fall into this bracket, but it is worth examining them anyhow.

When not to use that:

There are some special cases when we can't use that with restrictive relative clauses. The following sentences are fine:

• That's the man that you were talking with.


• That's the bullet that I was shot with.

However, if we move the preposition to the front of the relative clause, that cannot be the complement of the preposition. We have to use whom or which as appropriate:

• That's the man with whom you were talking.



• *That's the man with that you were talking. (ungrammatical)




• That's the bullet with which I was shot.



• *That's the bullet with that I was shot. (ungrammatical)

[Notice that we cannot use who as the complement of a preposition. We have to use whom:

• *That's the man with who you were talking. (wrong)

Many writers on this site advise people not to use whom, but this is one situation where you have to!]

Another situation in which it's better not to use that, is after the demonstrative pronoun, 'pointy' that.

• ^?Do not do that that you know to be wrong. (awkward)

This is not grammatically wrong, but it's a bit awkward, and it can be difficult to read. Lastly we may want to contrast the difference between a person or thing that might have done something. In this case we may want to say who or which. This cannot work with the word that:

• Never trust in any people or in any things who, or which, you cannot actually see.


• *Never trust in any people or in any things who, or that, you cannot actually see. (ungrammatical)

Conclusion

The Original Poster's examples don't fall into any of these three categories, so either which or that is fine here. However, this is a normal answer for sensible right minded readers. There are several other answers here, which argue that which is incorrect in restrictive relative clauses. To understand why this isn't the case, you may wish to read my answer "In defense of which" below.

In defence of which

The idea that which is not used for restrictive clauses is a myth promulgated in the worst English grammar text-books and style guides ever written. The greatest writers in the English language have continuously used which as a relative pronoun in restrictive relative clauses — as has everyone else too.

Some info from the post Sidney Goldberg on NYT grammar: zero for three, by Geoffrey Pullum, Professor of General Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh, coauthor of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (2002), shows how far through various books you would need to go before finding which appearing as a restrictive relative pronoun. The first number given in the list below shows the number of lines in the entire book. The second number shows on which line the author first used which as a relative pronoun in a restrictive relative clause:

• A Christmas Carol (Dickens): 1,921 lines, first occurrence on line 217 = 11% of the way through;


• Alice in Wonderland (Carroll): 1,618 lines, line 143 = 8%;


• Dracula (Stoker): 9,824 lines, line 8 = less than 1%;


• Lord Jim (Conrad): 8,045 lines, line 15 = 1%;


• Moby Dick (Melville): 10,263 lines, line 103 = 1%;


• Wuthering Heights (Bronte): 7,599 lines, line 56 = 0.736%...

Now, I know these authors are idiots who didn't know how to speak English properly, but just how did their editors and publishers get away with it? And all the people who decided to put these books on school syllabi? They, of course, should be shot.

Getting serious again: importantly, as Pullum also shows in the post A Rule Which Will Live in Infamy, there are situations when we, in fact, cannot use that for restrictive clauses and in which we have to use which. (Oh look one of them happened right there. I couldn't for example have written ... "and in that we have to use which"). Here are the three situations Geoff Pullum describes:

• The putative ban can’t apply when a preposition precedes the relative pronoun: The town in which she lived is grammatical but *the town in that she lived isn’t.


• The supposed rule should be ignored when modifying demonstrative that, because that which you prefer is clearly preferable to ?that that you prefer.


• The rule can’t apply to a conjoined which: We must trust the unknown entity who or which created us is grammatical but *We must trust the unknown entity who or that created us isn’t.

Here is the passage in which (Oh no, there I go again with another one!) the famous quote that Pullum is playing with appears:

“Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” That was how President Franklin D. Roosevelt opened his famous infamy speech, 71 years ago. Ignoring the writing handbooks, he opened with a passive construction, which of course is just right for the rhetorical context (America as innocent victim). And he also ignored another bogeyman rule: He introduced a restrictive relative clause with which.

The answer to the OP's question, therefore, is that which can, and sometimes must, be used for restrictive relative clauses. It's not a mistake to do so.

I leave you with Geoff Pullum's last words from the link above:

Grammar snobs trying to show off their linguistic rectitude by playing gotcha with an invented rule that never matched educated usage; copy editors slaving away trying to enforce it; Microsoft Word blindly putting wavy green underlining under every relative which not preceded by a comma. What a senseless waste of time and energy.

Follow the Fowler rule if you want to; it’s up to you. But don’t tell me that it’s crucial or that the best writers respect it. It’s a time-wasting early-20th-century fetish, a bogeyman rule undeserving of the attention of intelligent grownups.

expressions - Is there a better way to tell "s/he"?

For example:

Ask a grammatist, she or he will possibly know how to solve this question!

Is it possible to replace the she or he part with a single word - probably something not gender dependent - in this kind of sentences?

hyphenation - "easy to use" versus "easy-to-use"

My belief is that the following two phrases are correct:

A: "The app is easy to use."
B: "It is an easy-to-use app."

And that the following is not technically correct:

C: "It is an easy to use app."

If anyone can point out that C is correct versus B, would you mind pointing to an English language "rule" that shows why? My general rule-of-thumb is that if a section of the compound adjective cannot exist on its' own merit, hyphenate.

Thank you.

Answer

Prepositive modifiers don't like to have postpositive dependents.  The more common pattern employs prepositive dependents: 

It is a very easy app. 

The "very" is a prepositive modifier of "easy", and the phrase "very easy" is prepositive to the "app" that it modifies. 

Another common pattern has postpositive dependents for a postpositive modifier: 

The app is easy to use. 

 

When a prepositive modifier has a postpositive dependent, there is a conflict.  The prepositive modifier is expected to modify the next word, but there's a postpositive dependent competing for that same word position. 

The way to solve the word placement competition is to treat the phrase "easy to use" as a single word.  The hyphens join the more tightly bound phrase.  Inside the hyphenated phrase, the expectation of the postpostive dependent position of "to use" is fulfilled.  As a result, the "I'm modifying the very next word" expectation of the prepositive "easy-to-use" is easy to fulfill. 

This is an easy-to-use app. 

Postpositive modification inside the hyphenation, prepositive modification outside.  The shift between right-to-left parsing and left-to-right parsing is clearly marked.

---

Edit:

There is another word ordering that might be worth comparative consideration: 

This is an easy app to use. 

In this example, "to use" is definitely a postpositive dependent, but the word from which it depends is ambiguous.  In this position, "to use" could modify either "app" or "easy". 

This ambiguity does not result in any word-ordering conflicts.   Regardless of whether "to use" depends from "easy" or from "app", it is in its expected postpositive position.  The boundary between left-to-right and right-to-left parsing does not need to be marked. 

possessives - Bayes' Theorem or Bayes's Theorem? (Similarly, Charles' Law or Charles's Law?)

Which one is correct?
I thought the latter would be correct but apparently the former is always used; why?

Edit:

Another (confusing) example: Charles'(s?) law

italics - What are the capitalization / italicization rules for Betta fish?

I recently edited this question on Pets.SE regarding fish compatability. The original author used mixed capitalization of "Betta" fish, but did not capitalize "neon tetra".

The Wikipedia entry on Betta states the following:

There is often much confusion in terminology regarding these fish. Siamese fighting fish, B. splendens, are frequently sold in the United States simply as bettas. Fish fanciers are thus often unaware that, as of 2006, there are around 65 species classified within the genus Betta. A further source of confusion is that while the generic name Betta is italicized and capitalized, when used as a common name it is usually not capitalized.[4]

Yet, throughout the article and even the citation above, Betta is either lower-case or capitalized and infrequently italicized. I'd like to chalk that up to poor article editing, but ultimately this leaves me confused.

How should {Betta / betta / Betta} be presented within the context of the question I linked, and likely standardized for future site questions?

I'm asking here, not on Pets Meta, because the language subject matter experts are here.

Answer

(1) When giving the 'scientific name': (Wikipedia): The application of binomial nomenclature is now governed by various internationally agreed codes of rules, of which the two most important are the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) for animals and the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN) for plants. Although the general principles underlying binomial nomenclature are common to these two codes, there are some differences, both in the terminology they use and in their precise rules.
In modern usage, the first letter of the first part of the name, the genus, is always capitalized in writing, while that of the second part is not, even when derived from a proper noun such as the name of a person or place. Similarly, both parts are italicized when a binomial name occurs in normal text. Thus the binomial name of the annual phlox (named after botanist Thomas Drummond) is now written as Phlox drummondii.

(2) When mentioning just the genus, but in the sense of genus (p-h-l-o-x or b-e-t-t-a say), your Wikipedia article still capitalises and italicises (Phlox; Betta) (eg 'all the Betta species; the annual phlox is a member of the genus Phlox that ...)

(3) When not using 'scientific naming' (though the words may be identical) use lower case and no italics (My oldest betta died last week; I never buy phlox).

Of course, it's not always obvious which naming style is more appropriate in a given sentence, and the choice may be somewhat arbitrary on occasion.

It may be easier to write a paragraph using Hyacinthus orientalis (of the genus Hyacinthus) and its common name hyacinth, where the distinction between scientific and common names is always clear, if not when to choose which.

pronouns - Is naming the first person last proper grammar or just proper manners?

I cringe when someone does not follow the rule of naming the first person last:

Who went to the party?
- Me, Bobby, Sally, and Joe.

This is surprisingly common in informal spoken American English. I admit have a strong cultural bias against this practice. My native language is Spanish and listeners in informal situations often reply with el burro por delante (the donkey in front) to correct the speaker.

Another post (Which of these sentences use the correct grammar?) partially covers this topic but the answers do not conclude whether it is proper grammar or just proper manners.

Answer

It's a matter of style, or manners, if you will. Grammatically, all of the following are equally fine:

• Jack and I went to the store.


• I and Jack went to the store.


• I and that stupid moron went to the store.

grammar - The use of "Their"

I saw on facebook recently where its states and individuals birthday for all to see and comment the use of "their", which seemed inappropriate to me. Upon further investigation on my singular male friend celebrating his birthday. Facebook had:

Today is their birthday.

uhmm... "their" birthday implies plural to me, so what is the correct use here? Is facebook right or am I right?

I figured:
Today is his birthday or gender-less Today is its birthday.

grammatical number - Word for nouns with multiple plural forms

Some nouns have multiple plurals, this article from Merriam Webster names a few. I'm wondering if there is a word to describe this, a word meaning having multiple plural forms. To put it in a sentence (two sentences to allow noun and adjective answers):

1. Syllabus is a(n) (insert word), because it has two plural forms.




2. Syllabus is (insert word), because it has two plural forms.

I have scanned through the Wikipedia page on English plurals which has a lot of terms for different plural forms, however, I have not come across a term for words with multiple plural forms. I've also scanned through some blogs on the Oxford Dictionaries website, but to no avail.

Some of the examples from the aforementioned Merriam Webster article:

One referendum, multiple referendums or referenda 1

One syllabus, multiple syllabuses or syllabi 1

One gymnasium, multiple gymnasiums or gymnasia 1

One referendum, multiple referendums or referenda 1

One miasma, multiple miasmas, miasmata or miasms 1

One terminal, multiple terminuses or termini 1

Answer

From A University Grammar of English
By Randolph Quirk.

Foreign plurals (Nouns) often occur along with regular plurals (nouns). They are commoner in technical usage, whereas the -s plural is more natural in everyday language; thus formulas(general)~formulae (in mathematics), antennas (general and in electronics) ~ antennae (in biology).

Foreign plural nouns often make their plural according to the orthography of the language they were taken from (e.g. Latin or Greek or Italian etc.,).

For a given word, sometimes foreign plural and regular plural nouns have different meanings e.g. medium has two plurals: mediums/media, both plural forms have different meanings.

There is a exhaustive explanation in Lesson XVIII of A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language By George Payn Quackenbos.

So, whenever there is more than one plural form of the given noun, then you can individually refer them as foreign plural and/or regular plural according to their orthography.

modal verbs - Must in past. Obligation versus deduction

If you can use "have" as a modifier to make modals past tense, why can't we apply them across the board. For example May/Might in past "you might have known." Or "He must have been here." These are perfectly acceptable examples, but when we come to obligatory usage the structure is more important.

For example: "Do you have to insult my mother every time you see here?" Is interchangeable with "Must you insult my mother every time you see her?"

Conversely why can we say "Did you have to insult my mother every time you saw here?" This use in the past is grammatically correct and conveys an action that used to happen, but no longer happens, for instance the mother in question died.

The main question is why can't we say "Must you have insulted my mother every time you saw her?" I am a native speaker and I would understand that question without thinking the speaker was using my language incorrectly. This is from the perspective that as long as language follows syntactic patterns there is room for correct usages that may not be codified in books, but still can be used to convey meaning.

grammaticality - What do you think about "Sorry." as a complete sentence? or What are your thoughts on subject omission?

I've been poring over materials on Japanese (日本語) and found it common of them to contrast the language with English in saying that pronominal subjects can be —and typically are, as with 私は (Watashi ha, basically I)— dropped in Japanese, whereas with English subjects cannot be elided. A cursory evaluation, as an English speaker, of the truth of that proposition didn't raise any objections. However, upon thinking on it further, I was able to imagine many examples of common English usage where that doesn't seem true, wherein the subject is omitted.

P₁: We'd've done well to've left earlier. We'll be in this traffic for hours now.
P₂: Sorry.
vs
P₁: ”
P₂: I'm sorry.

I'm especially interested in this example since it's not a response to a question. With examples that are responses to questions, I see how a point could be made that the relationship between the question and its subject-less response is somehow anaphoric —the subject expressed by the question is projected forward the the answer so that the answer implies it. Whereas, statements that prompt "Sorry." sometimes lack, I think, an antecedent to imply an "I" in the response.

or

P₁: How've you been?.
P₂: Well.
vs
P₁: ”
P₂: I've been well.

or

P₁: Heading out; need anything?
vs
P₁: I am heading out; do you need anything?

Please share your take on any dimension of this. Thanks.

punctuation - What is the difference between `-` and `--`

Is there any difference between:

-

and

-- or in some cases, a long dash

I have seen these two used lots of places but I really don't know the difference.

grammaticality - Is a sentence beginning with "Different from" not so good?

I saw one topic on the wordreference forum discussing whether a sentence could begin with "Different from" (see the post). The example sentences in that post are

A: Different from Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally.
B: Unlike Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally.

It is said that in a textbook (see the pdf, however, it's written in Japanese), sentence A is considered to be a "not so good" expression.

So, is this assertion true? In addition, I think although sentence A is not so good, it is grammatically right, because the verb of the sentence is be---am I right?

Thank you.

---

EDIT 1

To state the question more precisely, I am concerned with the correctness of this form:

• Adj phrase, Subject + Be + ...

For a simple example,

Similar to me, he is tall.

I don't know why but, I think the sentence above sounds OK (at least more OK than a sentence starting with "Different from") ... Is there any explanation in the formal grammar?

---

EDIT 2

Still, I am a little confused about the difference between my example and the detached predicative supplement. In Angela Downing's book English Grammar: A University Course, Second Edition, on page 482, it says:

Detached predicatives ... are a type of supplementive unit, that is, a unit used non-restrictively ... Syntactically, they are not integrated into the unit which they modify. They are thus free as regards position, though in practice they are usually found in initial rather than final or medial positions. They provide an economical means of adding contextual information which fills out the reader's perception of the person or thing referred to. They are common in certain written genres and generally absent from conversation.

The corresponding example sentence in this grammar book is

Angry and tearful, Susan walked out.

It seems this sentence is short for "Being angry and tearful, Susan walked out." So, though it sounds a little like a pedant, the sentence

(Being) Different from Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally.

might be grammatically right ...

Answer

The expressions different from and different to are perfectly acceptable in the right place. (Brits would not normally use different than.)

But I don't think different from sounds appropriate (or is used correctly) in your example sentence. The second sentence certainly sounds much better.

First (and I should make clear I'm speaking as a Brit!), I don't think we would normally start a sentence with Different from. It's difficult to explain why, but it just doesn't sound right!

Secondly. I think your context would require differently from because it's the method of administration of the drug that is being compared, and in the sentence you quote can be administered is a verb. Effectively, you are saying Drug B can also be administered orally, whereas Drug A cannot (be administered orally). Even so, I still would not start the sentence with different(ly) from.

---

Comments below are subsequent to OP's edit.

Similar to me, he is tall. sounds just as wrong to me as does the original Different from phrase. Unfortunately, again, I find it difficult to explain why. (But in this instance, I don't think I would use the word similar in any event.)

I think it is probably because the comparison actually relates to the height (of the person), which is a characteristic of the subject, whereas the juxtaposition of the adjectival phase and the subject itself suggests otherwise. These would be OK:

• He is tall, as am I.


• His height is similar to mine

As I suggested in relation to different from, if you were to retain the current sentence structure, I think Similarly to me ... would be marginally better, but still wouldn't sound 'right'!

---

Since writing the above, I've consulted a couple of grammar books. These seem to confirm that, in both instances, you need an adverbial phrase - not an adjectival phrase. I think the basic problem with your sentence construction is the presence of (what should be) an adverbial phase adjacent to the subject.

---

Comments below are subsequent to OP's second edit.

Being angry and tearful, Susan walked out is fine because the adverbial phrase relates to Susan herself.

But even Being different from Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally. does not sound correct. The fact that it's (just) different from Drug A does not, of itself, mean Drug B can be administered orally. The drugs could differ in other ways without affecting their methods of administration. The issue is not that the drugs themselves are different, but that their methods of administration are (or can be) different.

On the other hand, something like Being available in liquid form, Drug B can also be administered orally. would be fine. In this case, the adverbial phrase is directly related to Drug B and its form.

That may be why Unlike Drug A, Drug B can also be administered orally. is also quite acceptable, because in that sentence the comparison is directly related to their methods of administration - it's not just saying that they are different drugs.

Difference and similarity both concern comparisons between two things - or, more correctly, particular properties/characteristics of two things, and therefore the words different(ly) from and similar(ly) to need to relate to the properties/characteristics of those 'things' and not just to the subject of the sentence (the 'thing' itself).

I don't know whether there is a grammatical reason as such, or whether "that's just the way it is". But, as I'm sure you know, the English language cannot always be determined by strict rules. Sometimes the only answer is that that's the way it has evolved!!

I hope this gives you a bit more understanding - but, as I say, there are not always easy or straight-forward answers to questions regarding the English language.

grammar - "Every-day" in Past Tense

Can the adverb "every day" be used in Simple Past Tense? I've seen plenty of online journalists writing articles by putting "every day" in the Simple Past Tense's sentence.

So.....Is this correct?
If yes, then how should we construct a Past Tense sentence with the adverb "every day" in it? (Give plenty of examples, please)

Thanks a lot
David

grammatical number - Plurals: Is it live or lives and Is it work or works in this example?

Which is correct?

The Maritime Quarter Residents' Association support and represent everyone that live and work in the Maritime Quarter.

or

The Maritime Quarter Residents' Association support and represent everyone that lives and works in the Maritime Quarter.

grammatical number - When to, and when not to pluralise month?

Can someone please explain the correct way of pluralising month, for instance why do we sometimes use months or month, such as:

"Victor is a 7 month old baby"

and

"Victor is 7 months old"

What is the grammar behind this?

Answer

1. '7 month old' is actually '7-month-old'. It serves as an attribute that modifies a noun. (e.g. old in the old dog.)

   
   
   

   It is adjectival and therefore has no plural form. You need to put an article in front of it and a noun after it.

   
   
   

   For example: He is a 7-year-old boy.




2. 'is 7 months old' is a predicate that states something about the subject. (e.g. old in the dog is old.)

   
   
   

   In this case, adding -s to the end of year is the proper and regular way.

   
   
   
   

   For example: The boy is 7 years old.

syntactic analysis - Is there a grammatical term for two "conditional" subordinate clauses being combined with "and"?

First off, sorry if my question is confusing. Or just plain wrong for what I am actually asking. But I am confused. I'm trying to figure out why there are no commas in two specific sentences. I don't think these sentences are wrong, but I want to understand why they are right. I am looking for a rule, but I lack the terminology to search for a rule.

Here are the sentences:

Because the topic covers several issues and because I was already working on one of the sub-topics for another article, I thought I’d answer the question in an article rather than in the comment section.

and

I’m going to focus on adverbial clauses since they’re usually the ones that cause the most problems and because the example in the reader’s question uses an adverbial clause.

They are both taken from this article: http://theeditorsblog.net/2014/07/30/commas-with-subordinate-clauses-a-readers-question/

The parts that, for some reason or other, confound me are in bold. Both are subordinate/dependent clauses, and both begin with a subordinate conjunction. At least, I believe that is the case.
But what do they turn into when the construction is done like the above? A "compound subordinate clause"? And why would there be a small voice in my head, asking me why there is no comma before the "and" in the bold parts of my quotes?

Additionally, would the same grammatical "state" (yes, I am obviously lacking terminology, I apologize) still apply if, in the first quote, the subordinate conjunction was not repeated? As in:

Because the topic covers several issues and I was already working on one of the sub-topics for another article, I thought I’d answer the question in an article rather than in the comment section.

And again I feel like there should be a comma here between "issues" and "and".

Someone please help me out here.

Thank you.

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.

backshifting - Reported speech in news articles

In reported speech we generally back shift the tense. But why in news articles do I often see that this guideline is violated? For example:

a) - The president said that he wants support from other countries to combat terrorism.

Don't you think that 'wants' should be back shifted to 'wanted'?

b) - Secretary said that she has faced many hurdles in her life.

Don't you think that here 'had faced' should be used instead?

P.S. My question concerns reported speech in news articles.

punctuation - Serial commas in quotations

If the publication you are proofing for uses the serial comma, and an essay you're proofing includes a quotation from a biography that does not use a serial comma, is it permissible to silently add serial commas for readability?

The relevant rule in The Chicago Manual of Style (13.7.5) explains:

Obvious typographic errors may be corrected silently (without comment or sic; see 13.59), unless the passage quoted is from an older work or a manuscript source where idiosyncrasies of spelling are generally preserved.

In my case it is not.

Obviously this is ultimately up to the editor. The essay is a work of history and literary criticism.

Answer

I am a big fan of the serial comma, and I think that it provides necessary precision in instances where a lack of punctuation might lead to misinterpretation of which entries near the end of the series go with which. But style guides that typically do not use the serial comma make exceptions to handle such instances. Thus, for example, The Associated Press Stylebook (2002) says:

IN A SERIES: Use commas to separate elements in a series, but do not put a comma before the conjunction in a simple series: The flag is red, white and blue. Tom, Dick or Harry.

Put a comma before the concluding conjunction in a series, however, if an integral element of the series requires a conjunction: I had orange juice, toast, and ham and eggs for breakfast.

Use a comma also before the concluding conjunction in a complex series of phrases: The main points to consider are whether the athletes are skillful enough to compete, whether they have the stamina to endure the training, and whether they have the proper mental attitude.

As this handling of commas in series indicates, the circumstances under which the AP style guidelines advise a writer to omit the serial comma do not raise issues of readability or understandability at all. Rather, they fall into a narrow area where inclusion or omission of the comma is simply a matter of style.

Consequently, opposing that approach in a situation like yours, where serial-comma-less quoted material appears in the midst of text that follows The Chicago Manual of Style in preferring the serial comma, is not a matter of correcting misleading or ambiguous punctuation decisions, but of imposing one publisher's house style on material from elsewhere that (presumably consistently) followed another style. In my opinion, MetaEd is correct in saying that such alterations exceed Chicago's mandate to correct obvious typographic errors.

grammatical number - Is “ ’s ” ever correct for pluralization?

A relatively modern dictionary (I don’t know which one, because we’ve cut out the pages and used them as wallpaper in our bathroom, but I know it’s less than 20 years old) indicates that R’s is one correct pluralization of R, as is Rs, but whichever dictionary this is, it’s kind of a no-name brand, so I’m not sure I trust it.

I’ve always wondered what the best way was to pluralize single letters or numerals, like 2’s or 2s. What’s correct?

Answer

From this Wikipedia page:

• It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single
  lower-case letters, such as be sure to
  dot your i's and cross your t's. Some
  style guides would prefer to use a
  
  change of font: dot your is and cross
  your ts. Upper case
  letters need no apostrophe (I got
  three As in my exams) except when
  there is a risk of misreading, such as
  at the start of a sentence: A's are
  the highest marks achievable in these
  exams.


• For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as
  necessary, since there is no
  
  possibility of misreading. For this
  reason, most authorities prefer 1960s
  to 1960's (although the latter is
  noted by at least one source as
  acceptable in American usage), and
  90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.


• The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for
  example, 1000's of years); however, as
  with groups of years, it is
  unnecessary: there is no possibility
  
  of misreading. Most sources are
  against this usage.


• The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there
  can be no misreading, this is often
  regarded as incorrect. That page
  has too many &s and #s on it.


• Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the
  plurals of a very few short words,
  such as do, ex, yes, no, which become
  do's, ex's, etc. In each case,
  
  dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes
  would be preferred by most
  authorities. Nevertheless, many
  writers are still inclined to use such
  an apostrophe when the word is thought
  to look awkward or unusual without
  one.

grammatical number - "Becomes" or "Become" in this sentence?

Many small companies have difficulty growing because the number of
orders becomes too large to handle.

Should I use become or becomes in this sentence? I don't know, but the sentence feels a little odd to me.

Answer

Many small companies have difficulty growing because the number of

orders becomes too large to handle.

In your sentence, you need to see what exactly is becomes describing. Whether you should use "become" or "becomes" depends on what the word intends to describe- number or orders.

because the number of orders becomes too large to handle

Here, becomes refers to number. Number is used as singular here, so you should use becomes.

When you intend to refer to orders instead, that is when you would use become, as in this (hypothetical) example:

Many small companies have difficulty growing because their orders
become too large to handle.

Also take a look at this and this. They describe some basic rules to help deal with similar sentences.

vocabulary - Difference between "ten years old" and "ten-year-olds"

They are all 10 years old.

They are all ten-year-olds

What is the difference between these?

And, what is the reason why we must add s to the following?"

They are all ten-year-olds

How to answer this question? Yes or No

Sorry, if this question is naive.

If someone asks me,

"You didn't go to school today, right?"

If I did not, should I answer, Yes or No?

Similarly,

"You do not like eating fish, do you?"

If I do not like eating fish, should I say Yes or No?

Answer

No, I didn't go to school.
Yes, I went to school today.
You are right, I didn't.

pronouns - "It is they who lied" or "it is them who lied?"

Which is the correct usage of the third person, plural pronoun?

It is they who lied.
It is them who lied.

Answer

The subordinate clause "who lied" is a red herring in this example. By that, I mean that "who lied" has no effect on the case of the main clause.

In "who lied", who is getting nominative case. That is why, if you make a who/whom distinction, you would say:

• It is John who lied. (nominative)


• It is John whom I lied to. (accusative)

So, who is bearing the burden of the case of the subordinate clause, which means your question is actually:

"Which is correct: 'It is they' or 'It is them'?"

or, even more to the point:

"Does English use nominative case on both sides of the copula?"

For this, the answer is not completely straightforward. But here is my (hopefully objective) take:

1. Usage indicates that a clear majority of people prefer to use the accusative case ("it is them"), and there is other evidence to indicate that the accusative is the default case in English. If you look at speech, you will find that the preference is even clearer; in writing, the preference is not as strong but still quite clearly in favor of "it is them".




2. There is also clear evidence that a large-enough minority prefers "it is they" that both are legitimate uses. Certainly, both constructions are linguistically sound variants, even if the accusative is the default case. (The default case thing is more of an explanation for why accusative in the copula should ever happen.)




3. There are some who believe that "it is they" is the objectively correct answer. In an approach similar to this answer about "data is" vs. "data are", I would suggest that it is important to be aware of your audience and your group. Whether a construction's usage is in the minority or not, certain audiences in certain contexts expect certain language. This means that you might be judged for not using "it is they" in these groups. It's not really a matter of objective correctness, but rather, group membership. Just as choosing semantically correct words and pronouncing them correctly are important in your communication, the register and language you choose to use within a group is also important. (You may choose to intentionally label yourself as an outsider, but the important thing is to be aware that you can make that choice with the words you use!)

So, the short answer is: both versions exist, so do what feels natural to you, but consider your audience expectations.

grammar - "I am lucky to find..." vs "I am lucky to have found..."

Originally in the monstrous question Compound sentences, the punctuation and mooore, which I am now trying to split up, I wrote the following sentence:

So lucky I am to find this site!

And suddenly I got pondering on the correct verb tense to be used.

I am embarrassed by the fact that the site is something I have already found, but the sentence contains not a trace of a past tense. Maybe it would be more correct to write "So lucky I am to have found this site"?

grammar - Remember myself doing something

Is it correct to say:

I remember myself reading this book.

in that sense that I remember how I read the book?
Does it work the same way as "I remember him doing something"?
And if it is the case, can I use bare infinitive?

grammar - , which…to / , to which

I asked him where he was and why he wasn't answering, which he
responded that he was fine and he was at home to.

I asked him where he was and why he wasn't answering, to which he
responded that he was fine and he was at home.

Which one is the correct one? Do you find the first one clumsy?

grammar - Comma separating subordinating clauses

I'm a software developer and occasionally write user documentation and project proposals for my boss. I've been running into a punctuation problem recently that I've been unable to solve. I have a sentence in the form

SUBORDINATING CLAUSE + "and" + SUBORDINATING CLAUSE, MAIN CLAUSE.

For example:

If Jack and Jill were going up a hill and Bob were simultaneously driving down the hill, Bob would run over Jill.

I've been rather confused whether there should be a comma before the and. I realize the two subordinating clauses actually share the if, but a part of me still wants to insert a comma like one would do if the and separated two main clauses. Is there any standard (American) punctuation rule that applies in this sort of corner-case? I realize I could rewrite the sentence in a way to avoid this problem, but I'd really like to know what the generally accepted (American) standard for this is.

grammar - Whom or Who in this sentence: These men, all of WHOM or WHO were well-known, well-respected statesmen, were viewed by their peers

Here's the full sentence: "These men, all of who were well-known, well-respected statesmen, were viewed by their peers and common people alike as great thinkers in their day.

I just can't really see where it would fall into: subject? predicate? object? What would it be?

hyphenation - "4 year long" or "4 yearlong"?

I am wanting to convey this sentence:

This year marks the end of the 4 year long 'Environmental Protection Victoria' project.

I have looked online to no avail, can anyone tell me if '4 year long' in this context is grammatically correct? Or if an alternate such as '4 year-long' or '4 yearlong' is better? The sites I've checked online all refer to yearlong (singular), but I'm wondering if the spelling is different when we're talking about multiple years. Thanks.

Answer

In this case, it would be "4 year-long." If the sentence was along the lines of "The 'Environmental Protection Victoria' project was four years long," it wouldn't be hyphenated.

modal verbs - Past tense of "must" when meaning logical probability

I'm wondering how to say this sentence in the past tense:

He must be very clever

I have seen that the past tense of "must" is "have to" but it doesn't sound good to me to say something like "he had to be very clever" because it may mean that it was compulsory to be clever for him but I mean that he was probably clever.

Maybe the sentence "He should be very clever" may be more appropriate, but I'm not sure if this has a meaning of past.

Answer

Try the alternative:

He must have been very clever.

It has the meaning of past.

negation - What are the differences between "seems not" and "doesn't seem"?

Are the following sentences correct?

He seems not to want to help us

and

He seems want to help us.

Is it correct if I use "seem" in a negative sentence? Which role does "seem" play?

Is there any difference in meaning between:

• It seems not working for me.



• It doesn't seem work for me.


• It seems not to be working.

Please tell me the differences between the three of them and in which situation I can use them.

Answer

I don't think they are correct, close and understandable but not how a native English speaker would say it, I would say

• "He seems to not want us to help" and



• "He seems to want us to help"

negative questions are usually confusing so I'm not sure I can help you there.

• "It seems to not be working for me"


• "It doesn't seem to work for me" would be the same meaning.


• "It seems to not be working" would also be the same though applied to 'it' not just you working 'it'.

I think the difference is perhaps when spoken rather than written sometimes people miss/slur ot half say things as there is a lot more context.

Difference between "magnitude" and "extent"

Is there a difference between the two when used as in the following sentences?

The extent of the disaster was initially underestimated.

vs.

The magnitude of the disaster was initially underestimated.

Both seem very similar, but I haven't found either as a synonym for the other in a Thesaurus (only as related words).

Answer

The Longman Dictionary of Contemprary English says, for extent,

how large, important, or serious something is, especially something such as a problem or injury; It is too early to assess the full extent of the damage.

and for magnitude,

the great size or importance of something; They did not seem to appreciate the magnitude of the problem. (and also) the brightness of a star; the force of an earthquake

So both magniutde and extent can apply to size and/or importance.

The difference is somewhere else: it lies in the adjective 'great' (Latin 'magnus'); with extent, the people estimated the size and/or importance of the disaster to be great or small – we do not know – but it was greater than they tought; with magnitude, the people estimated the size and/or importance to be great and it was even greater than they thought.

Earthquakes and stars, even if their magnitude is small, still involve incredibly large/great amounts of energy…

north american english - Is it “what movie did you watch?” Or “ which movie did you watch?”

I’m confused about the right way of saying it. Please tell me the correct answer and why it is correct.

grammar - If you are talking "on behalf of" you and someone else, what is the correct usage?

If you are talking on behalf of you and someone else what is the correct usage?

On behalf of my wife and me

On behalf of my wife and I

On behalf of me and my wife

On behalf of myself and my wife

On behalf of my wife and myself

...

My understanding is that after that phrase you would carry on talking in first person.

Default gender for pronouns

I’m sure this is a duplicate, but I've heard that when the gender is unknown you are to use he instead of he or she.

Are there any references to support or discredit this? If so, what is the rule?

Hyphenation rule for micro prefix

I have a hyphenation problem. I thought I understood the rule of when to insert a hyphen, but it's a term used so inconsistently I can't be sure. For for the sake of this question, I will write the word hyphenated even though I am not entirely sure. The word is:

micro-endoscope

I see it written as:

• micro-endoscope (which I favour because micro is a qualifier that is pertinent to describing what kind of endoscope it is)


• microendoscope (then again this could be valid, because micrometer isn't hyphenated, and micro is still a qualifier...)



• micro endoscope (I personally doubt this is correct)

And most frustratingly, I see all three used even in a single paper, which to me is sloppy. Unless there a grammatical use rule I am missing that describes when a word like this is hyphenated...

Answer

A Google Ngram shows that there is no incidence of either "micro-endoscope" or "micro endoscope," but "microendoscope" is used with prevalence. Therefore, it would appear that "microendoscope" is the proper way to write it. The appearance of the other two spellings in the paper to which you refer appear to be typos or errors in editing.

Incidentally, without a hyphen is consistent with how the prefix "micro-" generally appears (e.g., microeconomics, microbiology, microcosm, micromanage, etc.).

grammar - "Who lives there?" vs "Who live there?"

I'm a bit confused as to the proper grammar when posing the following question.

"Who lives there?" <- seems to imply just one person
"Who live there?" <- seems to imply more than one person
Also this: 1. "Who worships you?" 2. "Who worship you?"

Which would be grammatically correct?

grammar - photo caption ... me or I?

In a photo caption, if we use the elliptical 'My kids and me', would 'me' be correct, or would 'I' be correct? It seems as though it could go both ways.

[This is a picture of] 'My kids and me' or 'Me and the kids'.

Or,

'My kids and I' [are in this picture]

Which is the correct choice -- 'me' or 'I' in these elliptical constructions?

Thank you

word usage - "Drove to the main road," or "drove off to the main road?"

After helping with the dishes, Eri swung her purse on her shoulder and
said goodbye to her mother, promising she'll come back to see her
soon. Keys in hand, her dad led Eri to the car, and then they drove
(off) to the main street.

Do I have to add off in that last sentence? I've seen examples like that before. When is neccesary and when not?

Answer

Drove to emphasises the destination. Drove off to emphasises the driving.

grammaticality - Usage of the phrase " just because" at the end of sentences

Usually, because links the premise and the conclusion. But there is one usage of the word I come across often, not in contemporary writings but older works.

These are of the form: "[subject did something] just because", where the the phrase "just because" is used to imply that the doer's actions were not guided by any purpose and the act was performed only for the sake of it, or on an impulse.

How can this usage of the word because be explained?

infinitives - Are modal verbs finite or non-finite?

According to Oxford Dictionaries Online,

finite ... 2 Grammar (of a verb form) having a specific tense, number, and person.

non-finite ... Grammar (of a verb form) not limited by tense, person, or number.

Modal verbs (can, may, should etc) are always followed by bare infinitives. For example:

We could practice our dialogue.

Here, practice is a bare infinitive and is a non-finite verb and can, by its own nature, does not express tense, person or number.

Does that imply that in sentences like the one above, where a bare infinitive follows a modal verb, neither is a finite verb? If so, am I correct in understanding that we can have grammatically legitimate clauses and sentences even without a finite verb?

syntax - I am [who/whom] G-d made me

Please fill in the blank with the correct word and explain your choice.

I am __ G-d made me.

A. who

B. whom

---

Some people have suggested I elaborate on this question so here goes.

The above was not copied from any test. It is a question about basically two things: (1) whether an objective complement should be in the same case as the subject ("I" => "who") or as the object of the verb ("me" => "whom"); and (2) whether the verb to "make" [someone into something] should properly be considered a linking verb (~a form of "to be") (or, if not, whether this sentence has an implied nonfinite linking verb, and, if so, whether that would indeed exige the predicate nominative: "I am who G-d made me [to be]" => "I"? Or conceivably--since "me" becomes the subject[?] of the complement clause-- =>"me"?).

There are many other implications, just some of which are discussed here. It is a serious question that seems not to be addressed by any general overview of who/whom on this site.

There is another question about a similar construction, "When to use what or who", but the answers there don't address the topic of case.

My question may be addressed in linguistics and may have different answers according to different linguistic models.

---

Cf. "She is with whom I practice." "It is she I want to be like." "That's who I want to be like."

Related:

Which is grammatically correct: "Let he who..." or "Let him who..."

What rules make “Remember me, who am your friend” grammatical?

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/48701/subject-of-imperatives-starting-with-let

Carry we who die in battle

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/124307/is-i-killed-him-who-carried-a-gun-grammatically-correct

Issues with predicate nominative

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/let-he-who-is-a-latin-teacher-instruct-him/article747363/

word order - Can “sui generis” be placed before the noun?

I came across sui generis in the following paragraph of today’s New York Times (April 27) Restaurant Review section headlined "Chef’s table at Brooklyn Fair."

César Ramirez's restaurant in downtown Brooklyn is a kind of sui generis exercise in personal expression, and one of the more extraordinary restaurants in New York City.

As I was unfamiliar with the expression, "sui generic," I consulted two English Japanese dictionaries (Japanese publications) at hand; both of which gave the meaning of “unique, of its own kind,” by defining the word as an adjective to be placed after the noun as postposition.

However, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines it simply as an adjective. Which is right? Is it right to place "sui generis" in the way of "sui generis exercise"?

Answer

I've seen it both before and after the noun. Here are two examples of its usage I found from a Google search:

"sui generis works like Mary Chestnut's Civil War diary."

"This man, in fact, was sui generis , a true original."

As a note, I would use Latin phrases like this with caution. As you may have experienced, they tend to cause issues with how clearly the point is conveyed. George Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language has an excellent way of critiquing this kind of pretentious word choice:

Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones.

tenses - how many conditional sentence types are possible?

I wonder how many conditional sentence types are possible. Basically, there are four main and two mixed types. By mixing tenses, it could be up to nine of them. Are the rest viable?

I came across the following examples in Full Spate Pre-Profficiency Primer:

• After you have just sold alcohol to a young guy. If he is if under eighteen, you should not have sold him the alcohol.




• If he promised to bring the drinks, he will.




• If you will take a seat, the doctor will see you shortly. (Likely, the former will demonstrates politeness only.)




• I would be grateful if you would tell me a little about your friends. (The same politeness, but would instead.)





• If he will keep eating all those biscuits, he can not expect to stay as slim as he used to be.

I would be grateful if someone could shed more light on the topic.

Answer

Last time I counted them, I found two hundred and seventy-seven English conditionals. There are of course others.

See this answer for details.

         I: If he will jump, you will not have to.

        II: If he will jump, he can win.
       III: If he will jump, he may win.
        IV: If he will jump, you must follow.
         V: If he will jump, you dare not follow.
        VI: If he will jump, you need not follow.

       VII: If he would escape, let him find help.
      VIII: If he would escape, he will find help.
        IX: If he would escape, he shall find help.
         X: If he would escape, he should find help.

        XI: If he would escape, he would find help.
       XII: If he would escape, he must find help.
      XIII: If he would escape, he can find help.
       XIV: If he would escape, he could find help.
        XV: If he would escape, he dare not find help.
       XVI: If he would escape, he need not find help.

      XVII: If he escapes, catch him.
     XVIII: If he escapes, you can catch him.
       XIX: If he escapes, you catch him.

        XX: If he escapes, you could catch him.
       XXI: If he escapes, you may catch him.
      XXII: If he escapes, you might catch him.
     XXIII: If he escapes, you must catch him.
      XXIV: If he escapes, you shall catch him.
       XXV: If he escapes, you should catch him.
      XXVI: If he escapes, you will catch him.
     XXVII: If he escapes, you would catch him.

    XXVIII: If he does escape, catch him.

      XXIX: If he does escape, you can catch him.
       XXX: If he does escape, you catch him.
      XXXI: If he does escape, you could catch him.
     XXXII: If he does escape, you may catch him.
    XXXIII: If he does escape, you might catch him.
     XXXIV: If he does escape, you must catch him.
      XXXV: If he does escape, you shall catch him.
     XXXVI: If he does escape, you should catch him.
    XXXVII: If he does escape, you will catch him.
   XXXVIII: If he does escape, you would catch him.


     XXXIX: If he should escape, catch him.
        XL: If he should escape, you can catch him.
       XLI: If he should escape, you catch him.
      XLII: If he should escape, you could catch him.
     XLIII: If he should escape, you may catch him.
      XLIV: If he should escape, you might catch him.
       XLV: If he should escape, you must catch him.
      XLVI: If he should escape, you shall catch him.
     XLVII: If he should escape, you should catch him.

    XLVIII: If he should escape, you will catch him.
      XLIX: If he should escape, you would catch him.

         L: If he escape, catch him.
        LI: If he escape, you can catch him.
       LII: If he escape, you catch him.
      LIII: If he escape, you could catch him.
       LIV: If he escape, you may catch him.
        LV: If he escape, you might catch him.
       LVI: If he escape, you must catch him.

      LVII: If he escape, you shall catch him.
     LVIII: If he escape, you should catch him.
       LIX: If he escape, you will catch him.
        LX: If he escape, you would catch him.

       LXI: If he dare escape, catch him.
      LXII: If he dare escape, you can catch him.
     LXIII: If he dare escape, you catch him.
      LXIV: If he dare escape, you could catch him.
       LXV: If he dare escape, you may catch him.

      LXVI: If he dare escape, you might catch him.
     LXVII: If he dare escape, you must catch him.
    LXVIII: If he dare escape, you shall catch him.
      LXIX: If he dare escape, you should catch him.
       LXX: If he dare escape, you will catch him.
      LXXI: If he dare escape, you would catch him.

     LXXII: Should he escape, catch him.
    LXXIII: Should he escape, you can catch him.
     LXXIV: Should he escape, you catch him.

      LXXV: Should he escape, you could catch him.
     LXXVI: Should he escape, you may catch him.
    LXXVII: Should he escape, you might catch him.
   LXXVIII: Should he escape, you must catch him.
     LXXIX: Should he escape, you shall catch him.
      LXXX: Should he escape, you should catch him.
     LXXXI: Should he escape, you will catch him.
    LXXXII: Should he escape, you would catch him.

   LXXXIII: Dare he escape, catch him.

    LXXXIV: Dare he escape, you can catch him.
     LXXXV: Dare he escape, you catch him.
    LXXXVI: Dare he escape, you could catch him.
   LXXXVII: Dare he escape, you may catch him.
  LXXXVIII: Dare he escape, you might catch him.
    LXXXIX: Dare he escape, you must catch him.
        XC: Dare he escape, you shall catch him.
       XCI: Dare he escape, you should catch him.
      XCII: Dare he escape, you will catch him.
     XCIII: Dare he escape, you would catch him.


      XCIV: If he has escaped, follow him.
       XCV: If he has escaped, he could fall.
      XCVI: If he has escaped, he dare not fail.
     XCVII: If he has escaped, he has fallen.
    XCVIII: If he has escaped, he may have fallen.
      XCIX: If he has escaped, he might fall.
         C: If he has escaped, he might have fallen.
        CI: If he has escaped, he must have fallen.
       CII: If he has escaped, he need not know.

      CIII: If he has escaped, he will have fallen.
       CIV: If he has escaped, he would fall.
        CV: If he has escaped, you can follow.
       CVI: If he has escaped, you could follow.
      CVII: If he has escaped, you may follow.
     CVIII: If he has escaped, you might follow.
       CIX: If he has escaped, you must follow.
        CX: If he has escaped, you shall follow.
       CXI: If he has escaped, you should follow.
      CXII: If he has escaped, you will follow.

     CXIII: If he has escaped, you would follow.

      CXIV: If he escaped, he fell.
       CXV: If he escaped, follow him.
      CXVI: If he escaped, he could fall.
     CXVII: If he escaped, he durst not fall.
    CXVIII: If he escaped, he has fallen.
      CXIX: If he escaped, he may have fallen.
       CXX: If he escaped, he might fall.
      CXXI: If he escaped, he might have fallen.

     CXXII: If he escaped, he must have fallen.
    CXXIII: If he escaped, he need not fall.
     CXXIV: If he escaped, he will have fallen.
      CXXV: If he escaped, he would have fallen.
     CXXVI: If he escaped, he would fall.
    CXXVII: If he escaped, you can follow.
   CXXVIII: If he escaped, you could follow.
     CXXIX: If he escaped, you may follow.
      CXXX: If he escaped, you might follow.
     CXXXI: If he escaped, you must follow.

    CXXXII: If he escaped, you shall follow.
   CXXXIII: If he escaped, you should follow.
    CXXXIV: If he escaped, you will follow.
     CXXXV: If he escaped, you would follow.

    CXXXVI: If he did escape, he fell.
   CXXXVII: If he did escape, follow him.
  CXXXVIII: If he did escape, he could fall.
    CXXXIX: If he did escape, he durst not fall.
       CXL: If he did escape, he has fallen.

      CXLI: If he did escape, he may have fallen.
     CXLII: If he did escape, he might fall.
    CXLIII: If he did escape, he might have fallen.
     CXLIV: If he did escape, he must have fallen.
      CXLV: If he did escape, he need not fall.
     CXLVI: If he did escape, he will have fallen.
    CXLVII: If he did escape, he would have fallen.
   CXLVIII: If he did escape, he would fall.
     CXLIX: If he did escape, you can follow.
        CL: If he did escape, you could follow.

       CLI: If he did escape, you may follow.
      CLII: If he did escape, you might follow.
     CLIII: If he did escape, you must follow.
      CLIV: If he did escape, you shall follow.
       CLV: If he did escape, you should follow.
      CLVI: If he did escape, you will follow.
     CLVII: If he did escape, you would follow.

    CLVIII: Did he escape, he fell.
      CLIX: Did he escape, follow him.

       CLX: Did he escape, he could fall.
      CLXI: Did he escape, he durst not fall.
     CLXII: Did he escape, he has fallen.
    CLXIII: Did he escape, he may have fallen.
     CLXIV: Did he escape, he might fall.
      CLXV: Did he escape, he might have fallen.
     CLXVI: Did he escape, he must have fallen.
    CLXVII: Did he escape, he need not fall.
   CLXVIII: Did he escape, he will have fallen.
     CLXIX: Did he escape, he would have fallen.

      CLXX: Did he escape, he would fall.
     CLXXI: Did he escape, you can follow.
    CLXXII: Did he escape, you could follow.
   CLXXIII: Did he escape, you may follow.
    CLXXIV: Did he escape, you might follow.
     CLXXV: Did he escape, you must follow.
    CLXXVI: Did he escape, you shall follow.
   CLXXVII: Did he escape, you should follow.
  CLXXVIII: Did he escape, you will follow.
    CLXXIX: Did he escape, you would follow.


     CLXXX: If he durst escape, he fell.
    CLXXXI: If he durst escape, follow him.
   CLXXXII: If he durst escape, he could fall.
  CLXXXIII: If he durst escape, he durst not fall.
   CLXXXIV: If he durst escape, he has fallen.
    CLXXXV: If he durst escape, he may have fallen.
   CLXXXVI: If he durst escape, he might fall.
  CLXXXVII: If he durst escape, he might have fallen.
 CLXXXVIII: If he durst escape, he must have fallen.

   CLXXXIX: If he durst escape, he need not fall.
       CXC: If he durst escape, he will have fallen.
      CXCI: If he durst escape, he would have fallen.
     CXCII: If he durst escape, he would fall.
    CXCIII: If he durst escape, you can follow.
     CXCIV: If he durst escape, you could follow.
      CXCV: If he durst escape, you may follow.
     CXCVI: If he durst escape, you might follow.
    CXCVII: If he durst escape, you must follow.
   CXCVIII: If he durst escape, you shall follow.

     CXCIX: If he durst escape, you should follow.
        CC: If he durst escape, you will follow.
       CCI: If he durst escape, you would follow.

      CCII: Durst he escape, he fell.
     CCIII: Durst he escape, follow him.
      CCIV: Durst he escape, he could fall.
       CCV: Durst he escape, he durst not fall.
      CCVI: Durst he escape, he has fallen.
     CCVII: Durst he escape, he may have fallen.

    CCVIII: Durst he escape, he might fall.
      CCIX: Durst he escape, he might have fallen.
       CCX: Durst he escape, he must have fallen.
      CCXI: Durst he escape, he need not fall.
     CCXII: Durst he escape, he will have fallen.
    CCXIII: Durst he escape, he would have fallen.
     CCXIV: Durst he escape, he would fall.
      CCXV: Durst he escape, you can follow.
     CCXVI: Durst he escape, you could follow.
    CCXVII: Durst he escape, you may follow.

   CCXVIII: Durst he escape, you might follow.
     CCXIX: Durst he escape, you must follow.
      CCXX: Durst he escape, you shall follow.
     CCXXI: Durst he escape, you should follow.
    CCXXII: Durst he escape, you will follow.
   CCXXIII: Durst he escape, you would follow.

    CCXXIV: If he had escaped, he could have known.
     CCXXV: If he had escaped, he might have known.
    CCXXVI: If he had escaped, he should have known.

   CCXXVII: If he had escaped, he would have known.

  CCXXVIII: Had he escaped, he could have known.
    CCXXIX: Had he escaped, he might have known.
     CCXXX: Had he escaped, he should have known.
    CCXXXI: Had he escaped, he would have known.

   CCXXXII: If he were to escape, he could fall.
  CCXXXIII: If he were to escape, he dare not fall.
   CCXXXIV: If he were to escape, he might fall.

    CCXXXV: If he were to escape, he must not fall.
   CCXXXVI: If he were to escape, he would fall.

  CCXXXVII: Were he to escape, he could fall.
 CCXXXVIII: Were he to escape, he dare not fall.
   CCXXXIX: Were he to escape, he might fall.
      CCXL: Were he to escape, he must not fall.
     CCXLI: Were he to escape, he would fall.

    CCXLII: If he can jump, he can escape.

   CCXLIII: If he can jump, he will escape.
    CCXLIV: If he can jump, he shall escape.
     CCXLV: If he can jump, he should escape.
    CCXLVI: If he can jump, he may escape.
   CCXLVII: If he can jump, he might escape.
  CCXLVIII: If he can jump, he must escape.

    CCXLIX: If he could jump, he escaped.
       CCL: If he could jump, he did escape.
      CCLI: If he could jump, he could escape.

     CCLII: If he could jump, he would escape.
    CCLIII: If he could jump, he might escape.
     CCLIV: If he could jump, he will have escaped.
      CCLV: If he could jump, he may have escaped.
     CCLVI: If he could jump, he must have escaped.
    CCLVII: If he could jump, he should have escaped.

   CCLVIII: If he might jump, he could escape.
     CCLIX: If he might jump, he would escape.
      CCLX: If he might jump, he might escape.


     CCLXI: If he will have jumped, he will have perished.
    CCLXII: If he might have jumped, you would have stopped him.
   CCLXIII: If he would have jumped, you would have had to catch him.
    CCLXIV: If he could have jumped, he would have done so.
     CCLXV: If he should have jumped, you would have had to catch him.

    CCLXVI: Might he have jumped, he would have stopped him.
   CCLXVII: Could he have jumped, he would have done so.
  CCLXVIII: Should he have jumped, you would have had to catch him.


    CCLXIX: But cut the wrong wire and he regrets it the rest of his life.
     CCLXX: But cut the wrong wire and he need not live to regret it.
    CCLXXI: But cut the wrong wire and he dare not live to regret it.
   CCLXXII: But cut the wrong wire and he will regret it the rest of his life.
  CCLXXIII: But cut the wrong wire and he would regret it the rest of his life.
   CCLXXIV: But cut the wrong wire and he shall regret it the rest of his life.
    CCLXXV: But cut the wrong wire and he should regret it the rest of his life.
   CCLXXVI: But cut the wrong wire and he may regret it the rest of his life.
  CCLXXVII: But cut the wrong wire and he might regret it the rest of his life.