writing - Is it correct to write "a 5-mm-thick layer"?

Do I need hyphens? Should I use the indefinite article or zero article?

Answer

It is incorrect to write "a 5-mm-thick layer". Rather, it should be written:

a 5 mm-thick layer

or, better,

a five millimeter-thick layer

5 mm-thick is a compound adjective formed from the adjectives 5 mm and thick, and it modifies layer. Consider:

• a 5-mm layer/a 5 mm layer
  (as a matter of style, some writers don't hyphenate numerals with letters)



• a five-millimeter layer


• a thick layer


• a 5 mm-thick layer

Note that as a compound adjective in its own right, 5-mm/five-millimeter is hyphenated. When compounded again, though, the first hyphen is dropped: 5 mm-long/five millimeter-wide, etc.

Other similar compound adjectives can be found in contexts similar to the following:

• a five year-long period


• a two month-old movie


• a ten year-old boy

Review this article for more on compound adjectives.

meaning - Is "push a button" correct English? (as opposed to "press a button")

My intuitive understanding of the English language (I am German) would correlate with the following quotation:

The word "press" means to exert force on an object, but no motion of the object is implied.

The word "push" also means to exert force on an object, but there is an implied sense of movement of the object being pushed.

(Source from an online forum)

Therefore, "press a button" is what I consider correct English if the intention expressed is that, e.g., a human hand is lowered onto a button in order to trigger a certain mechanism.

Meanwhile, "push a button" is what I would understand as a button sitting on top of a table when a cat enters the scene and decides to shove it off the table for its own amusement.

An associate corrected me today, stating it would in fact be "push a button" or else the song "Push the Button" would be grammatically incorrect. While I do not take the Sugababes [sic!] as the standard by which I measure correct speach, it made me wonder; is there any rule that makes one of these two options incorrect or are the both of us free to anarchically make use of any of these two choices?

Answer

Either option is fine. In this case, the words are synonymous. You are thinking of the wrong definition of the word push; the right one here is:

[with obj.] press (a part of a machine or other device):
he pushed the button for the twentieth floor.
_{Oxford Dictionaries}

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"?

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.

word order - Should personal pronouns always be placed at the end of a list?

Today I made a post on Facebook in which I copied a conversation from somewhere else. To preface my post, I wrote:

A conversation between me and John:

There were a number of comments on my use of pronouns, but the one I am most interested in was on the word order. One commentator said that the personal pronoun must always come last. I admit that I was raised to always use the personal pronoun last and simply did not type what I felt was correct, but I honestly don't know whether what I was raised with was correct. So,

Should you always place the personal pronoun last in a list? If so, why?

grammaticality - Usage of apostrophe in “baker’s dozen”

In the phrase “baker’s dozen”, why does the apostrophe indicate possession of a (single) baker? Shouldn't it indicate possession of all bakers in general? Shouldn’t it be “bakers’ dozen”?

grammaticality - Plural in constructions like A's and B's theory/theories

I have gone through several threads here but haven't found an answer to my question.

In my paper, there are two theorists and each has a theory. Theorist A has theory 1 and theorist B has theory 2.

Can I use both example 1 and example 2 and express this fact?

1) A's and B's theory are worthwhile considering.
2) A's and B's theories are worthwhile considering.

I reckon that 1) is a form of ellipsis standing for A's (theory) and B's theory... Does 2) imply that both A and B have EACH devised more than one theory or that I include A's theory and B's theory to form the plural "theories"?

And on a similar note, Bohr has written one book on a subject and Gitman has written one book:

3) The Bohr and the Gitman volume are worthwhile considering.
4) The Bohr and the Gitman volumes are worthwhile considering.

Which one is correct?

prepositions - Is the structure "X, whom I've had the pleasure of being the mentor of" proper?

John is the mentor of Anna. John introduces Anna as:

1. "Anna, whom I've had the pleasure of being the mentor of".

Would the following be more correct?

2. "Anna, of whom I've had the pleasure of being the mentor"

Answer

The second way is only "more correct" if you don't like ending phrases like that with prepositions. Many people might think it sounds weirdly formal.

grammar - Does I'll replace I will?

I can say "I will go", or "I'll go", and the both mean the same thing.

However, if you ask me "Can you go?", can I respond with "I'll" instead of "I will"?

past tense in adverbial phrases that does not mean past time

There are times when we use past tense to refer to future, like in the following sentences:

We'd manage the funds until he came of age.
You'd get helpers until you got older.

The background behind these two sentences was that a retail tycoon had a serious car accident and was in a coma. The first sentence was uttered when the tycoon's wife and partner were talking about who was going to inherit his shares if he had died. The wife answered their son, a teenager at that time, would.

My question is: why do we use past tense in came and got while in fact the tycoon's son was only a teenager at that time? Does it have to do with sequence of tenses?

By that I mean if we are talking about a counterfactual situation using the auxiliary "would", then the second verb has to be "came" and "got" respectively. Instead, if we replace would with will in those two sentences, then we will have to say

We will manage the funds until he comes of age.
You will get helpers until you get older.

Or do you have other explanation for the uses of came and got? Thanks a lot in advance.

grammatical number - Plural form after "with" (common property of multiple objects)

When I describe several objects with a common property, do I denote that property in the plural like:

several samples with large surface areas

or do I use the singular form, since it's one property each?

several samples with large surface area

What is the corresponding rule I could look up for these cases?

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

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

hyphenation - Should you use en dashes in acronyms?

For terms like liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry that typically use an en dash rather than a hyphen, would an en dash still be used in the acronym, LC–MS? Or would we only need a hyphen there, LC-MS?

EDIT: Anybody have a style guide that speaks to this issue?

grammar - 5% are left or 5% is left; which is better or correct?

So here is the sentence written both ways. Which one is correct and maybe a description why so I can understand why.
Thanks!
/R

Leatherbacks need your help.

They’re endangered and only 5% of the population are left.

OR,

Leatherbacks need your help.
They’re endangered and only 5% of the population is left.

word choice - Afterward versus afterwards -- which, and/or when?

So, I've noticed over time that I see both "afterward" and "afterwards" at different times. Having a pet peeve (though I'm not certain it's actually a well-founded prejudice, lexicographically speaking) against hearing "anyways", I've started to wonder recently about "afterwards".

With a quick bit of web searching, I turned up this analysis, which I find to be somewhat helpful, I'm just wondering if there's more that people could say to help me get an intuitive understanding of when to use which, or otherwise why to use one versus the other.

I suppose (as mentioned in the linked article) this question could also apply to forward, backward, toward, etc.

Which shall I use? When? Why? Does the 's' indicate some sort of plural meaning, or something else?

grammar - What is the correct spelling for "These are known as the three “V’s”: veracity, voraciousness and vivacity."

What is the correct spelling and grammar for the following sentence?

These are known as the three "V's": veracity, voraciousness and
vivacity.

In particular, should the "V" be capitalized, should it have an apostrophe, should there be quotes around V's and are there any other mistakes in the sentence?

Answer

For some reason I can't get this graph to display the apostophized r's and R's here, but if you click on this chart to follow the link (where you also have to click "Search books" on that page)...

...you'll see that the capitalised versions have always been more common, but over recent decades the apostophized version the three R's has gained currency to the point where it's (just) become the most common format.

I see no reason why OP's three V's should be any different. Personally I'd never enclose the whole thing in double quotes - it doesn't add anything to the meaning, and it's positively undesirable in terms of legibility.

grammar - Can I say "I want to make something useful, to more people the better."

1. I want to make something useful, to more people the better.


2. Or. I want to make something useful. To more people, the better.

I not sure how this sounds to a native English speaker. There are a lot of things that aren't grammatical but still widely used because they have been used so often that they are now idiomatic.

I have always heard people say "I want to help people, the more the better." Something like that. The more people to whom my product is useful, the better. I am pretty sure this last sentence is grammatical.

Answer

You are right that your last sentence is good grammatically.

I want to help people, the more the better.

The comma in that sentence is acceptable, so would be a colon. The second, subordinate, clause is an idiomatic expression. The form of this idiom is always "The [X] the better", where [X] is a comparative adjective. A native speaker/writer might even use the expression as a sentence on it's own in some contexts, for added emphasis, perhaps with a comma. For example:

I crave grammar questions. The more, the better!

However, there are various problems with your examples 1. and 2. Say them and you'll be understood, but you'll sound like a non-fluent learner.

"... to more people the better." is just wrong - it's not a known English idiom. "... to the more people the better" is good. I wouldn't be surprised to hear it from an educated native speaker, but it sounds like a specifically British middle/upper class phrasing to me. A more international usage would be...

I want to make something useful to people: the more the better.

For top marks, though, you should use...

I want to make something useful to people, the more the merrier.

... this is because if you use better, it's not completely clear that you mean more people (finding it useful) is better, rather than more usefulness being better! "The more the merrier" is a common idiom used to say that a bigger group of people is desirable.

... Gosh, what a long answer already to a short question! :)

word choice - Why "themselves" instead of "himself" when referring to third-person singular?

I've read today a comment from a UK user that sounded weird to me:

so the OP is shooting themselves in the foot here with the tone then.

I would have said instead:

so the OP is shooting himself in the foot here with the tone then.

I've taken a look at this but it's way out of my league, and appearently doesn't even answer this question.

Why did he use the third person plural while referring to a third person singular ?

Answer

In English, "they" is used as a singular personal pronoun when the gender of the subject is not known.

As gender politics have evolved over the past half-century, and the pace of that change has accelerated in the last decade, personal pronouns have proven fraught with risk and created traps for the unwary.

In response to this, commentors have increasingly started using the non-committal -- and more importantly, safe -- singular they to refer to people whose gender is not known with absolute certainty.

Please note that I'm using the word "gender", not "sex", here quite advisedly; sex is biological, gender is psychological (or, in another school of thought, sociological). This (rather new) distinction is yet another driver behind the recent popularity of singular they: even if a person's sex is quite evident (or you believe it is), their gender may not be (e.g. a person who looks like a man may nevertheless wish to be identified as a woman), and using the wrong personal pronoun can land you in a lot of hot water.

In your particular situation, circumstances which may have contributed to the commentor's circumspection are that your avatar depicts both a man and a young girl, and while your name is quite masculine in your homeland (and its own history as you so perspicuously pointed out), in the US, names ending in -a are considered feminine, and "Andrea" is reserved for naming girls.

grammar - Does the phrase "espoused narrative" make sense?

Recently I've been told my usage of this term is incorrect, but I've seen it being used often enough.

Context I've pulled from google

"This may well also allow the EU to illegitimate these terrorist organisations violent will to power by de-structuring their espoused narrative"

Answer

Oh, dear.

The root meaning of narrative ‘a story’ or the telling of a story. The most recent generation of academics have adopted the word to designate the expression of an understanding or account of how the world works—an ideology—through stereotyped stories. In that sense, narrative has largely replaced the term myth used in my youth fifty years ago.

(Note that myth, from Greek, and account, from French have the same earlier sense of storytelling as narrative, from Latin!)

The root meaning of espouse is ‘marry, take as a spouse’; but it has been used figuratively since the 17th century to mean ‘attach oneself to, adhere to, adopt as one’s own’ It is not at all uncommon to read of an artist or politician espousing a particular aesthetic or political theory.

So it does make sense to speak of a narrative (a way of describing events) being espoused (adopted or embraced) by a political movement or institution, as when the work you cites speaks of “the narrative espoused by terrorist organizatons”.

But the expression “espoused narrative”, although grammatically unimpeachable, is grating. It pushes the ‘espouser’, the agent whose act of personal commitment gives the metaphor meaning and force, to the margin; and it leads me to suspect that the handful of people who use the term have no understanding of the metaphor and think espouse is simply a fancy way of saying ‘accept’.

I recommend that you avoid using this catchphrase, which as jwpat7 tells you sounds like “jargony babble”.

grammar - Art cold? To what extent can pronouns be dropped in English?

Many European languages conjugate their verbs, thus:

I am
You are | Thou art
She is
We are
You are
They are

The form of the verb changes, depending on the person. In some languages (Latin and Polish, to my knowledge), the verb form is completely different for each person, which means that the actual pronoun can be omitted. (I believe it can be reinserted for emphasis.) English can't do that. For regular verbs, only the third person singular has a distinct form. We always use pronouns (except when we don't).

However, in King Lear, at one point Lear turns to his Fool and asks him, "Art cold?" This would not be possible in current English, as the pronoun thou has all but vanished. Was it possible in actual speech in Shakespeare's time, or could it exist in the play only as a poetic flourish?

Answer

Yes, this was ordinary colloquial English in Shakespeare's day, although you was rapidly passing thou. Here are three more instances from Lear:

Art of this house?
Art not asham’d to look upon this beard?
What, art mad?

There was also a contracted form in the indicative:

As th’art a man, Give me the cup. —Ham
Well said; th’art a good fellow —2HIV
Th’art a tall fellow; hold thee to that drink. —TS

An interesting fact (although only marginally relevant to your question) is that Elizabethan/Jacobean English was as likely to contract the pronoun as the verb be. Our it’s appears as ‘tis, our you’re appears as y’are, and our he’s appears as ’a’s—indeed, ’a is the ordinary unstressed form of he:“’a babbled o’ green fields”. (And as often as not, the apostrophes are missing in the printed texts, which can be disconcerting.)

Order of participial adjective

I'm proof-reading a thesis by one of my friends and there's some recurring construct which I always mark as false but I'd like to check with you.

In the comments I was told that the example I provided didn't really match the sentence I found in the thesis therefore I'm adding the actual sentence from the thesis. I'm sorry for the confusion; I'm not a native speaker/in the field of language and thus didn't really see the difference.

So here we go. Which of the following is preferable?

• To illustrate the necessity of some steps a bad representative of the taken radiograms is used.


• To illustrate the necessity of some steps a bad representative of the radiograms taken is used.

I'd use the latter because it is closer to "[...] of the radiograms taken previously is used".

---

Original example

In the English language, one can use the (past) participle of a verb as an adjective, this allows for example to express that I'm creating a scrapbook using the pictures that I have taken previously.

What's the correct way to state this?

• I'm doing a scrapbook from the taken pictures.



• I'm doing a scrapbook from the pictures taken.

I'd use the latter because it is closer to

I'm doing a scrapbook from the pictures taken previously.

Answer

Way too many markers have been deleted from the sentence.

If clarity is the intended goal, some of them, at least, need to be put back. On the other hand, if the intended goal is to match some "correctness" norm, then it doesn't matter whether it's clear.

The issue is taken, which is, as noted, a participial adjective. That identification, however, doesn't mean that
it behaves like an adjective, nor that it originated as an adjective.

In fact, taken is the remains of the deceased passive relative clause which were taken, and that in turn is the remains of the active relative clause which Agent took (where Agent represents whoever took the radiograms, which may or may not be relevant, and may or may not be explained elsewhere in the paper). Passive and then Whiz-Deletion have applied, leaving only the single word taken, which has not had time to shed its verbish habits and resists moving to a prenominal adjective position.

To avoid such problems, my advice is not to delete so much. Viz.

• In order to illustrate the necessity of some steps, we use a bad representative of the radiograms that we took.

Notes:

1. Steps are presumably steps in some process, which is described elsewhere; this would be a good place to remind the reader -- e.g, steps in the treatment process or whatever. This also separates the bare NP steps from what follows.


2. Preposed adverbial clauses are followed by a comma. This represents the intonation contour with which they are pronounced, and signals the reader that there is a preposed adverbial clause here (even though some of its markers, like In order, have been deleted).




3. There is no reason (besides a possible technical style sheet) to use the passive taken when the Agent can be identified as an active subject. Here I have identified it with the authors, as Principal Investigators, which may be wrong; but it should be identified if it's possibly relevant, and this is a good place to do it. Plus, it simplifies the grammar, again.




4. Likewise, the authors are identified as the ones using the bad samples for illustration in an active main clause we use, rather than a passive is used.

I have nothing against Passive constructions, and they are useful. But they can be overused, and then the traces of their use destroyed by deletion, which provides all kinds of problems for everyone to chew on. Isn't syntax wonderful?

grammar - "It is me" vs. "It is I"?

Tonight I watched a movie (The Gospel of John) in which Jesus said (as quoted from the written Gospel of John), "It is I."

How does this expression differ from "It is me?"

Answer

This question about English pronoun case after copula (be) is a duplicate of Which is correct to say: "It's me" or "It's I"?, which links to a clear explanation.

Note that many answers on this page (such as Bill and Ham_and_Bacon) describe English pronoun case after conjunction (and), which is not necessarily the same as after copula (be).

To quote from the clear explanation:

The rule for what [Fowler] and others consider technically right is ... that "to be" should link two noun phrases of the same case, whether this be nominative or accusative. ...

Sometimes in English, though, "to be" does seem to have the
force of a transitive verb. ... The occurrence of "It's me", etc., is no doubt partly due to this perceived transitive force. ...

The final factor is the traditional use of Latin grammatical
concepts to teach English grammar.

To summarize the situation, It is me is the more commonly spoken form, while It is I is commonly written, taught in school, and sometimes spoken.

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

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

Example:

Person 1: "You are bad at English".

Person 2: "No I are not.".

Person 1: "Yes you're".

Is that acceptable?

I would assume that it is.

Think of "don't".

You can say:

"No, don't."

or

"I don't."

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

So, is it okay?

Answer

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

comparisons - Difference between "Better than" and "More than"

Is it always possible to use "better than" and "more than" interchangeably?

Many users prefer the look and feel of A better than B.
Many users prefer the look and feel of A more than B.

Edit: The above examples are quoted from here:

Many users prefer the look and feel of GNOME 2 better than GNOME 3.
Thankfully, a fellow by the name of Ron Yorston already created an
extension pack that essentially transforms GNOME 3 into a logical
upgrade of GNOME 2, instead of the complete departure that GNOME Shell

is by default.

Answer

The difference is qualitative versus quantitative. When you refer to higher quality, you say better and when you mean a bigger quantity, you say more.
In a casual use, when detail really doesn't matter, and you only mean one over another in a general sense, you may use either word in most contexts.

In the given context, prefer takes over instead:
"Many users prefer the look and feel of A over B."

grammar - Can an objective relative pronoun replace a subjective relative pronoun?

I quite often find in New York Times that American writers often use an objective relative pronoun--or omitted it all together--where, I strongly believe, a subjective relative pronoun should be present.

Example 1

thanks to well-publicized remarks about the women he suggested weren’t attractive enough for him to have assaulted

Here, the original two chunks are "Thanks to well publicized remarks about the women" and "he suggested the women weren't attractive enough for him to have assaulted." And, as we can obviously see, "the women" is the subject of a noun clause embedded in the second chunk; thus when the two were combined, it should have been "Thanks to well publicized remarks about the women who he suggested weren't attractive enough for him to have assaulted." And since it is a subjective relative pronoun, it should not have been omitted.

Example 2

from the arrival of the soldiers, whom they believed had been sent to help them.

Here, the original two chunks are "from the arrival of the soldiers" and "they believed the soldiers had been sent to help them." Again, as we can see, "the soldiers" is the subject of a noun clause embedded in the second chunk; thus when the two were combined, it should have been "from the arrival of the soldiers who they believed had been sent to help them." And since it is a subjective relative pronoun, it should not have been omitted.

I understand that languages change with time and according to the usage of native speakers, or writers in this case, not vice versa. Is this why objective relative pronouns are replacing subjective ones?

Answer

Your second example with whom is unremarkable; see this Language Log article: Whom loves ya? (The title is deliberately non-standard)

Geoffrey K. Pullum says

In cases where a relative or interrogative human-class pronoun is
associated with subject function in a subordinate clause that is not

the main clause in which it is preposed, usage is divided, but many
prescriptive authorities (ignoring quite a significant body of
educated usage) regard whom as incorrect; they would recommend the
person who the police thought ___ was responsible rather than the
person whom the police thought ___ was responsible, as the relative
pronoun is understood as the subject of was responsible (even though
it is not the subject of the whole relative clause, the police thought
___ was responsible). The preference is stronger for interrogatives: Whom did the police think ___ was responsible? would be disrecommended by most usage authorities.

So it goes against some people's idea of "the rules", but it is known that many people use "whom" in situations like this.

The first example is interesting in terms of the pronoun omission; it seems unusual to me now that you point it out. I had never thought of how pronoun omission works in sentences of this type:

thanks to well-publicized remarks about the women he suggested weren’t
attractive enough for him to have assaulted

You are of course right that normally we can't omit a subjective relative pronoun: it would be ungrammatical to say

*thanks to well-publicized remarks about the women weren’t
attractive enough for him to have assaulted

However, this may just be a coincidence: normally, a subjective relative pronoun is the subject of the the following relative clause, while here, the subject of that clause is he, and the relative pronoun would only be the subject of an even further embedded clause. In other words, maybe the restriction is not against deleting a subject pronoun, but against deleting a pronoun that serves as the subject of the entire relative clause.

grammar - Subject versus object in a sentence: how are they determined?

For example, if I tell

“I'm write-only”

am I perceived as subject (who is writing) or as an object (who is written)?

Related question:

Answer

You should be careful to distinguish between syntactical labels and semantic labels. Subject and object are syntactic terms: they mostly say something about the form of the sentence, the way it is ordered. Agent and patient are semantic terms: they apply to meaning only.

(Note that the word "I" is one of the few words in English that can only be used as subject (or subject complement). You can't say "the dog beats I": if "I" is object, it should be "me".)

I beat the dog.

The agent of a sentence is the person or thing that acts upon some other thing. The patient is the person or thing that is acted upon. "I" is the person that acts, so that "I" is the agent. "The dog" is the patient.

The subject of the sentence can be found by answering the question: who is it that "beat"? - It is I who beat the dog. Therefore "I" is also the subject. You need to always take the full predicate, that is all the verbs in the clause, in your question to determine the subject.

The dog was beaten by me.

Who is the person that acts? - Me. Therefore "me" is the agent.
Who is it that "was beaten"? - The dog. Therefore "the dog" is the subject. As you see, in passive constructions the subject is usually the patient (or recipient: there are more than just two semantic roles).

[Edited:]
In your example "I am write only", the subject is "I", as Red showed. But I think you want to know whether "I" is the agent or patient of "write" in your sentence. That depends on the meaning of the sentence, which is not clear without context. Since "write-only" is mostly used with computer memory, I will assume that you mean "I" to be analogous to this memory. The sentence to be analysed would then be "this memory is write only".

We could then ask this question: "when someone writes data to a disk, who is it that acts, and who is it that is acted upon?". It is evident that "someone" is the agent, and "a disk" is the thing that is acted upon: therefore the disk is the patient. It follows that in "this memory is write only", the memory is the patient in the context of writing data; the adjective "write-only" must therefore accompany its patient. This means that "I" in your sentence is most probably patient.

relative clauses - "that" omission, subject-verb distance

when can we remove 'that'? I've heard different opinions

I bought the book that is required for this course
I bought the book required for this course

I recommend that you take my advice
I recommend you take my advice

I know that you are correct
I know you are correct

the report that was approved by the board was written by Susan
the report approved by the board was written by Susan

We are studying advertisement strategies that other companies use to recruit minorities
We are studying advertisement strategies used by other companies to recruit minorities

Is the reflexive pronoun in "he showed me myself" correct?

I heard an actor in a TV series say this:

He showed me myself (or to myself)

Is this slang or correct?

(He was shown a letter by his father earlier that day.)

If any of this is correct, please explain why! I have learned that you can only use a reflexive pronoun with the subject of the sentence. The word "me" is the object here, isn't it?

pronunciation vs spelling - Why is "salient" pronounced with a "long a" sound?

The word salient is pronounced with a "long a" sound; Wiktionary gives the US pronunciation as /ˈseɪ.ljənt/, /ˈseɪ.li.ənt/. Is there any reason why the vowel letter here receives its "long" pronunciation (IPA /eɪ/) rather than its "short" pronunciation (IPA /æ/)?

The vowel does not seem to have been long in the Latin ancestor of the word, saliens. We use a "short a" in the word valiant /ˈvæljənt/, which has the same spelling pattern.

Answer

The long vowel in salient is caused by a lengthening rule that originally applied in Middle English to stressed vowels followed by a single consonant (not including x) and two unstressed vowels. In most cases, the first unstressed vowel was i, as it is here, but it could also be e, as ocean. In other words, the general resulting pattern is V̄CiV or V̄CeV, where V̄ represents a long vowel (ā, ē, ō or ū), C represents any single consonant letter apart from x, and V represents any vowel letter. Notably, this lengthening rule did not apply when the stressed vowel was i: that was subject to an opposite, shortening rule in this environment (described in my answer to the following question: Why do we pronounce a long second vowel in “decide”, but a short second vowel in “decision”?)

In Modern English, the unstressed i or e in these words has often been reduced to a palatal glide /j/ or absorbed altogether by the preceding consonant. However, the stressed vowels remained lengthened. This lengthening rule may also apply by analogy to words with this spelling pattern that were taken from Latin into Modern English.

I found a quite illuminating discussion of this rule, and its historical application, in Otto Jespersen's Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles: Part 1, Sounds and Spelling (1954). Valiant happens to be an exception.

The rule only applies to some types of words

First, a note about the scope of this rule. It only applies to words of Classical origin (ultimately from Latin or Greek, possibly brought to English via French), or in some cases to words where VCiV or VCeV occurs due to the addition of a Classical suffix (such as -ial or -ium) to a non-Classical base (for example, nobelium may be pronounced in accordance with the rule, as nobēlium, or with a short “e”, as nobĕlium).

It does not apply to words where VCiV or VCeV occurs within a native English word, or due to the addition of a native English suffix such as -er or -est.

Example words where the rule does not apply:

• burial < Old English byrgels


• cŏpier < cŏpy + -er: the same would apply to any other verb ending in a short vowel, a single consonant and "y" followed by the suffix -er (a hypothetical wrd “studier,” for example)


• busier, busiest < busy + -er, -est: the same would apply to any other adjective ending in a short vowel, a single consonant and "y" folwd by the suffix -er or -est

It also doesn’t necessarily apply to un-nativized loanwords that entered English later than the Middle English period, such as Soviet. However, in some cases it’s hard to identify loanwords, so I’ll just list them along with the other violations of the rule.

The first two categories I’ll discuss contain very few words, but they are among the most commonly used words that violate this rule.

with "short e" before -ci-/-ti-:

• discrĕtion, prĕcious, spĕcial. Jespersen notes these, but doesn’t explain why they developed differently from other words such as matērial, impērial, spēcious. It may just be coincidence, but all of these occur before the sound /ʃ/.

ending in -ătional:

• rătional, nătional. These could be considered to exhibit trisyllabic laxing. In fact, Jespersen says the long vowels in other adjectives ending in -VCional, such as occāsional, congregātional, devōtional, are due to analogy with the vowels in the corresponding nouns, rather than regular phonetic development. Despite this history, in Modern English the productive pattern is the one with the long vowel, so these two words can be considered irregular.

The next two categories are larger, and contain some words that are common and others that are quite rare. They consist of words spelled with VniV or VliV. Jespersen says a number of words in this category don’t follow the lengthening rule because in Old French, they had a palatal consonant sound /ɲ/ or /ʎ/ rather than a Ci sequence. A number of other words spelled like this seem to be pronounced with short vowels for unclear reasons, possibly due to analogy.

before -ni-:

• compănion, onion (="ŭnion"), pŏniard, Spăniard, spăniel. According to Jespersen, from French words with /ɲ/.




• bŭnion. Jespersen doesn’t mention this word. Its etymology is obscure.





• grŭnion, cănion. Both or these are probably from Spanish words with /ɲ/ (spelled ñ). The dictionaries I have checked say the usual etymology of the fish “grunion” is from Spanish gruñón, and the rare/archaic word "canion" (also spelled “cannion”) is from Spanish cañon.




• Proper nouns: Dăniel, Nathăniel, Hăniel, Ăniel. These are names from the Bible ("Haniel" is an angel's name). I don’t know how or at what time they received their current English pronunciations.

The remaining words in this category are all unimportant, obsolete, or have alternate regular pronunciations; I’m only listing them for completeness.

1. Two words that end in -ănia, possibly:

   
   
   
   
   
   
   • Oceănia (regular pronunciation also exists). Although this pronunciation is fairly common, there are also pronunciations with “broad a” or “long a”.
   
   
   • Brittănia. Variant of Britannia. Likely to be considered a misspelling in modern English, although variation between -t- and -tt- and between -n- and -nn- in this word dates back to Latin. I don’t know if a pronunciation with long a was ever used historically.
   
   



2. Three words from French that in modern French have /nj/ rather than /ɲ/

   
   
   
   
   
   • mănioc. The modern French word manioc actually has /nj/ rather than /ɲ/ (insofar as these sounds are distinguished). However, the OED says the spelling “magnioc” was used (among others) in French in the 17th century, which may indicate past confusion between these sounds.
   
   
   • fănion. Rare. From French fanion, diminutive of fanon.
   
   
   • lăniard. Alternate spelling of lanyard. From French lanière.
   
   




3. frănion. Obsolete and rare. Of uncertain origin. Not used in modern times, so I’m not sure how anyone would know how it used to be pronounced, but Collins says /ˈfrænjən/.

before -li-:

• văliant, battălion. According to Jespersen, from French words with /ʎ/. Regularly-pronounced words with similar spelling: sālient, Pygmālion.



• Itălian. Jespersen doesn’t mention this word, but perhaps the same explanation applies here. The OED lists a variety of historical spellings, some of which have -ll-, -ill- or -ly-, which to me seem to suggest /ʎ/. There are regularly-pronounced words with similar spelling: Austrālian, Episcopālian, Vitālian.




• retăliation, retăliate. French /ʎ/ doesn’t seem like it would be relevant here, since these words were taken from Latin, not French. John Walker (1824) lists the modern, irregular pronunciation, so it doesn’t seem to be a recent thing. According to the OED, the noun retaliation is older. It may be relevant that in this word, the vowel only has secondary stress; it seems possible to me that this might inhibit vowel lengthening. There don’t seem to be any other words with similiar spelling to compare these to.



• tălion. (MW, Dictionary.com) Rare, but it seems it did come to English through French. Possibly this explains the pronunciation. Of course, the modern pronunciation could actually be affected by the pronunciation of the related words “retaliate/retaliation”; it’s not clear to me that the historical pronunciation of this word managed to be passed down through oral transmission.

Proper nouns:

• Vălium. It’s a brand name, so it’s not too suprising it violates a pronunciation rule. Obviously not from Old French, so /ʎ/ is irrelevant. Possibly influenced by the pronunciation of valiant. There is a regularly-pronounced word with similar spelling: dentālium.


• Ĕliot. A name. I don’t know how it got its current pronunciation. It seems it may come from Scotland originally; it doesn’t seem to be Latinate. There is a variant spelling "Elliot" that corresponds better to the pronunciation.

The remaining words in this category are all unimportant, obsolete, or have alternate regular pronunciations; I’m only listing them for completeness.

• triskĕlion. This is a synonym of triskele, from Greek. Both are very rare. It seems unclear why -ion was suffixed to the word. Regularly-pronounced words with similar spelling: aphelion, perihelion.


• Evangeliar? OED says /iːvanˈdʒɛlɪɑː/


• Evangelion? I don’t know the usual pronunciation.


• glossolălia. Only the OED lists this; all other dictionaries I’ve checked give the regular pronunciation glossolālia. I don’t know how the OED determined this pronunciation. It might actually be a mistake.

Miscellaneous other words:

• chăriot, clărion. (Only relevant for speakers without the Mary-marry merger.) Jespersen says the pronunciations of these words were influenced by now-obsolete synonyms from French, charet and clarine. There are various other words from Romance languages that are exceptions like this, such as căviar (which the OED says had a stress shift, with a variety of historical forms), cămeo (from Italian and French, with a variety of forms), lăriat (derived from Spanish “la reata") and pătio (derived from Spanish patio).




• glădiator. From the etymology, I would expect this word to rhyme with radiator; it’s unclear to me why it does not. (Actually, apparently, for some people they do rhyme, because "radiator" is pronounced with a short vowel!) The same irregularity is present in one pronunciation of the related word glădiolus (the other pronunciation has a stressed long i and reduces the vowel of the first syllable; compare the stress pattern of areola).




• găseous. The word gas is of relatively recent origin. This may explain why the a is not lengthened in this adjective.




• one common pronunciation of rătion. There is also a regular pronunciation rātion (with /eɪ̯/) that seems about as common. The pronunciation with "short a" seems like it might be due to influence from the pronunciation of the related word rational.




• one common pronunciation of hăgiography. There is also a regular pronunciation hāgiography, although it doesn’t seem to be as common. Another irregularity about the pronunciation of this word is that the “g” is frequently pronounced as “hard g” /g/ rather than “soft g” /dʒ/. It seems that the pronunciation with "soft g” only occurs for speakers who use a “long a” in this word.




• the usual pronunciation of gĕriatric (with /ɛ/, /e/ or /eə̯/). According to MW and dictionary.com, a regular pronunciation gēriatric (with /ɪə̯/, /i/ or /ɪ/) also exists, but it does not seem to be common at all.




• one common pronunciation of the prefix stĕreo-. There is also a regular pronunciation stēreo-, although it doesn't seem to be as common.




• one pronunciation of hystĕria. There is also a regular pronunciation hystēria that seems about as common. The pronunciation with "short e" seems like it might be due to influence from the pronunciation of the related word hysterical.




• one common pronunciation of sacrilegious (="sacrilĭgious"). There is also a regular pronunciation sacrilēgious (with /iː/), although it doesn't seem to be as common. The pronunciation with short stressed /ɪ/ uses a vowel quality generally associated with the letter "i" rather than with the letter "e", and seems to have arisen by analogy with the word religious (although the words are generally not thought to be related etymologically).





• one uncommon pronunciation of epidĕmiology; probably due to influence from the related adjective and noun epidĕmic. The regular pronunciation epidēmiology seems to be more common.




• Another general class of words where “irregular” pronunciations are common is adjectives ending in -ian, or nouns ending in -ium, derived from proper nouns that end in a single vowel followed by a single consonant. Often these show some variation between a pronunciation with a short vowel (which is presumably felt to be closer to the pronunciation of the independent name) and a pronunciation with a long vowel (presumably by analogy to other words in English with this spelling pattern).
  Examples: the elements nobelium and meitnerium, and the adjective Wagnerian, have pronunciations with ĕ as well as ē. The adjective Brobdingnagian seems to only be pronounced with “short a.” A relevant question: Adding an L when appending an -ium suffix to a word? (Metallium vs. Metalium)

---

Additional Sources:

grammar - Which is correct, I or me?

Which is correct?

The photo shows my kids and me at the party.

The photo shows my kids and I at the party

Another one: Which is correct?

This is Jean and I at the swimming pool.

This is Jean and me at the swimming pool.

Using past tense when referencing a still-true fact

In the sentence: "I didn't know she had a son,"

Can I say "I didn't know she has a son" instead, because he is a teenager now?

Or are both correct?

Answer

If she currently has a son, then you can use either version #1 or #2:

• 1.) "I didn't know [(that) she has a son]."




• 2.) "I didn't know [(that) she had a son]."

For that situation, where she currently has a son, the #2 version happens to use a backshift preterite. (Note that "preterite" is the same thing as a "past-tense verb"). As to which version is preferable, well, that depends: which one do you prefer? That is, which one sounds better to your ear?

One of the reasons why a subordinate clause -- like your "(that) she has a son" -- can be backshifted into "(that) she had a son" is that the matrix clause is headed by a preterite (the verb "didn't").

Backshifting in a subordinate clause can occur when either one of the following conditions is true:

• A.) The tense of the matrix clause is a type of past-tense.




• B.) The time of the matrix clause situation is in the past time sphere.

Sometimes, depending on the purpose of the sentence, there can be a preference for either the non-backshifted version or for the backshifted version. Sometimes the non-backshifted version might be considered to be "much more widely appropriate" than the backshifted version. Sometimes the backshifted version is obligatory.

NOTE: There's a common misconception that a present-tense verb being used in its timeless sense (or other related uses) cannot be backshifted. That is untrue, as backshifting is still generally available. For instance, in the older 1985 reference grammar by Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, section 14.31, page 1027:

Here are other examples where present forms may be retained in indirect speech:

• Their teacher had told them that the earth moves around the sun. -- [11]

. . .

In all these sentences, past forms may also be used, by optional application of the backshift rule. Sentence [11] has the simple present in its timeless use, . . .

And so, according to Quirk et al., the following backshifted version (to correspond to [11]) is also acceptable:

• Their teacher had told them that the earth moved around the sun.

Here are some related posts, on the topic of backshifting:

(Some of the material in this post has been borrowed from those two related posts.)

meaning - "being" usage as relative clause

I'm dwelled on usage(s) of being in the following sentence.

Even with the model of memory being just physical memory, several
options are possible.

Can it be written alternatively as the following?

Even with the model of memory which is just physical memory, several
options are possible.

Does it yield same meaning?

AFAI understand the model of memory being just physical memory is object of even with. Isn't it because of "with" preposition? I ask what question to even with as what even with? to find the model of memory being just physical memory.

What is the usage of "being" here? Can same usage be applied to "having" or something else.

Or does the "being" belong to preposition "of"?

I'm really but really confused about the subject. I really appreciate if you can explain and elucidate it.

Answer

No. "being just physical memory" is not a relative clause. Instead, it is the predicate of an absolute construction, whose subject is "the model of memory". An absolute construction has the sense of a subordinate clause, but with the specific subordinate conjunction left unspecified. Your example could be approximated with a subordinate "although" construction:

Even with the model of memory being just physical
  memory, several options are possible.

~= Although the model of memory is just physical memory,
   several options are possible.

In the absolute construction, the tense and the subordinate conjunction are lost, and the subject of the subordinate clause is introduced by "with". In other such absolute constructions, the subject of the absolute construction is left understood.

word order - Why was the flow of this sentence changed?

One editor of mine changed the noun order in a sentence of my article. It seems minor, but I would like to figure out the reason. Is it just because the revision makes the sentence flow sound better? Like, we had better put a word of more vowels at the end of a sentence instead of the middle?

Below please see the change. Please kindly advise. Thanks!

Original Version:

“The path of Chinese discipline to internationalisation is heavy and long!”

Revised Version:

“The path of Chinese discipline to internationalisation is long and heavy!”

Answer

This word order is a cultural convention (not a requirement of logic). It therefore sounds more "natural" to native speakers.

There is a word order for English adjectives:

Opinion Size Age Shape Colour Material Origin Purpose

The problem: Weight does not fit in here. The principle might be the same, i.e. a convention that says that size comes before weight. I asked this here.

Too complicate things more, there is another rule that exempts the above rule but this happens quite seldom (e.g. it's Big Bad Wolf, not Bad Big Wolf). It requires the order of vowels to be ⟨i⟩, ⟨a⟩, ⟨o⟩ (or in IPA: /ɪ/, /æ/, /ɔ/. For instance:

ding, dang, dong

The first vowel in heavy, /ɛ/, is close to /æ/. So my first thought was that "long and heavy" should comply with this rule. But it does not. This might have several reasons. Firstly, it's not an instance of reduplication. Secondly, the words are separated by and.

Collective nouns and pronoun

The army ordered the zoo to kill all the wild animals. It thought that the animals would get away and harm people if a bomb hits the zoo.

Is it grammatical to use the verb 'thought' to refer to an action of a collective group referred to with the pronoun 'it' in the second sentence? Or is it more proper to say that "the members of the army thought..."?

Answer

"It" is ambiguous. A reader might not immediately understand what "it" is.
A simple solution would be:

The army ordered the zoo to kill all the wild animals, thinking that the animals would get away and harm people if a bomb hits the zoo.

This would remove any danger of a reader being confused.

word choice - When to use what or who

Which is correct?

I'm what you made me

or

I'm who you made me

single word requests - Term for a particular type of specious argument

Is there a name for the debating technique of trying to advance a

specious argument by passing off an fallacious assumption as an
accepted truth?

The context for this was in a communication that I recently received from a colleague rebutting a theoretical paper he had read regarding biomolecular interactions and networks. You do not need to understand the subject matter to follow this, which I have abbreviated and simplified, and set out in a way to make the structure clear:

1. Smith and Jones propose that this network of interactions is an
   important buffer against mutations…


2. …but it is well known that anything can interact with anything
   
   else…


3. …therefore the original proposal is patently incorrect.

i.e.

1. Argument to be rebutted


2. Fallacious assumption (It is not true that “anything can interact
   with anything else”, at least in this context.)



3. Erroneous conclusion

I emphasize that it is a name for the debating technique that I am after, not adjectives describing it or its components. I seem to remember there was as series in the Financial Times (London) on different techniques of rhetoric, all of which seemed to have Greek names. However none of those listed on pages such as this seem to fit the bill.

Gender neutral reflexive pronoun — equivalent to "himself" and "herself"

How would you refer to a gender neutral subject with a reflexive pronoun?

It is unbelievable how a perpetrator will cast oneself in the role of victim.

That does not seem right. Is there a better word other than "oneself"? I thought "oneself" would refer to the narrator. Here I try to refer to the subject.

Themselves: It is possible to use a 'singular they' for pronouns, but to say "themselves" surely can not be correct as a gender neutral reflexive pronoun? According to this article, it would only seem to make sense when qualified by a singular they.

Themself: "The form is not widely accepted in standard English" according to the Oxford dictionary.

It is unbelievable how they, as a perpetrator, will cast themselves in the role of victim.

I'd like to avoid making the sentence this complex.

Answer

This is just another version of the he/she, him/her dilemma: English lacks singular pronouns that include both genders. I like @drm65's approach to avoiding the problem. The other likely option is to specify both:

"himself or herself"

It is unbelievable how a perpetrator will cast himself or herself in the role of victim.

Or:

"him or herself"

It is unbelievable how a perpetrator will cast him or herself in the role of victim.

Update:

Another approach is to just choose a verb that isn't reflexive:

It is unbelievable how a perpetrator will play the role of victim.

That's not always possible or best, e.g. when you're trying to emphasize exactly that reflexive aspect of the issue. But play is obviously shorter and simpler than cast him or herself in the role of, so it's worth considering unless there's a good reason to use the wordier version.

syntax - Reason for Subject-Verb Inversion: Only in cases where A is B, shall the Company do X

In the following, why does subject-verb inversion occur? Is it necessary? And what is this type of inversion called?

Colleague’s original:

Only in cases where A is B, the Company shall do X.

I changed to the following:

Only in cases where A is B shall the Company do X.

Searching Google for “shall the Company” gives examples such as:

In no event shall the Company ...
Under no circumstances shall the Company ...

And these all seem quite natural.

“In no event” and “under no circumstances” seem to be prepositional phrases, yet I would say simply, with no inversion:

In the fridge, you will find some beer.

Is the S-V inversion maybe some sort of archaic style that remains in legal or maybe religious texts? Perhaps a remaining German-style syntax?

Answer

It's grammatical.

Subject-verb inversion is required when preposing a negative adverbial of time, place, or circumstance.

• At no time did he say that. ~ *At no time he said that.


• Under no circumstances may she enter. ~ *Under no circumstances she may enter.

It is not allowed, however, when preposing other adverbials.

• *With no hesitation did he speak up.



• *With no grace did he accept it.

Only is a negative.

grammatical number - “Is on” or “are on”?

• The family is on a tour



• The family are on a tour

Which one is correct and why?

Answer

1. The family is on a tour




2. The family are on a tour

Both are correct, as the collective noun family can both be treated as singular or plural. However, one is less likely to hear the second sentence in the US, for collective nouns are usually treated as singular in American English, while they can be treated as both singular and plural in British English. See the note on collective noun concord at Oxford Dictionaries Online.

---

You may want also want to consider a related answer here.

Which sentence is correct? They or them?

"It was them who cleaned the classroom."

or

"It was they who cleaned the classroom?"

Answer

Grammatically speaking, the second one (It is they) is correct. According to Grammar Girl:

... when a pronoun follows a linking verb, such as "is," the pronoun should be in the subject case.

Later on, she elaborates on the subject by saying:

Linking verbs are words like "is," "was," "were," "appear," and "seem," which don't describe an action so much as describe a state of being. When pronouns follow these non-action verbs, you use the subject pronouns such as "I," "she," "he," "they," and "we."

She also gives us a few examples:

Who called Jodie? It was he.

Who told you about it? It was I.

Who had the phone conversation? It must have been they.

Who cares? It is we.

articles - Warning message when user navigates away from a page

In my software, If user edits some content of a document and clicks close icon without saving the changes he made (i.e. without clicking the save icon first), the text of message that I display to the user is as follows:

“Leaving this page will discard unsaved changes.”

Should I use ‘the unsaved changes’ instead of simple ‘unsaved changes’? Does this sentence look correct?

Answer

Just unsaved changes seems to be the one that reads more easily.

Your original gut feeling was right all along!

word choice - How to use "that is"?

My question involves the usage of "that is." I would like to use this construction in such a way that it will provide further qualification to the previous passage or sentence.

An example might be something like this:

"However, it is far less clear whether the fluent processing of a word will have the opposite effect, that is, will the reaction time to a given stimulus show a decreased latency."

What would be correct usage of punctuation, semi-colon, questions marks etc...? Or perhaps does this type of construction not even make much sense?

grammar - Should I use "will" or "would" here?

I doubt they will exchange the 20 inch monitor.

OR

I doubt they would exchange the 20 inch monitor.

Which is correct, and why?

Answer

Both are acceptable, but the usage is slightly different. The following extensions to the sentence illustrate the most common usage:

I doubt they will exchange the 20 inch monitor when I take it back.

I doubt they will exchange the 20 inch monitor if I take it back (but I may try to).

I doubt they would exchange the 20 inch monitor if I took it back (but I'm not going to).

In general, would is used in situations hypothetical, or contingent on some unfulfilled condition; will is used in situations that are more certain. The first sentence takes will because the speaker definitely intends to take the monitor back. The second uses will because, although there is a condition, there is a definite possibility of it being fulfilled. The third sentence takes would because the speaker has no intention of taking it back—and therefore the condition is entirely hypothetical.

terminology - Is there a term for the opposite of the greengrocer’s apostrophe?

Is there a term for the tendency to omit the apostrophe in high-profile items where it would otherwise be expected? – such as “Student Manual” instead of “Student’s Manual” (and “Facilitator Guide” instead of “Facilitator’s Guide”)? This seems to be done in news items also, perhaps partly out of a tendency towards yellow journalism. For example, a recent news story in Yahoo! News had the lead, “Robert Kennedy son …”, instead of “Robert Kennedy’s son…”. The casual reader is pulled in by the expectation that the article is about Robert Kennedy himself.

Answer

This recent news from the UK suggests we may want to call it the Waterstones Apostrophe. Seriously, though...

It could be argued that in some cases omitting the apostrophe is just fine. Each of the three cases below has a perfectly grammatical interpretation with the same meaning: there is a manual and it has to do with students.

1 Student's Manual (N-gen N) = possessor - possessed noun
2 Student Manual (N N) = attributive noun - modified noun
3 Students Manual (N-pl N) = attributive noun - modified noun

Note that the use of the genitive 's in (1) is not truly a possessive relationship anyway. Also, since the manual is intended for use by one or more students, the use of either the singular of plural of the attributive adjunct student in (2) and (3) could be well-motivated.

So the Waterstones Apostrophe isn't as much of a problem as the Greengrocer's. This is probably why there is no commonly accepted name for it.

---

Hm, perhaps there is one common exception:

Also found with "MENS". Of course neither MENS nor WOMENS is a proper word. So we might also call this the Restroom Apostrophe.

past tense - Why is the present perfect used in headlines?

In news reports, we often read or hear events introduced with the present perfect, and then the past simple like this:

The film star Jim Cooper has died of cancer. He was 68 and lived in Texas.

What's wrong if we use both first and second sentence in past simple?

The film star Jim Cooper died of cancer. He was 68 and lived in Texas.

grammar - Was in the sentence of today

Why was she absent today for the morning class?
Is it right? Some one please answer me. l have a doubt about usage of was along with today.

Answer

"Was" indicates past tense - something that happened before this sentence was spoken. If it was in present tense ("is"), it would mean the morning class was still in session when this was spoken (i.e.,"Why is she absent today?"). This sentence is being spoken after morning class is over.

"Today" is also both necessary and grammatically correct. There are multiple points of time in one day (today), so an action done this morning is now in the past. Without "today", we don't know on which day she was absent. (i.e., "She was absent from class." Was she absent yesterday? No, she was absent today.)

possessives - Using apostrophe when abbreviating "recommendations" as "reco's"

When abbreviating the word "recommendations" as "reco's", is it proper to use the apostrophe to show that it's an abbreviation, or does it conflict with a possessive apostrophe?

Answer

The use of the apostrophe to denote an abbreviation (more accurately, to denote missing letters) is known as an "apologetic apostrophe". It is recommended by "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" that apologetic apostrophes be used only for "novel" abbreviations. They should not be used for abbreviations that have become common words in their own right (fridge, nuke, phone). The exceptional case is for those abbreviations more commonly known as "contractions"; "I've", "you'll", "don't", etc., where the use of the apostrophe became common along with the word.

So, short answer, it depends on your audience; those who have never seen the term before would probably understand it better with the apostrophe, while those who use the term in speech would get it faster without. The fact that it's audience-dependent would lead me to say that the abbreviated term is jargon and should be avoided when writing for a general audience. However, given that, the solution becomes simple; drop the apostrophe, because if you're using it at all, it's common to your audience.

word choice - "Could help avoid" vs. "could help to avoid"

Is it correct to say:

The right sitting posture could help you avoid back problems.

OR

The right sitting posture could help you to avoid back problems.

expressions - Neither do I / Nor do I / Me neither / Me either

In this circumstance, which would be the most correct / natural answer?

Person 1: I don't eat meat
Person 2: Neither do I / Nor do I / Me neither / Me either

This says both "neither do I" and "Me neither" are often used. But I have also heard / read "me either" and "nor do I" in multiple scenarios. Which then is the correct way of saying it? Are the others wrong or just not used?

Answer

It's not a matter of "correct"-ness. It's a matter of social class and personal presentation.

In decreasing order of falutation:

1. nor do I (archaic; now either ironic or intended to sound classy, or both)


2. neither do I (normal in writing, common in speech)


3. me either (common in speech, more familiar)


4. me neither (common in ingroup speech)

... roughly speaking, of course; I'm no sociolinguist.

This kind of social layering for language variation is completely normal, in every language. To call one mode "correct" would be wrong; appropriateness of speech or writing depends on the speaker/writer's aims, and their judgement of their relationship with their listener/reader (and of course on how accurate their judgement is). What's correct in one situation is often incorrect in another.

grammar - What is the nature of, and syntactic distinction between, modifier and complement?

I am struggling to understand the syntactic relevance of the distinction between complement and modifier in theories such as the one presented in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by Huddleston and Pullum (henceforth CaGel).

Specifically, I'd like to know

(i) Is there a concise, precise definition of each of these functions, saying exactly what it means to be a modifier and a complement respectively (according to the theory presented in CaGel)? There are obviously lots of examples with extensive discussion, but no matter how much I've searched, I haven't been able to find actual, concise definitions.

(ii) What is the syntactic relevance of the distinction between complement and modifier? That is, what general syntactic phenomenon or phenomena does this distinction explain?

(iii) Are there any reliable syntactic tests for making the distinction, and, if so: what are they? I know of two tests:

• the substitution test, which involves substituting the head of a phrase containing a dependent with a head that unequivocally doesn't license complements, to see if the dependent still "works" – in which case it would be a modifier


• the omission test, which involves omitting a dependent to see if the result is still grammatical – which may imply that the dependent in question is a modifier.

However, neither of these tests seem reliable to me – the substitution test seems unreliable for reasons discussed here, and the omission test is unreliable because complements can sometimes be omitted without rendering the result ungrammatical – as in e.g. She stayed in her room/She stayed) – which means that it only works in cases where omission renders the result ungrammatical.

Finally, I'm asking you please not to mark this as a duplicate of this question, because it's not. In that other question I'm asking specific questions about the substitution test; here I'm asking whether there are any other tests to distinguish between complements and modifiers, and this is furthermore just one of the questions I pose here.

Thank you!

Answer

Here is an extract from another post of mine, slightly modified:

1.0 Complements versus Modifiers

1.1 Complements

OK, so let´s have a look at what Modifiers and Complements actually are. Well, roughly speaking, a Complement is a phrase which fills a special slot set up by another word or phrase in the sentence. So for example, the verb TEACH sets up a slot for the thing being taught, the Direct Object, and the people being taught, the so-called Indirect Object. These terms such as Direct Object, Indirect Object, Locative Complement and so forth are just more specific names for Complements of a verb. Prepositions take Complements too, often noun phrases which we can also sometimes describe as Predicative Complements or Objects. Adverbs can sometimes take Complements either directly or indirectly as well. So for example, the infinitival clause to eat in one go fills a special slot set up by the adverb too in It was too big to eat in one go. Adjectives can take their own various sorts of Complements too; consider on chess in keen on chess or to leave in keen to leave.

So, all sort of words and phrases can set up these slots, and all sorts of words and phrases can fill them too. Sometimes Complements are obligatory and sometimes they aren't. Of course, it's nice and handy when Complements are obligatory, because it's easy to identify them. It is also, in such cases, easy to demonstrate how that word or phrase has a special relationship with the Head of the phrase. So, unfortunately, Complements are often construed as obligatory essential accompaniments to other words or phrases when we first start to learn about them. This isn't always the case. Let's revisit the verb TEACH:

• I teach.


• I teach English.


• I teach students.


• I teach students English.


• I teach English to students.

Here we see this verb taking no Complements, taking one Object, taking two Objects and taking an Object and a preposition phrase Complement. These different Complements are Complements because this verb sets up a special slot for them, not because they are obligatory.

Complements, of course, have other features. For example, they are usually selected by the word they are the Complements of. These Heads will allow certain types of Complements but not others. So for example, the adjective keen will select preposition phrases headed by the preposition on, but not ones headed by the preposition of:

• keen on spiders


• *keen of spiders (ungrammatical)

The verb inquire can take interrogative clauses as Complements, but not declarative ones:

• I inquired whether the elephants had left.


• *I inquired that the elephants had left. (ungrammatical)

Complements are thought of as being more tightly integrated into the phrases they occur in than Modifiers are. Whereas Complements are often required to be adjacent to the words that license them, Modifiers can often be moved further away from the phrases they modify or appear on either side of them. So if we see both Complements and Modifiers in the same phrase, as a rule of thumb, all other things being equal, we expect the Complements to be closer to the Head word than the Modifiers:

• Put it on the shop floor on Thursday.


• *Put it on Thursday on the shop floor. (awkward if not ungrammatical)

A sentence or phrase will often sound marked, awkward or ungrammatical if this does not occur. In the sentence above the Complement on the shop floor will ideally come closer to the verb put than the Modifier on Thursday.

Because Complements are more tightly integrated into the phrases they occur in than Modifiers, they are often obligatorily replaced when we use a proform, whereas Modifiers may be repeated or addended to such phrases:

• *I put my beer in the fridge and Bob did so in the cupboard. (ungrammatical)



• I drank my beer in the kitchen but Bob did so in the living room.




• *I am counting on their help, but I don't want you to do so on their help. (ungrammatical)




• I am counting on their help, but I don't want you to do so.

In the first sentence in the fridge is a Locative Complement. As the anaphoric proform do so includes the Locative Complement in the second clause in that example, we cannot then add a second Locative Complement, in the cupboard. In the second sentence, where in the kitchen is a Locative Adjunct (a Modifier), we can freely add another Locative Adjunct in the second clause, in the living room. In the last pair we see that the sentence is grammatical if we omit the Complement on their help after do so, and ungrammatical if we repeat it.

Lastly, semantically, Complements usually have a close relationship with the words that license them. Words inherently describe semantic relations between different things. So the verb PUT brings to mind a putter, a thing being put, and a location. It doesn't inherently involve any idea of time. So in Put it in the fridge tonight, we would not expect tonight to be a Complement of the verb put, but we would expect both it and in the fridge to be Complements, which as we have seen above, they are. The thing being put and the destination of that thing are suggested by the very use of the verb PUT. Similarly the noun collector also inherently implies that there are things which are collected and someone who collects them. The noun resignation implies a resigner. So in a collector of antique books, we would expect of antique books to be a Complement, and we would expect of the President to be a Complement in the resignation of the President. But we would not expect in the corner to be a Complement in the collector in the corner, because the noun collector does not inherently imply a location.

Because of semantic factors above we also expect Heads to impose semantic, as well as syntactic, selectional restrictions on their Complements. We can annoy elephants but not tables, unless we ascribe some sort of animacy to our tables for some reason. We don't expect such tight restrictions with Modifiers. One can do almost anything on Wednesday and almost anything pointlessly. And whereas the number of possible Complements is specified by the Head both semantically and syntactically, the number of Modifiers is not.

1.2 Modifiers

Modifiers are never obligatory. We can characterise them as syntactically extra elements. They are usually semantically extra too, in the sense that they are not automatically implied by the words or phrases that they modify. Unlike Complements, Modifiers are usually only loosely integrated into the larger phrases they occur in. Their position is often only loosely determined:

• I play foot ball [in the park][on Fridays][with my friends]


• I play football [with my friends][on Fridays][in the park]


• I play football [on Fridays][in the park][with my friends]


• [On Fridays] I play football [with my friends] [in the park]

As shown further above unlike Complements, modifiers are not obligatorily relaced when we use proforms to refer back to a larger phrase.

We can use various forms of cycle as an analogy for phrases here: unicycles, bicycles, tricycles, tandems and so forth. If we regard the frame of the cycle as the Head of a phrase or clause, then the Complements are all the things that fit into the different slots in the frame. So the frame dictates the size and number of wheels, saddles, handlebars and so forth (some of which may be optional, for example in the case of tandems) that the frame can take. These things are all Complements. You can't put the wrong Complements on the wrong frames. For example, a unicycle frame won't usually allow handlebars in the same way that an intransitive verb won't allow a Direct Object. Also you can't fit the wrong size parts into the wrong slots. So the stem of your handlebars must fit into the frame, for example. It cannot be too big or too small. So the frame puts restrictions on what can be slotted into it. In contrast, any lights, bells, mudguards, panniers, stickers and so forth are always optional extras. They are, to extend the metaphor, Modifiers. You can't ride your unicycle without a wheel, but a light is definitely an optional extra. Notice as well, that the bicylce frame puts very few selectional restrictions on the Modifiers available. You can stick lights, bells or horns on any cycle you want to, and any number of each as well—although admittedly things might get awkward if you do decide to use very many.