use of present perfect tense as past

Our country president Manmohan singh has just finished his 5 years tenure.
Can I say Mr.Singh, you have been great in these 5 years or should I stick with 'was' rather then have been?
Does it mean 'have been' is for recent past and common in British English?
Guys I'm confused with this
'has been' use for past or present or might be used in both depending upon context.

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

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

How are faculty member information presented in web pages?

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

grammar - Sentences with coordinating conjunctions between two nouns omitted

There are sentences like this in many literature books:

He held a gun, a sword, a bible.

It is not a sentence, just a phrase.

They do not have word "and" and "but". I think those should be like these:

He held a gun, a sword, (and) a bible.

It is not a sentence, (but) just a phrase.

However, since those sentences give clarity and are better-sounding, I never thought they are grammatically incorrect. But I faced some challenging cases as I was trying to write those sentences, such as a sentence with omission of "and" and only two nouns.

He held a gun, a sword.

This sentence sounds so off to my ear that it is almost dreadful. But when I wrote a sentence with "but" omitted and only two nouns, it seemed fine to me.

It is not a sentence, just a phrase.

So, what is the rule that enables me to delete those coordinating conjunctions between two nouns, and how can I use correctly? Also, is it a formal way of writing?

differences - What rule governs the usage of "by" versus "with"?

There are many instances where by and with mean something completely different, but which is the correct preposition usage in the following sentences?

• A file by the same name as the original file.


• A file with the same name as the original file.

Do the two sentences above mean something different, or can they be used interchangeably? What general rules (of thumb) govern the correct usage of the prepositions by and with?

If you rewrite the sentences to

• A man by the same type of hat as the original hat.


• A man with the same type of hat as the original hat.

then they obviously don't mean the same. In the former sentence, the man is next to the hat, in the latter, he is wearing or holding it. Is the distinction between a material and immaterial object of the sentence (in this case the hat, in the former case the name) what generally governs the correct usage of by and with?

questions - How manyth son to your father?

I know the title sounds stupid, but this is one question that has left me stumped for quite some time. I hope to get an answer in this forum. If the answer is "I am the fourth son of my father", what should be the question?

In general, how do you ask questions with ordinal numbers?

Answer

I don't think you can ask that question directly. The conversation could go something like the following:

How many children does your father have? To which the answer could be three.

You could go on and say:

Which one are you? To which the answer could be I am the youngest, oldest, second, third, etc.

Now the last question might seem ambiguous if it's standing all by its own. But it would make sense once it's in context.

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.

is article "an" before the noun "hour" acceptable?

I have seen many authors uses "an" before "hour" like "an hour" some times. Please consider the below excerpts.

"How long is your break?", I shouted. A group of labourers sat under the banyan tree near the main campus building. "It's two-thirty, lunch ended an hour ago."

and another one is below

I would take his boat for an hour, and buy him tea and biscuits in return.

one more

' I won't take more than half an hour' I promised.

I learned from my teachers that the article "an" comes before vowels and not before consonants. Here "H" is consonant, still author uses the article "an" before "hour".

My question is, is this "an" before "hour" is acceptable? If yes can you explain why?

articles - An Apple Is Green

Which one is correct?

• An apple is green.


• Apple is green.


• The apple is green.

Please describe for me.

Answer

An apple is green.

This is correct when you are talking about a member of a group, something general, for example, fruit. An orange is orange, but an apple is green. A/an is an indefinite article.

Apple is green. This is an unusual sentence, but it could be true if apple is the name of a green child (think Gweneth Paltrow), or you are referring to the color apple. (There is a color called 'apple green'.)

The apple is green.

This is correct when you are referring to a specific apple, the apple you are talking about. The is a definite article; it refers to a particular.

A man and a woman were walking in Oxford Street. The woman saw a dress that she liked in a shop. She asked the man if he could buy the dress for her. He said: "Do you think the shop will accept a cheque? I don't have a credit card."

source

past tense - Is the question "If you didn't break the vase, who did?" a conditional sentence?

My problem is that I was taught (I think wrongly) that whenever a conditional sentence refers to past, there should be past perfect tense in the if clause, as in example 1.

Example 1:

If you hadn't broken the vase, you wouldn't have angered your parents.
[He broke the vase, no doubt about it.]

But is example 2 still a conditional sentence, and is it correct?

Example 2:

If you didn't break the vase, who did?

We're still referring to past, but we don't really know whether he did it or not.

Is this an example of a conditional sentence? Why or why not? How do I recognize a "past" conditional sentence?

Answer

Example 2 means

If you didn't break the vase, then I ask you who did?

The condition is on the speech act of questioning. If you did break the vase, than I needn't ask. Compare:

If you don't mind my asking, who broke the vase?

The condition here is also a condition on my asking the question. This is a general formula -- to be polite, you mention conditions that might make it inappropriate to ask a question.

pronouns - "He is better than _____." (1) I (2) I am?

Which of the following constructions is / are correct?

• He is better than I.


• He is better than I am.

PS: I'm unfamiliar with this site and its workings, so forgive me if my question fails to follow the community guidelines. If there are any improvements I can make to the question, please do point them out.

Answer

They are both grammatical, the first being a truncated form of the second. In both, than functions as a conjunction. However, He is better than I sounds hopelessly formal, at least in British English. The usual form is the equally grammatical He is better than me, where than functions as a preposition. When a preposition is followed by a pronoun, the pronoun is in the accusative case.

grammar - Flipping Sentences and Verb Agreement

Is the following sentence grammatically correct in regards subject-verb agreement?

One of the main facets of the soul is the feelings humans treasure
above all: love and compassion.

The sentence seems to retain its meaning when flipped around, revealing that "the feelings" might be the true subject, and indicating that the verb form "is" could be incorrect. For example:

The feelings humans treasure above all -- love and compassion -- are one of the main facets of the soul.

Answer

Yes. What you are referring to is called subject-complement agreement. When you have a subject and complement that differ in number, the conjugation of the verb is determined by the number of the subject, not the complement.

Example 1:

• One of the things is feelings. ("One" - singular subject; "is" - third-person singular)



• Feelings are one of the things. ("Feelings" - plural subject; "are" - third-person plural)

Example 2:

• The States are the Union.


• The Union is the States.

Example 3:

• John and Jack are the first team to arrive.


• The first team to arrive is John and Jack.

usage - Using "a tiny" in the same way as "a little"

Saying

That made me a little happier

is clearly perfectly fine, yet no one would really ever say

That made me a tiny happier,

even though both "little/tiny bit happier" are fine.

Is there some logic to this? It's perfectly clear what the second sentence means, even though it sounds "a tiny" wrong.

Answer

This is similar to what Matt Эллен said, but uses the analysis and terminology of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. First, tiny is only ever an adjective. As such it can function as attributive modifier of nouns (e.g. a tiny flower) or predicative complement of verbs (e.g., that flower is tiny), and a few other minor functions.

The situation with little is similar when it's an adjective, but it's not just an adjective. We also have the determinative little (e.g., little water) and the complex determinative a little (e.g., a little water; a complex determinative is a single determinative made up of two or more words.) Determinatives typically function as determiner of nouns (e.g., that water), but some determinatives also function as modifier of adjectives (e.g., it wasn't that big). Most adjectives, tiny included, can't function as modifier of adjectives. Also, some NPs can modify adjective (e.g., [a city block] longer).

That made me [a little] happier 

D a little is modifier of Adj happier

*That made me tiny happier

Adj tiny can't modify Adj happier

*That made me a tiny happier

D a can't form a constituent with Adj tiny or Adj happier; Adj tiny still can't modify Adj happier

a bit

D a is determiner of N bit forming an NP

That made me [a bit] happier

NP a bit is modifier of Adj happier

a little/tiny bit

D a is determiner of N bit; Adj little/tiny is modifier of N bit

That made me [a little/tiny bit] happier

NP a little/tiny bit is modifier of Adj happier

The interesting question is how little became a determinative and how a little became a complex determinative.

modal verbs - question about the future tense

In a sentence like

How do you get to the train station?

What would be an appropriate answer (tense wise)? Could you say both of these two:

• I’ll drive you.


• I’m going to drive you.

I think both could be correct: the will one if you say it right after you’ve asked the question, and the going to one if it’s planned and you’re having that chat a week before or something.

Answer

"I'll drive you there" is the normal way this kind offer would be made in response to a mere request for information.

"I'm going to drive you there" is either patronising, forceful, or adding the connotation that this was the plan before 'you' asked the question.

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

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

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




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





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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

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

capitalization - Should a stutter at the start of a sentence retain the capital letter?

When writing dialogue for characters that stammer or stutter over the first letter of the first word in their speech, should the first letter remain a capital or become lowercase when repeated?

My question is probably best explained by example...

Retaining capital letter:

"H-H-Hello," he said.

Not retaining capital letter:

"H-h-hello," he said.

Which is correct, or are both acceptable? I wasn't able to find any solid information either way so I thought a discussion could be had in the hopes of reaching a concrete conclusion.

To be entirely clear, I'm only asking about stammering over the first letter and when that first letter should be a capital.

Answer

I'd stick with the upper case letters. And that doesn't mean you need to use upper case for a stutter all the time. If the stutter starts on a lower case letter then keep it lower case. For example,

I d-don't like that. But if it was I, the I'd use I-I...

That said, I think it' a bad idea to repeat the same letter again and again. It'd be going too much over the top and your reader won't like it. I'd probably stick to a single repetition.

"No" when replying to a question

Say I'm having a conversation and somebody besides me asks "you didn't go to the movie", so usually I would say "no" even though they are correct.

Is there a name for this?
Any more information?

I'm in the USA if that helps

meaning - What is the difference between "wondrous" and "wonderful"?

I have done some research, and I have a hypothesis, largely based on an answer to this same question on Quora. First, allow me to state my research. I looked up the definitions of these two words on Merriam Webster. The definitions are close if not synonymous.

• 
  

  wonderful

  
  
  

  1 : exciting wonder : marvelous, astonishing · a sight wonderful to behold
  2 : unusually good : admirable · did a wonderful job

  
  




• 
  

  wondrous

  
  
  
  

  : that is to be marveled at : extraordinary · a wondrous feat

  
  

The first definition of wonderful is quite similar to the definition of wondrous. So I don't think we can draw a distinction just using the first sense given for wonderful. The second sense, however, is a bit different. There is a difference between something that is "extremely good" and something that excites wonder. The latter is more poetic and emotional.

This Quora answer seems to touch on this. It claims that the two words are synonymous, but that wondrous is better reserved for poetic and emotional situations.

Hypothesis

This has led me to form a hypothesis, and I would like to know whether you think it correct. Has the word wonderful shed its first meaning and adopted the second? I am referring in particular to the meanings given within the Merriam-Webster definition.

Does wonderful have less to do with things that excite wonder, nowadays, in American English, and more to do with things that are extremely good? Does wondrous do a better job of capturing that lost meaning of wonderful, i.e. things that excite wonder?

Second hypothesis

If wonderful has indeed shed its first meaning of "exciting wonder", then I would guess this is because the word is simply too cliché. I would assume the same is true for words like amazing, awesome and awful. It would be more poignant to say that someone was in awe, or that something was awe-inspiring or mesmerizing, as these words are used less often.

gerunds - Having an -ing with an object in a sentence

I was told that ing can be used without an object e.g "the manager forbids smoking" while I know this is true, I want to ask if it can also be used with objects e.g., "I love making lasagne" or " the manager forbids smoking in his establishment." can the ing form be used like this also?

grammaticality - Should I say "there is a handful of..." or "there are a handful of...."?

I want to write that I have handful of somethings. Which of these is the correct form?

1. There is a handful of somethings.


2. There are a handful of somethings.

Are both correct?

Answer

Rimmer correctly identifies phrases like a handful of . . . and a pack of . . . as premodifying elements in a noun phrase, rather than as the subject of the clause and, for the same reason, Mustafa is right in saying that a number of . . . is followed by a plural verb. However, there is a tendency, particularly in speech, for There’s . . . rather than There are . . . to be used regardless of the number of the noun that follows, as in, for example, There’s a few people who believe my story. In the words of the ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ (the stripped-down version of the magisterial Longman Grammar),

‘in conversation . . . the verb is likely to be singular even when the
following notional subject is plural’.

And as ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ says,

[There’s] seems to be evolving into a fixed phrase, rather like the
French C’est . . . , serving the needs of the ongoing discourse rather than
the grammar of the sentence.

grammaticality - Is "go exercising" ungrammatical or non-standard?

Friends,

I think the phrase "go exercise" is spoken in colloquial English. But I can still find the phrase "go exercising," even in Google books. Like the excerpt below:

I like to exercise, but if I'm stressed and I want to exercise, it's different than it used to be," she says. "Before, if I wanted to go exercising, it was out of anxiousness. It was not relaxing; it just made me worse. I think it's good to exercise, because the body needs to exercise, but not obsessively, and not perhaps in that moment when you are very stressed and anxious, like you're ready to run a marathon. For me, it's just walking with my dog. I do that a lot. And then I feel calm and relaxed.

Is this an American/British thing? Or is it plain wrong?

Definite article in the beginning of a sentence

I'm confused with the usage of the definite article.

During the development the following tasks were accomplished:

• Software with a graphical interface was created;




• [some other things]

I know exactly the software which was developed, and I am writing an annotation for my work.
Should I use the before software?

Answer

The simple rule is:

If you had mentioned the particular piece of software in a previous sentence and this sentence is with reference to it, then begin with The.

If not, you are refering to 'some software' and so you will begin with Software.

questions - "Which" vs. "what" — what's the difference and when should you use one or the other?

Most of the time one or the other feels better, but every so often, "which" vs. "what" trips me up.

So, what's the exact difference and when should you use one or the other?

Answer

"Which" is more formal when asking a question that requires a choice between a number of items. You can use "What" if you want, though.

Generally speaking, you can replace the usage of "which" with "what" and be OK grammatically. It doesn't always work the other way around, however. There needs to be a context of choice. For example:

Which/What flavor of ice cream do you want?

• Either is fine, but "which" is better.

Which/What do you want for dessert?

• "Which" only works in the context of being presented with choices (e.g. a dessert cart right in front of you).

orthography - Full-stack vs Full Stack, Back-end vs Back end, Front-end vs Front end

Software Developers use the dash interchangeably for these terms.

Front-end meaning one works on the "Front End" of an application (e.g. HTML), Back-end meaning one works on the "Back End" of an application (e.g. PHP), and Full-stack meaning all of the above.

Is there a proper spelling of these terms? Or does it matter?

Answer

The usual principle is that a attributive adjective gets hyphenated (it was a hard-fought victory), but a predicative adjective does not (the victory was hard fought).

The punctuation usually follows the syllabic stress. Note that in hard-fought victory, there is only one stressed syllable in hard-fought, whereas in the victory was hard fought, there are two stressed syllables in hard fought.

So you'd have front-end system.

The noun phrase front end shouldn't be hyphenated: both words are stressed.

grammaticality - Is using "she" when the gender is unknown ungrammatical?

I often come across the use of "she" not as an gender neutral pronoun as such but as the pronoun of choice when the gender is unknown. This is particularly common in scientific/technical documents but not exclusive to them. The following are four of the first google hits when searching for "the user can" "if she":

• Example 1:

  
  
  

  
  

  The user can type anything to identify the file. When coming back to the data she would expect to see exactly the same string she typed in.

  
  





• Example 2:

  
  
  

  
  

  In this page the user can add a new entity, if she follows the link labelled Add entity.

  
  




• Example 3:

  
  
  

  
  

  To continue with our ergonomic program, imagine that you would really like the user to sit down and your program would continue only once she answers that she is sitting down, you can use the do…while statement to wait for the user to sit down;

  
  





• Example 4:

  
  
  

  
  

  The user can program the alarm to go off at a particular time -- for example, the user can enter the time when she expects to get home.

  
  

I do not call this gender-neutral because she clearly has a gender. However, that is in no way implied by the context. Traditionally, we would have used he instead but the use of she in these contexts has been rising (at least that is my impression).

I raised this point in the comments section of this question and was told that such use of she is ungrammatical. I was also told that it is annoying which is the reader's prerogative, but ungrammatical?

So, is such use of she ungrammatical and, if so, why?

---

CLARIFICATION: I am not asking what the gender-neutral pronoun is in the English language but why she would be ungrammatical if he isn't.

grammaticality - "you," "your" or "yours" in this sentence?

I just received an email that had the following sentence,

We have plenty of magic that will pique your and your customers' interest.

Aside from the obvious errors, do we use "you" "yours" or "your"?

EDIT
The original sentence, verbatim:

"We have plenty of magic that will peak your & your customers interest."

Answer

There is not one correct answer, any of the solutions below are acceptable but the OP might be persuaded by the number of hits Google reports.

Google News has 114 results for your and your children's

1. "Of the things he says that are wrong this is the most direct threat to your and your children's health."




2. Contact your legislative and congressional representatives and encourage them to support your and your children's right to privacy and push ...

For you and your children's Google News reports 323 hits

1. Grab your coat, hat and gloves, bundle up and head outside! Outdoor play is good for you and your children's health and physical development ...




2. How many babies born last year share you and your children's names?

Google reports 11,500 hits for your name and your partner's name

1. The account can be in your name and your partner’s name.




2. Simply enter the name of your team, your name, and your partner's name and you're all set!

51,600 hits for your and your partner's

1. This thinking reinforces the establishment of a great deal of inaccurate thinking regarding the quality of your and your partner's ideas and choices.


2. SimpleTax is designed to automatically maximize your and your partner's combined refunds.

and 339,000 hits for you and your partner's

1. Complete you and your partner's taxable income details


2. If you and your partner's interests are poles apart, you need to ask yourself whether you are willing to do the things you enjoy alone or with other friends.

Google seems to suggests that “you and your customers' interest” (if both parties have the same interest in common) or “interests” is the preferred solution.

It avoids repeating the possessive adjective your twice in the same sentence, and if the noun that follows you and your is plural, it is unlikely a reader will interpret joint ownership of the thing in possession. Compare:

• You / your and your partner's name = suggests that the couple might share the same name.


• You and your partner's names = suggests at least two names per person



• You and your children's names = no ambiguity




• Your name and your partner's name = unequivocal but repetitive. Possibly the ideal solution for government documents, tax forms etc.

In conclusion, if one is looking for a perfectly grammatical sentence and one which expresses clearly its meaning, then I suggest the following solution:

We have plenty of magic that will pique your interest and your customers' interest.

If one is looking for the most harmonious solution, without changing the word order or any of the terms being used then this is perfectly acceptable:

We have plenty of magic that will pique you and your customers' interest.

articles - Should "an" be used before words beginning with "h"?

Should an be used before words beginning with 'h'? What about when the 'h' is silent and is followed by a vowel?

grammaticality - What's wrong with 'caught no mice'?

In Kipling's story "Below the Mill Dam", this passage occurs:

"He shouted large and vague threats to my address, last night at tea, that he wasn't going to keep cats who 'caught no mice'. Those were his words. I remember the grammar sticking in my throat like a herring-bone."

The speaker, like all cats, is fastidious to the point of pedantry, so the point of grammar can only be a trivial, or even ridiculous, one; but even so I can't see anything wrong with the expression. Can any fellow-pedant, or cat, enlighten me?

Answer

It's the verb tense.

*I'm not going to keep cats who caught no mice.

is wrong, it should be "catch no mice" or "who have caught no mice."

Is there a word or phrase for the feeling you get after looking at a word for too long?

Sometimes after looking at a word for a while, I become convinced that it can't possibly be spelled correctly. Even after looking it up, sounding it out, and realizing that there's simply no other way to spell the word, it still looks wrong.

Is there a shorthand way to describe this feeling so that people will know what I mean without the long explanation?

Answer

Eureka! Ok, so it's not a single word, but it's what I was trying to think of:

Semantic Satiation:

Semantic satiation (also semantic saturation) is a psychological phenomenon in which repetition causes a word or phrase to temporarily lose meaning for the listener, who then perceives the speech as repeated meaningless sounds.

I also found a languagehat discussion on this topic.

meaning - Plural Possessive of a Singular Noun

While browsing this SE site, I stopped to look at the "What kind of questions can I ask here?" section of the FAQ, where the following is written:

Questions on the following topics are welcomed here:

• Etymology (history of words’ development)

I'm not claiming the above is wrong, but I am asking if it's right! My question is about the combination of "words'" and "development". Since "word" is plural but their "development" is singular, does this imply that these words need to have a collective development?

Alternatively, would it be more like the [possibly] intended meaning to have "development" in its plural form, leaving the words free to develop individually or in any combination?

Answer

I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with the phrasing, but it does seem rather clumsy to me. I'd probably have written (history and development of words).

Using "development" in the singular is simply because the alternative is even more clumsy, but syntactically both are acceptable (see this question on difference between "on their back/backs").

"You're a louse!" "I?" (Personal Pronouns vs Objective Personal Pronouns)

While reading Atlas Shrugged I've come across a number of conversations similar to the following:

Person 1: "You're a louse!"

Person 2: "I?"

This sounds very odd to me, but I can see how 'I?' could be short for 'I am?'.

I've looked around trying to discover if this is grammatically correct and I've learned about personal pronouns (I, you, he, she, it, we, they) and objective personal pronouns (me, you, him, her, it, us, them).

Personally, I think the conversation sounds much better like this:

Person 1: "You're a louse!"

Person 2: "Me?"

...with the reasoning that this:

Person 1: "He's a louse!"

Person 2: "Him?"

sounds much better than this:

Person 1: "He's a louse!"

Person 2: "He?"

Therefore I think the correct grammar in this scenario is the objective personal pronoun (me) rather than the personal pronoun (I). I'm not sure, though.

Can anyone give me some concrete rules about this scenario?

grammar - Is the word "that" overused?

Is it wrong or in bad form to constantly use the word "that" when it can be omitted?

1. The test that she took was so difficult that she began to sweat.


2. The test she took was so difficult she began to sweat.

I find myself writing more along the style of 1., but for some reason, I feel like it's not good form. Is there a grammar principle to confirm or refute this intuition?

Answer

Generally, the use of that is optional: neither its use nor its omission are bad style. However, when you are using it everywhere, all the time, that can be too much. The same applies to omitting it everywhere—the more so because its omission can sometimes cause ambiguity.

Of your example sentences, I'd say the first one is OK; I think I'd leave out the first that, but that would be only a minor improvement. Tastes may vary on this. If there had been three thats close together, I'd say it would usually be best to omit one, unless all three were required for clarity; but in that case it might be better to recast or split the sentence.

The second sentence is perhaps acceptable to some, but I'd put a that after difficult. Omitting it twice in a row makes the sentence a bit harder to parse, though it's still not the end of the world. Given the choice, I think one usually omits the that of relative clauses (the chair that I saw) and of reported speech (he said that he'd come) sooner than the that of so ... that, though it is still possible there. I'd write your sentence like this:

The test she took was so difficult
that she began to sweat.

Note that we usually omit that more often in speech; there intonation resolves some of the ambiguity that might otherwise ensue. I'd probably omit both thats in speech.

grammar - Verb and adjective usage

Since adjectives are used to describe nouns, can verbs be used to describe nouns as well?

For example:

Two men standing with clenched fists are US athletes.

Here fist is a noun and to describe a noun, an adjective is used. In this case the adjective should be clenched but the dictionary shows that clenched is a verb.

So does that mean that verbs are also used to describe nouns?

pronunciation - Does anywhere else add an 'L' to words ending in a vowel sound?

When I was six I moved from Manchester (northwestern England) to Bath (southwestern England). I was baffled to hear my school mates describe the 'aerials' they lived in.

Fast forward many years and I live in Bristol (10 miles from Bath). I find now that sometimes I add 'L's to words ending in vowel sounds, involuntarily! Because that's how Bristolians (and Bathonians) speak (although they didn't always - the city name, originally was Brycgstow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bristol)).

I'm wondering whether anywhere else routinely adds an 'L', or any other letter for that matter, to words ending with a vowel sound.

Using active voice without personal pronouns

When writing scientific research proposals I have been advised to try and stick to active voice because passive tends to sound indirect and to imply doubt. However, when writing in active voice, I find it difficult to not use personal pronouns. Does anyone have any tips for maintaining active voice without using personal pronouns?

Answer

Well, if you're that bothered about avoiding personal pronouns, you can always say "The author", "The researcher" etc. It's really a matter of preference; not all scientists think there's anything terribly wrong with good old-fashioned words like "I" and "we"...

You may also want to see if you can actually find a scientific study attesting to the perceived indirectness or doubt of the passive.

idioms - Which sentence is correct (too+adj.)?

Which sentence is correct?

This object has a too low temperature.

This object has too low a temperature.

Answer

The second choice is preferred. One could also say "It has an excessively low temperature."

Plainer still is "It is too cold."

meaning - "Lately" and "recently" in Present Perfect

If I use Present Perfect Progressive and Present Perfect with an expression of unfinished time, it implies that the action is continuing.

But what about recently and lately — when used with Present Perfect Progressive and Present Perfect do they imply, like expressions of unfinished time, that the actions are still continuing?

And if lately/recently are not used in a sentence (with either Present Perfect or Present Perfect Progressive) would it imply that an action is complete?

E.g.

• Recently/lately, I have been feeling really tired.
  Recently/lately, I have felt really tired.
  I have been feeling tired.
  I have felt tired.


• She has been watching too much television lately.
  She has watched ... lately/recently.
  She has been watching too much television.



• Have you been exercising lately?
  Have you exercised lately?
  Have you been exercising?


• Mary has been feeling a little depressed.
  Mary has felt depressed lately/recently.
  Mary has been feeling a little depressed lately/recently.


• Lisa has not been practicing her English.
  She has not practiced her English recently/lately.
  Lisa has not been practicing her English lately/recently.


• What have you been doing?
  What have you done? [a completed action]

What have you done recently/lately?
What have you been doing recently/lately?

Answer

When 'recently' or 'lately' is used with present perfect progressive:

Since the adverbs recently and lately both suggest that something is done either "at a recent time" or "not long ago", using these words to describe a particular ongoing action in the past does not necessarily imply that the action is continuing right up to the present.

Scenario 1: A is having lunch with B.

A: Have you been listening to the podcasts by Brain Cox recently/lately?

B: Yes. (But this does not imply that the action is continuing right up to the present.)

When 'recently' or 'lately' is not used with present perfect progressive:

Omissions of adverbs such as recently and lately do not necessarily suggest that an action is complete.

Scenario 2: A saw B sitting on a bench.

A: How long have you been sitting on the bench?

B: A couple of minutes.

---

What about the present perfect?

The present perfect is normally used to denote the present state of an action's being completed, that is, that the action took place before the present time.

---

Habitual action:

The present perfect and the present perfect progressive can both be used to talk about an action that is habitual:

"I have gone out with her every weekend."

"I have been going out with her every weekend."

Using the present perfect progressive can imply that this habitual action is continuing right up to the present, but it may not always be the case.

Updates: When 'recently' or 'lately' is used with present perfect progressive

Describing an action in the present perfect progressive form with "recently" or "lately" does not necessarily imply that the action is continuing right up to the present, but it may suggest that it is a habitual action.

"I've been going to the pub recently."

Describing an action in the present perfect form does not suggest that it is a habitual action.

"I've gone to the pub recently."

american english - enough better, better enough, sufficiently better, sufficiently well, or well enough?

Someone asked about using "enough" in front of a comparative adjective e.g. "he felt enough better to go back to work." A lively discussion ensued between the BrE and AmE contingents about whether a) enough can ever be used with a comparative and b) if it can, whether it ever appears in front of the adjective. Once it became clear that BrE speakers do not use such constructions at all, a heated discussion followed among AmE speakers about whether such constructions are a perfectly normal, even sophisticated, part of standard (is there such a thing?) AmE or instead represent colloquialisms confined to some geographic region or social niche. The Corpus of Contemporary American English has a small number of hits, mostly in fiction, which seems to support some level of use, albeit limited.

So now to a concrete question:

Which of the following, if any, sound correct to AmE speakers in a written, but not necessarily formal, context?

A. Art felt enough better to go back to work.
B. Bart felt better enough to go back to work.
C. Curt felt sufficiently better to go back to work.
D. Dirk felt sufficiently well to go back to work.
E. Erik felt well enough to go back to work.
F. Fred felt improved enough to go back to work.
G. Or some other way to express the idea?

BTW, I looked at prior questions in this forum. One, which I'd hoped would provide some insight, used the term "enough better" as part of a larger example but didn't ask for or receive any comments on that particular point: Q: How much not better than average is enough?

Another, Too X, X enough, enough X didn't address the use of enough in front of a comparative.

subjects - Term used for the number of items in a singular or plural noun or sentence

Can anyone confirm the name of the term used
for the number of items in the terms singular,
plural, etc.?

Does singular or plural indicate the cardinality
of a part of the sentence, or is there a more
appropriate word for the term cardinality?

E.G. When "We went to the store" has a plural subject, does plural
refer to the cardinality of the subject,

or is a different word used to refer to the
fact that the count is more than one?

Answer

The word you are looking for is plurality.

1 the fact or state of being plural : some languages add an extra syllable to mark plurality. (NOAD)

sequence of tenses in quoting others

Ryan et al. (2005) added that in-depth assessment of the family was important, and this could be best achieved by considering all points of view and by exploring a broad range of family functions, including how they had been communicating, solving problems, allocating roles and responsibilities, engaging emotionally with each other, and setting rules and expectations (as cited in Keitner, 2005).

or

Ryan et al. (2005) added that in-depth assessment of the family is important, and this is best achieved by considering all points of view and by exploring a broad range of family functions, including how they communicate, solve problems, allocate roles and responsibilities, engage emotionally with each other, and set rules and expectations (as cited in Keitner, 2005).

grammaticality - "Ask me anything" and "Ask anything to me"

There are some sentences I hear regularly:

1. Ask me anything


2. Ask anything to me.


3. If you ask me whether he was right, I would tell you "No".


4. If you ask me about whether he was right, ....


5. If you ask to me whether he was right, I would tell you "No".



6. If you ask to me about whether he was right, ...

So I hear the construction between ask + me + something but I like to know which sentences are correct above?

And also could you please explain the grammatical rule of these sentences?

And more quick thing, I told my native english speaker friend this "Do you know whether Eric asked me today". And his reply was "I don't know what Eric asked you about." However I meant to ask whether Eric ever looked for me or not. Was my question wrong?

Answer

All of your examples with to me are grammatically incorrect. The verb ask takes an indirect object and a direct object, and the indirect object cannot usually be moved to an oblique phrase with to. So the following are correct:

1. Ask me anything.


2. If you ask me whether he was right, I would tell you "No".


3. If you ask me about whether he was right, ....

And the following are incorrect:

1. Ask anything to me.


2. If you ask to me whether he was right, I would tell you "No".


3. If you ask to me about whether he was right, ...

The problem with your question Do you know whether Eric asked me today? is that you've placed me in the indirect object position. This makes for a bizarre question in which you ask your friend if Eric has asked you any questions... which makes no sense. What you meant to say was Do you know whether Eric asked about me today?

word usage - Use of 'this' – relates to the directly preceding noun

I am a german native speaker. I am currently in the finishing stages of writing a thesis. One of my advisors (English is his mother tongue) provided feedback on the language of my writing.

One point of his feedback is that I do not properly use the word this. He says that in German this often is used to relate to something general or to relate to something which occurs one or more sentences before. In English, however, this should be used to relate to the directly preceding noun.

One example would be:

We follow the vision of X because it enables to solve issues Y and Z. Hence, this will form the basis of the presented research.

Or:

In the first phase we will review available literature. This will show previous research efforts from two perspectives.

I do not want to debate whether his feedback makes sense or not. I rather would like to know, how I can deal with his feedback accordingly? That is, find a proper way to avoid using this in these cases.

Answer

As you should already know, your usage in both cases is perfectly fine but obviously that is not the concern here.

For the first example:

We follow the vision of X. This enables us to solve issues Y and Z and will form the basis of the presented research.

By rearranging a little bit, you end up using this again but in a manner that your advisor should deem as 'acceptable'.

Second example:

In the first phase we will review available literature to show previous research efforts from two perspectives.

Either using to or which to merge the two sentences will avoid the issue.

parts of speech - Is "University Challenge" right that this is a gerund?

The full context is below, but the basic question is: is the word spending in the following example really a gerund, as claimed by the University Challenge question-setters? My "best guess" would be that it is an example of a present participle or the progressive aspect.

Q: Give the single word gerund that completes the opening statement of Francis Bacon's essay 'Of Expense': 'Riches are for spending'.

Source: "Open University" Question, pre-2010

(In the original question, the word spending was missing and had to be determined.)

This question featured in a recent (April 2018) edition of the UK TV programme Have I Got News For You, quoting a question from the quiz programme University Challenge (because the guest host of the former – Jeremy Paxman – is also the regular presenter of the latter).

I correctly guessed that the missing word was spending, and then, working with the (perhaps simplistic) rule that "a gerund is a noun made from a verb" thought: is this really a gerund? In, for example, "This month's spending has increased", spending would, I believe, be correctly labelled as a gerund (spending acts as a noun; the amount of spending that occurred this month). In the above case, however, it feels like it is still being used as a verb.

Doing some research, the most helpful resource I came across was Gerunds, participles and forms in -ing from Linguapress.com. This lists four different types of words ending -ing:

1. The gerund is a verb which is used as if it were a noun. Since it is a verb, it can not be qualified by an adjective, nor preceded by an article, but it can be modified by an adverb and take a complement.

   
   
   
   
   
   
   • Seeing is believing.
   
   
   • Living cheaply in New York is quite possible.
   
   



2. A verbal noun is a noun formed formed from a verb; some of these end in -ing. It can take a determiner, and be qualified by adjectives.

   
   
   
   
   
   • The book was easy reading!
   
   
   • He managed to make a good living.
   
   




3. A participle is an adjective or part of a participial phrase qualifying a noun or a pronoun.

   
   
   
   
   
   • Smiling, the lady told them they'd won the big prize.
   
   
   • I heard them arguing last night.
   
   



4. The present participle is also used in the progressive aspect of verb tenses.

   
   
   
   
   
   • I'm taking my brother to the station tonight.
   
   
   
   • The man was phoning his friend, when the lights went out.
   
   

To my (imperfect) understanding, in "Riches are for spending.", I don't believe spending fits cases (1) or (2) since I don't think it is being used as a noun. Neither does it seem to fit case (3), since it isn't modifying a noun. It does seem to fall into the fourth category – the progressive aspect – as it represents an ongoing action: spending money (riches). (One might have written "Riches are to be spent." – which [to me] reinforces that it is being used as a verb.)

If the question had come from almost any other quiz show, I would probably have just assumed I was right and chalked it up as a (minor) error on the question-setters' part. However in this case:

1. University Challenge is quite a "high-brow" quiz ... as can be seen from the other questions in the book listed above. While it doesn't exclude "popular culture", the bulk of its questions are of university-level across many subjects including classics, history, biology, physics, chemistry and the arts. As the book's introduction says: "[The question setters'] hard work – fact-checking, double-checking, cross-checking, and verifying – is contained in these pages.".

   
   
   

   In other words, I would not expect them to be wrong (although I'm sure it has happened).




2. Especially in the light of the above, I am in no way certain of my analysis, and would welcome an explanation of why the word is, in fact, a gerund.

The closest on-site question I could find is When does a gerund become a verb?. This clarifies that a gerund doesn't become a verb (under certain circumstances), but that a word ending -ing might be a verb. Unfortunately, the answers don't help me clarify the question (but suggest a third option: the use of spending in the original quote may be ambiguous, and there is not enough context to determine if it is being used as a gerund or not).

I don't believe the answers to What's the difference between a gerund and a participle? cover this case: partly because that covers cases (1) and (3) above, but I believe this use is between cases (1) and (4) – gerund or present participle/progressive aspect. However, the accepted answer there (and comments to it) show how complex and/or a matter of opinion these distinctions are, so it may be that this is too "opinion-based".

So: is spending in "Riches are for spending" (a) a gerund, (b) one of the other types of "-ing" word, or (c) we cannot tell from the context?

Answer

Riches are for spending.

I take "spending" as a verb here (cf. "riches are to spend"). Syntactically, there are several indications that it's behaving as a verb:

[1] it can be modified by an adverb: "Riches are for spending extravagantly/cautiously/recklessly", whereas nouns cannot (normally) be modified by adverbs.

[2] Unlike nouns, it has no plural form - we can't say *"Riches are for spendings".

[3] It can take a to PP complement: "Riches are for spending on luxuries".

Traditional grammar analyses "spending" here as a gerund simply because it is complement of a preposition, i.e. a location where nouns normally hang out. Which doesn't tell us what part of speech it actually is -- a typical weakness of traditional grammar.

grammar - Is "group" singular or plural?

When I'm referring to a group of multiple things, should it be considered singular or plural for the purposes of applying a verb to it? For example, which is correct in the examples below?

A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period.
A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period.

The group of people constitutes a jury.
The group of people constitute a jury.

A group of crows is called a 'murder'.
A group of crows are called a 'murder'.

My instinct is that it depends on whether the verb is referncing the group itself or the members of the group directly, but is that right?

Answer

According to the OALD, group can actually serve as either a plural or singular noun. The category they give is "countable + singular or plural verb". So, an example of correct use is:

A group of us is/are going to the theatre this evening.

For any of your examples, both is and are can be used. I think the difference between them is as you say: use is when you are referring to the group, and use are when you are referring to the members of a given group. This page on when to use "group" as plural from Washington State University backs this up, saying:

When the group is being considered as a whole, it can be treated as a single entity: “the group was ready to go on stage.” But when the individuality of its members is being emphasized, “group” is plural: “the group were in disagreement about where to go for dinner.”

To analyze your given examples, here are some notes:

• A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period. Use this form if you're talking about the group itself. That is, a sentence is a group of words followed by a period.


• A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period. This implies that "This. Is. A. Sentence" is a sentence.


• The group of people constitutes a jury.


• The group of people constitute a jury. This would be more correct, since you are describing the nature of the group.


• A group of crows is called a 'murder'. This would be correct, since you're again describing an entire group.


• A group of crows are called a 'murder'.

grammar - Help me cook vs help me to cook?

This question has been rounding my head for a while, id say help me cook but then i think about omitting "to" which i think isn't correct. Can you give me more examples about this situation.

Thanks in advance

grammar - "a" or "an" ubiquitous?

I am unsure whether to use "a" or "an" in the following sentence:

Video games have become a/an ubiquitous part of American culture.

For me, saying the two sentences out loud makes "an" seem like the right choice but Microsoft Word proofing disagrees.

Answer

This isn't straightforward. In my version of English, I would say 'a ubiquitous'. It seems that the grammar checkers in MS Word agree -- both in US and UK English.

However, take a look at this ngram of published works.

Google ngram: a ubiquitous,an ubiquitous

You can see that a changeover occurred in the late 1880s but both versions survive up to the present day.

capitalization - Why should the first person pronoun 'I' always be capitalized?

Why should we capitalize the first person pronoun 'I' even when it does not appear at the beginning of a sentence? Why is it not the case for other pronouns?

Answer

The pronoun I began to be 'capitalized' around the middle of the 13th century. But this was not true capitalization. Note that it was long before the printing press: all texts were in manuscript.

Before the 11th century, the letter i was normally just a short vertical line, without a dot, somewhat like ı. The j did not exist as a separate letter. When an ı was written as a separate word or mark, as the Roman numeral ı/I and the pronoun ı/I, or when it was the last one of a group of ı's, it began to be written elongated, somewhat like a straighter ȷ (without a dot). This elongation of the separate, single ı was probably done in order to avoid confusion with punctuation marks. That of the last ı of a group was mostly in order to avoid confusion between u and ıı, between n and ıı, and between m and ııı, which often look identical in manuscripts; both m and ııı could be written with and without clearly distinguishable connecting strokes. From then on, such groups of ı's looked more like ıȷ and ııȷ (without dots).

I believe that this convention of elongating the pronoun I had already been established by the time the dot was first used. Because a long ȷ without a dot looks much like a capital I—which has been written the same way since Antiquity—, it was later assumed to be a capital. (Incidentally, the dot was then usually written as a very short diagonal line above the ı or ȷ.)

From http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=I :

The reason for writing I is ... the
orthographic habit in the middle ages
of using a 'long i' (that is, j or I)
whenever the letter was isolated or
formed the last letter of a group; the
numeral 'one' was written j or I (and

three iij, etc.), just as much as the
pronoun. [Otto Jespersen, "Growth and
Structure of the English Language,"
p.233]

An illustration of the problem of indistinguishable ııı, uı, m, etc.:

Cedet animam meam in
te mee: dimittam adver
sum me eloquium meum loq[ua]r
in amaritudine anime mee di

[From Mechanical Snail's comment below:] By contrast, "i" (meaning "and") is not capitalized in Catalan / archaic Spanish, nor in Polish/Serbo-Croatian.

[From Janus's comment below:] Possibly related is the fact that the pronoun I in Danish (where it means ‘ye’, i.e., non-formal second person plural) is also always capitalised. The homophone i (which means ‘in’), however, is not.

grammatical number - How to Pluralize a Proper Noun That Already Has a "'s" In It

How does one pluralize a proper noun that already has an apostrophe in its singular form?

• for example, McDonalds'... How would I say there are three McDondald's in California?

Please note: I am not asking how to write a possessive form for a proper noun that already has a 's in it, I am asking how to pluralize a proper noun that already has a 's in it.

(The first instance has already been answered previously, and used McDonald's for an example as well)

Thank you!

Answer

So this is very similar to this question, but, as you note, not a true duplicate, because you're asking how to pluralize an already-possessive noun, rather than how to make it possessive.

However, many of the same tricks involved still apply. Namely, it's really best avoid the issue by rephrasing it in a manner which allows you to pluralize a different word instead, such as:

There are three McDonald's locations in California

articles - Is it necessary to use "the" multiple times?

It seems that the question has eventually become a series of questions....

---

An example goes as:

The 1st and (the) 2nd paragraphs of the article are extremely long.

Another example:

What are the situation, (the) task and (the) result of your story?

Is it necessary to use the in ()?

Answer

Generally, repeating the word "the" before items in a list is not necessary. Think of "the" as being distributed across all the elements.

However, there are some exceptions.

The first paragraph, which is the funniest paragraph of the article, and the second paragraph are extremely long.

Here, the "the" is necessary because you've entered and exited a dependent clause, which the "the" cannot distribute across.

Generally, if it might be confusing to a reader or listener, include the word "the". Similarly, if it would be distracting, omit it.

grammaticality - When is "Your" grammatically correct instead of "You are"

So a while ago, I edited an answer on meta, wondering Your should be replaced with You are. Here is an excerpt from the post:

You are [Your] not being able to cast another close vote is also officially by design. We only let users vote to close once, whether the question is successfully closed or not. In this particular case, it might be useful for the vote to be cleared in such a way as if it had never existed at all, thus allowing you to vote to close again for a different reason........

It was later revised stating, "Your" is grammatically correct there. I believe he might be right as he is a moderator. Though I would want to know the reason behind it.

I've been googling for a while now and followed these posts:

But still don't know how come this is grammatically correct?

Dissecting Bad Grammar

I have a fairly good sense of what is and isn't correct in terms of grammar, but that's mostly through feeling, rather than hard knowledge of the rules. My formal knowledge of the English Language only goes as far as GCSE and that is already a long time ago.

Normally, I'm the person who sorts out typos and grammatical blunders in company documents, but "an innate ability" to know whether something is right seems to get on people's nerves.

So I'm hoping to learn some of the technicalities with regards to bad grammar, using this paragraph from a job description that I was checking.

You’ll continuously improve the product and your skills via active involvement with the community. Small projects can act as a sandbox where appropriate to allow you to evaluate these techniques, from a new framework to a pre-processor language.

It's clear what it means, but it somehow feels wrong. If I was going to rewrite this, it would look something like:

You will continuously improve both the product and your skills through active involvement within the community. Where appropriate, small projects can act as sandboxes for learning and evaluating new frameworks or pre-processor languages.

What exactly, is wrong with the original quote and what is a reasonable way to explain that to someone without coming across as pretentious?

Is a comma required here or would an "and" or "-" make more sense?

I'm writing on a reward text for a Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign.
Is it correct to set a comma in the sentence below or would an and or - make more sense in that context?

You'll get your name listed on our website, if you like along with a link to your Twitter profile.

Answer

Some people resist them, but this seems to me a fine candidate for a parenthetical. You are offering a single reward that can vary slightly in nature based on the donor's preference. I think it's simple and clear to write:

You'll get your name (and a link to your Twitter profile, if you'd like) listed on our website.

This could be made even clearer if you ditch the slightly awkward "you'll get your" construction:

We'll list your name (and a link to your Twitter profile, if you'd like) on our website.

reflexives - "Themselves" or "Themself" in a singular context?

I have the following sentence:

In order to read the remainder of this book, the reader is advised to familiarize themselves with the concepts contained within this Chapter.

I want to put:

In order to read the remainder of this book, the reader is advised to familiarize themself with the concepts contained within this Chapter.

In this very great article here, it explains why you should use themself only in an informal context, and the sentence they gave supports this, however; In the sentence I have, it sounds plain wrong (as sometimes proper English tends to sound, admittedly), despite what they say. Should I still use themselves, because it is in a proper context, or am I able to use themself instead, despite its proper context?

Answer

The singular "they" and its spawn are notoriously frustrating and controversial. Because your question is about what you "should" do, I would suggest a reasonable workaround:

In order to read the remainder of this book, the reader is advised to become familiar with the concepts contained within this Chapter.

I believe your understanding of what is acceptable, in terms of the reflexive pronoun, is correct. However, in most cases it is relatively easy to sidestep the conundrum altogether.

pronunciation - What is the correct way to pronounce "Figure 8-1"?

I know that the symbol "-" can be read as hyphen or dash. While I am reading aloud "Figure 8-1" or "Section 8-1", what is the correct name for "-"?

Sometimes, I heard people read it as

• figure eight dash one


• figure eight point one

but those both sound strange to me.

grammar - Is "group" singular or plural?

When I'm referring to a group of multiple things, should it be considered singular or plural for the purposes of applying a verb to it? For example, which is correct in the examples below?

A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period.
A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period.

The group of people constitutes a jury.
The group of people constitute a jury.

A group of crows is called a 'murder'.
A group of crows are called a 'murder'.

My instinct is that it depends on whether the verb is referncing the group itself or the members of the group directly, but is that right?

Answer

According to the OALD, group can actually serve as either a plural or singular noun. The category they give is "countable + singular or plural verb". So, an example of correct use is:

A group of us is/are going to the theatre this evening.

For any of your examples, both is and are can be used. I think the difference between them is as you say: use is when you are referring to the group, and use are when you are referring to the members of a given group. This page on when to use "group" as plural from Washington State University backs this up, saying:

When the group is being considered as a whole, it can be treated as a single entity: “the group was ready to go on stage.” But when the individuality of its members is being emphasized, “group” is plural: “the group were in disagreement about where to go for dinner.”

To analyze your given examples, here are some notes:

• A sentence is a group of words that is followed by a period. Use this form if you're talking about the group itself. That is, a sentence is a group of words followed by a period.



• A sentence is a group of words that are followed by a period. This implies that "This. Is. A. Sentence" is a sentence.


• The group of people constitutes a jury.


• The group of people constitute a jury. This would be more correct, since you are describing the nature of the group.


• A group of crows is called a 'murder'. This would be correct, since you're again describing an entire group.


• A group of crows are called a 'murder'.

meaning - Usage of "certain" in these newspaper articles

Is the usage of "certain" in these newspaper articles correct?

Excerpt from Mutual funds for P1,000 a month (Inquirer.net) (emphasis mine):

"Because remember, you're acquiring shares. So it's good for the
investor ... You can never get the timing right when you invest, but
if you're doing it on a monthly basis, you're indifferent to how the
market moves, because your objective is really to reach a certain
amount in terms of investment over a certain period of time," she
says.

Cognizant of the market's demand for better yield, Pami allows
switching from one fund to another.

"What we're really pushing for is diversification, maybe have a
certain bucket in fixed income, a certain basket in equity-based funds and then a certain portion in the peso and dollar funds,"
Morales says.

The closest definition of "certain" in this context on Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary seems to be: "used to mention a particular thing, person or group without giving any more details about it or them". I would like to ask if this definition applies to the usage of "certain" in this context. Or is there another correct definition that applies?

---

Another example — excerpt from Hazing eyed in death of graduating UP student (Inquirer.net) (emphasis mine):

The village chairman of Talisay, Tiaong, Quezon, Pedro Panopio, who was designated by the family to speak on their behalf showed the Inquirer a statement written by the duty guard of the Veteran’s Memorial Hospital identified as a certain Jonathan Garduce.

He noted in his handwritten statement that Chris was brought to the medical facility at around 1:08 a.m. Monday by a certain “Dr. Francisco Cruz” aboard a white Toyota Innova with license plates ZXB-393, followed by two other vehicles: a Nissan Trooper (WGL-515) and an Isuzu van (XAS-548).

The closest definition of "certain" in this context on Oxford Advanced Learner's dictionary seems to be: "used with a person's name to show that the speaker does not know the person". I understand "know" in that definition to be the fourth definition of "know" in Dictionary.com: "be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor". Does it apply to this or to another correct definition?

It seems that in this context, though, it is used to state that the names are unconfirmed (not from an official source) or just to emphasize the names. The writer of the news article is not expected to know (be acquainted with) the persons mentioned in the article personally, after all.

Answer

In the case of "a certain amount", the writer means that the investor has chosen an amount, but the writer is not saying what the amount is for some reason.

The writer may not to specify the amount for many reasons. He may not know what it is. In this case, each investor will have his own amount, and the writer's point is that each person should be concerned with the amount he has chosen and not someone else's. It might be a violation of someone's privacy to state the amount. (You probably wouldn't want your banker publishing the amount of your account balance just so he could use you as an example.) The writer could make up an example amount, but then readers might be confused into thinking that the particular number chosen is important. Etc.

In the case of "a certain Jonathon Garduce", the writer means that there is a specific, real person by this name, but he cannot identify him beyond giving his name. If you tell a co-worker, "Fred Smith was here to see you," there's a possible implication that you know who Fred Smith is. But if you say, "A certain Fred Smith was here to see you," that means that a person came who said his name was Fred Smith, but you don't know him. It is, I suppose, a very specific idiom.

Are slang usages of "bud" common?

Are the slang usages of "bud" (mainly meaning cannabis, and occasionally clitoris, from what I understood) prevalent enough that I should avoid using them in a product intended for international availability?

Example sentences which could be printed:

• "John has created a bud here!"


• "Share this bud!" (ouch)



• "Create bud"

I would appreciate very much if you could state which part of the world you're from when answering this question.

Some context:

The lexical field surrounding a service I'm designing revolves around trees, plants, and nature in general.

My team and I are in the process of selecting names for the various parts of the service, and we are struggling with one:

It should depict something with potential, which is not yet fully developed, but holds the bases for future interactions.
Seed would not be relevant, as this part of the service is sprouting from something we called a Tree, and I feel it would generate confusion about which one generates the other.

Bud came to mind, and seems a good choice. it fits wery well with the rest of our service part's names. However, it does not seem to be a very commonly used word (much less than "tree", "branches", "leaves", "roots" and so on), and I'm afraid this could heighten the chances of it to be read in an alternate meaning.

This item could be named a Leaf as well, which conveys a less accurate meaning, but possibly avoids this problem.

Answer

i am afraid that your concern that bud might be read by other internationals in an alternate meaning is well placed, especially the meaning cannabis though some might be aware of the other connotation of clitoris also. BUD(in capital letters) is an international abbreviation also.

may i suggest:

sprout:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sprout

offshoot:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/offshoot

bloom:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bloom

i must say, however, that the word leaf (accompanied by a green leaf symbol) is an internationally appealing symbol.

i live in west Asia specifically Sultanate of Oman where one third of the population are expatriates many of them are English speaking.good luck!

grammatical number - "On their back" or "on their backs"?

After the therapy, eight children (43%) became able to crawl/move on their back.

Or should I use "on their backs"?

Singular because each child only has one back, or plural because we're dealing with eight backs?

Answer

Plural, because we are, in fact, dealing with eight little backs. And a back is a back, no matter how small. A child has a back, but children have backs.

I'm sure others will back me on this.

orthography - Confusion over the general rules governing the use of the hyphen in English

I often get confused by the rules for using hyphens. According to this entry from the Oxford Dictionaries web site, I must always use a hyphen in these cases:

1. Hyphens are used in many compound words to show that the component words have a combined meaning.


2. Hyphens can be used to join a prefix to another word, especially if the prefix ends in a vowel and the other word also begins with one (e.g. pre-eminent or co-own).


3. Hyphens can also be used to divide words that are not usually hyphenated.

Ok, with these three rules in mind, I suppose I should write living-room: after all, these two words have a combined meaning. To support this argument, I may say we write bedroom — one word only — which means we’ve combined bed and room to refer to one thing, the bedroom. So living room should either be hyphenated or written together as only one single word.

Equally, food handling department should be written as food-handling department even though as with living-room, I have never actually seen it written with a hyphen.

I am a bit confused. Isn’t hyphenating these words arguably a grammatical error, or does hyphen usage vary from one country to another? (I mean, for example, that perhaps in England they write living room, in Australia livingroom, and in Canada perhaps living-room.)

---

As tchrist pointed out in the comment section, hyphen usage has nothing to do with grammar. It's only a ortographic convention.

The reason I'm asking this question is: I once took an IELTS preparing course and there was a question whose answer was food-handling department but I wrote food handling department. My answer was considered to be wrong - according to the entity behind the course, food-handling department was the only acceptable answer.

Given hypen usage is only convention and not grammar, can we really say I got that question wrong?

pronunciation - Why are "look" and "school" pronounced differently?

I can't figure out a rule that says whether 'oo' makes one sound or the other. Same number of syllables: one closed, but the sound is different.

Answer

There are no 100% reliable spelling or pronunciation rules in English but there are exceptions and patterns which can be recognized and memorized.

My accent is British and the following words are how they are most often pronounced in the UK. American English may or may not share the same pronunciation.

The letter combination, oo, usually has two sounds: /uː/ and /ʊ/.
School, boot, and choose are pronounced as /skuːl/, /buːt/ and /ʧuːz/

Good, took, book, and look are pronounced: /gʊd/, /tʊk/, /bʊk/ and /lʊk/ but foot which logic dictates should imitate the long u vowel in boot is instead pronounced as /fʊt/. However, the short vowel sound is kept in football which is pronounced as /ˈfʊtbɔːl/.

Other words which are spelt with oo include blood and flood which are pronounced respectively /blʌd/ and /flʌd/ but food which could have the short vowel as in good, or share the same vowel sound as in flood is pronounced as /fuːd/!

In other words, you need to memorize the pronunciation for each English word and when in doubt, check with a dictionary (or ask a native speaker to help you out).