grammar - Where to put a period when you quote a title at the end of the sentence?

Which one is correct?:

1. I have never heard of "Oranges".

or

2. I have never heard of "Oranges."

word choice - Simple past of present perfect?

I wonder which one is correct:

1. David has made a decision to quit his job in spite of good salary.




2. David made a decision to quit his job in spite of good salary.

I think that 1 is correct, cause we want to focus on David's action, but my friends say that 2 is correct.
Thanks for help!

Answer

Here are two questions:

1. Has David decided to quit his job even though it pays well?




2. Why did David decide to quit his job even though it pays well?

The imaginary question dictates the tense of the answer. (Also, I would use the verb "decide" rather than the prolix "make a decision")

grammar - how to use whether and whether or not

Should I write ...

... whether or not any decisions have been made moving forward on that position ...

or

... whether any decisions have been made moving forward on that position ...

?

questions - Syntax of "What proof have we?"

I'm a German and our English teacher always told us not to use the German syntax in English. So here are a few examples to illustrate :

"What means this word?" -> correct : "What does that word mean?"
"Have we homework" -> correct :" "Do we have homework?"

That's how I've been taught at least.

I was reading the English version of 'Game of Thrones' today and one sentence is :

"What proof have we?"

Is this sentence correct? I assume it is, since it is a published book. However, if I apply that rule I learned, this would be the correct sentence:

"What proof do we have?"

Where lies the difference?

Answer

Your teacher hasn't led you too far astray, because "what proof do we have?" would also be correct, so they wouldn't have led into saying the wrong thing.

English does though sometimes use subject-verb inversion. It happens much more with auxiliaries than other verbs, and one use is in questions:

We have proof.

Have we proof?

We couldn't do that with other verbs, and so would need the do form:

We considered it.

*Considered we it.

Did we consider it?

But auxiliaries don't require this, even when the same verb is being used in a sense other than its auxiliary sense. Adding what we get "what proof have we?"

It's shorter and hence more emphatic than "what proof do we have?". It's also possible that the author's choice was influenced by the fact that earlier in English's history inversion was more common, so while this remains in modern use that may have led the writers to favour it for the work in question.

grammaticality - Usage of “to find (noun) (adj)”

I am a native speaker of German, and I often see the English verb find being used like its German cognate finden. For example:

My students and I find your platform very useful and very appealing
visually, as well. — Source

This just feels wrong to me. Shouldn’t it be something like:

My students and I find your platform to be very useful and very appealing visually, as well.

Can you use find like that?

Answer

According to the Cambridge Grammar of English (p523) under the heading Complex Transitive Complementation:

Many common verbs may be used with a direct object followed by an
adjective phrase acting as an object complement.

The GCE includes the example:

We found the garden slightly disappointing.

This corresponds to the OP's first sentence:

My students and I find your platform very useful ...

which is consequently grammatical.

Among the other verbs listed by the CGE that can be followed by a direct object and object complement are: keep and make. CGE examples:

I must keep dad's (sic) dinner warm.

The whole of mankind makes me angry.

single word requests - Double acronym: acronyms that stand for two things simultaneously

I am looking for a term that describes an acronym that has two possible expansions, but both expansions refer to the same thing. The term "double acronym" doesn't appear to be widely used and is confusing. Some examples:

In human-computer interaction, there is a single tool called CPM-GOMS, where the CPM stands for both "cognitive, perceptual, motor" and "critical path method".

Additionally, a popular cognitive modeling tool called ACT has both "Atomic Components of Thought" and "Adaptive Character of Thought" as its meanings.

In both cases, these are not two distinct tools that coincidentally share the same acronym. They are acronyms that purposefully have two distinct expansions that refer to the same tool.

The usage might also apply to companies who have changed the words in their acronym while keeping the original initialism, such as:

• Marvel's SHIELD


• the programming language PHP


• the chain store TCBY


• the college exam SAT

However in these cases one expansion is clearly non-standard. There are also unofficial acronyms, such as DVD, which appears to be used equally as "digital video disc" and "digital versatile disc", despite that neither is standard.

It may also apply to translations in which the initialism is preserved, such as the car company BMW which stands for Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, but is often written as Bavarian Motor Works.

There is no wikipedia for "double acronym" and < 6,500 google results for the same search term. Is there a standard term for this usage that I am not aware of? If not, what short phrasing could be best used to describe this usage? Note I am primarily interested in a phrase that captures the first usage (e.g. CPM and ACT).

copular verbs - Does English allow a zero copula in subordinate clauses?

In a casual search of the web, I found a few indications English does not allow zero copulas (https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/a/1468). However, I frequently see sentences with subordinate clauses that juxtapose a noun phrase with an adverb phrase, such as the following from a contemporary sci-fi author:

Kai stares up at me from the grave, his eyes hard as obsidian.

If this clause were made into a sentence, it would take an obligatory verb:

*His eyes hard as obsidian.
His eyes are hard as obsidian.

The original clause seems to contain an implicit "to be." Is it an example of a zero copula? If not, what is this construction called?

Answer

It depends on your definition of a clause. The traditional definition is "a finite verb and all its dependencies"; then your phrase is not a clause.

The construction is called an absolute construction: a noun and an attribute together forming an adverbial constituent.

grammaticality - When is it appropriate to end a sentence in a preposition?

Like many others, I commonly find myself ending a sentence with a preposition. Yes, it makes me cringe. I usually rewrite the sentence, but sometimes (in emails) I just live with it. To, with... you know who you are.

Should I keep fighting myself on this one, or is it okay in some circumstances?

Answer

A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.

adjectives - "Out-of-this-world experiences" vs. "out of this world experiences"

I was wondering if the hyphenated version should be used?

The context is:

Introducing the World Cup box from McDonald's: the meal filled with out of this world experiences.

grammatical number - What is the correct syntax for a plural possessive of a word already ending in s?

Before you vote to close as a duplicate, note that these two questions deal with similar issues to this, but none of them address all three criteria of this question:

• The singular already ends with an s.


• I am dealing with multiple of the thing.


• I want the possessive of all of them in general.

The singular is class, and the plural is classes. The singular possessive is class's (as addressed here).

What is the plural possessive? Is it classes's, or classes'?

Answer

It is classes', which sounds the same as the singular class's.

I would have thought this was a general rule for plural nouns ending -s', -es' or -ies'.

punctuation - Using an apostrophe on wedding invitation

I am designing an RSVP, in which I give my guests the option of choosing their meal preference. I have a column for ticking the option of a kid's meal, then at the bottom I have a key for all of the meals.

My question is:
If my key is talking about meals in general should it be written "kids' meal"?
Then should the tick box be labelled "kid's meal", as it is one person indicating the meal for their one child?

If this is correct, is it strange to have it written differently on the same invitation? Is there a way I can write both of them the same way that would be correct?

I don't want to get this wrong as I am a teacher and I am inviting a whole load of teachers to my wedding! :)

Many thanks

(Hope I've explained this correctly - I've attached a picture for reference)

Answer

I think you should leave it as you have it. You have defensible reasons. If anyone claims it's a typo you can put them in their place with the same reasoning you have given here.
And good for you for thinking about it.

writing - Is it "a SSD" or "an SSD"?

Possible Duplicates:
an SQA or a SQA?
Do you use “a” or “an” before acronyms?

Since SSD (solid-state drive) is pronounced es-es-dee, I'm wondering whether one should write "an SSD" or "a SSD".
Saying "a SSD" out loud feels a bit off...

Answer

Definitely an SSD.

The use of a vs. an is always determined by pronunciation, not by spelling. You don’t even need to find acronyms to give examples where they disagree: one would always say/write a European, not *an European, and an honest man, not *a honest man.

The only case where there’s doubt is when pronunciation varies. For instance, with the acronym SCSI, computer professionals usually say “scuzzy”, but non-techies meeting it for the first time usually say “ess see ess eye”. So one might reasonably encounter either a SCSI cable or an SCSI cable, depending on the writer.

However, as you say, SSD is (as far as I know!) always pronounced letter-by-letter; so it’s definitely an SSD.

pronouns - Can you imagine Dad and I putting up with this?

In the questions "Can you imagine Dad and I putting up with this?" is the subject pronoun 'I' correct, or should it be 'me?'

grammaticality - Should I put myself last? "me and my friends" vs. "my friends and me" or "my friends and I"

I've always been taught to put myself last when referring to myself in the same sentence as others but the usage of "me and..." seems to be everywhere these days. The misuse of the word "me" instead of "I" aside, is there some new rule I haven't heard of? Shouldn't we put ourselves last regardless of the "me"/"I" usage?

Examples of "correct" usage:

My friends and I went for some ice
cream. Did you see my friends and me
at the ice cream stand?

Examples of "incorrect" usage:

Me and my friends went for some ice
cream. Did you see me and my friends
at the ice cream stand?

Note: I was also taught that the only person who could put themselves first was the queen.

Answer

The difference between "I and my friends" and "my friends and I" is purely a matter of courtesy - they are both grammatically correct. I would tend to stick to the latter though, as it a) is more commonplace, b) is considered more polite, c) seems to flow better.

Indeed, your example of 'incorrect' usage is incorrect solely in that the first sentence uses the accusative (objective) pronoun me, when you actually need the nominative (subjective) pronoun 'I'. The second sentence of that example is correct, since the pronoun needs to be in the accusative, as the object. You seem to understand this though; this is just to clarify.

Usage of the word "refuse"

I have a question regarding the proper usage of the word "refuse"

Let's say someone made a request to me, and my desire is to grant the request to the person. However let's assume that I am unable to grant the request despite my desire because the request entails something that is impossible for me to do. So if I say to this person, "sorry, I can't grant your request although I wish that I can do it for you", am I "refusing" to grant the request? or is there a better way to put it?

Catenatives followed by infinitives and gerunds

What is the difference in meaning when the catenative verb “like” is followed by an infinitive, or by a gerund? For example:

Do you like ski jumping?

vs.

Do you like to ski jump?

Also, what is the difference between:

My brother taught me to read and write.

vs.

My brother taught me reading and writing.

grammar - Use of object pronouns after the verb "to be" and in the presence of a conjunction.

The other day my friend and I were playing darts with several other players. We selected teams. When I learned that my partner would be Jordan, I enthusiastically announced,

"Hey Jordan, it's you and me!"

My friend objected that I should have said "Hey Jordan, it's you and I," for the same reason that one announces at the door of a friend who wonders who is outside, "It is I."

I find "It is I" rather pompous, but it seems correct. "Hey Jordan, it's you and I," on the other hand, seems incorrect. What is the rule here?

Can we use a bare infinitive after the copula freely?

But all he'd tried to do (as he shouted at Uncle Vernon through the

locked door of his cupboard) was jump behind the big trash cans
outside the kitchen doors. Harry supposed that the wind must have
caught him in mid- jump. (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

A great thing to do is dance the night away. (English Syntax and
Argumentation, Bas Aarts)

As long as there is a to-infinitive in the subject just like the two examples, can we use a bare infinitive after the copular? (I want to know if there are some regulations in using bare infinitives: for example, the subject has to have ‘all, what, anything, etc’)

Answer

EDIT FOLLOWING A MORE ATTENTIVE READING OF THE QUESTION
The short answer is ‘No’ A marked infinitive is obligatory, as may be seen from counter-examples:

^✲What we plan is take the train to New York.
^✲Caesar’s objective was break the power of the Druids.

The question then becomes, Why is the bare infinitive acceptable in your two examples?

I note that in these examples, the construction with a marked infinitive is equally acceptable as without:

All he’d tried to do was to jump behind the trash cans.
A great thing to do is to dance the night away.

or

All he’d tried to do was jump behind the trash cans.
A great thing to do is dance the night away.

But if we invert the predication, the marked infinitive is required:

To jump behind the trash cans was all he’d tried to do.
To dance the night away is a great thing to do.

These two facts lead me to believe that what we have here is not bare infinitives but ellipses: the marker is allowed to be dropped because in each case it is preceded by a (somewhat parallel) marked infinitive, to do. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that if we delete those to dos, the resultant unmarked infinitives are no longer acceptable:

^✲All he had tried was jump behind the trash cans.
^✲A great thing is dance the night away.

grammar - Incorrect gerund to simple past conversion?

I'm a non-native speaker of English, so this might or might not be something very basic. Nonetheless, it's baffling me and I'd love some help.

A friend of mine wrote this sentence in a story for which I'm a pre-reader:

They crossed a highway along the river shore and then a bridge, leading them to a dirt road winding down a thin peninsula that jutted into the river.

In my mind, based on how my native Portuguese phrases things, I felt that "leading" gerund there could be replaced by the determiner plus simple past "what led", and the phrase would "sound" better:

They crossed a highway along the river shore and then a bridge, what led them to a dirt road winding down a thin peninsula that jutted into the river.

The "what" in there is supposedly a determiner referring to and meaning the whole of "They crossed a highway along the river shore and then a bridge".

However he told me, and I quote him, "your suggestion in this case would cause the sentence to make absolutely no grammatical sense whatsoever."

I'd like to understand why that's the case, what the exact rules are, and whether there's a correct way to do a gerund to simple past conversion in this and similar cases.

Thank you very much!

Answer

As a general point, in English we would say 'which led' or 'that led', but not 'what led'.

Both sentences make grammatical sense (if you replace 'what' with 'which'). The problem lies with uncertainty about what is doing the leading.

They crossed a highway along the river shore and then a bridge, which
led them to a dirt road winding down a thin peninsula that jutted into
the river.

This implies that the bridge led them directly to a dirt road.

They crossed a highway along the river shore and then a bridge,
leading them to a dirt road winding down a thin peninsula that jutted
into the river.

This implies that their whole journey, crossing the highway and a bridge, ultimately led to a dirt road.

Grammatically it's OK. The problem I have with it is actually visualising it. 'Crossed a highway' means goes from one side of it to the other. If you cross a highway along the river shore you are either crossing from land down to the river, or coming from the river and crossing onto land. Then you cross a bridge, which is presumably over the river but necessarily so. It would make more sense to say they went along a highway by the river shore and crossed a bridge which led to a dirt road.

grammatical number - There is/are for multiple subjects

Which one is correct?

There is an apple and an orange..

or

There are an apple and an orange?"

word choice - What is the rule for using "a" or "an" in a sentence?

Possible Duplicates:
“A user” or “an user”?
Use of “a” versus “an”

If I remember correctly back to my school days, the rule is to use "a" if the next word starts with a consonant, or "an" if the next word is a vowel.

For example:

• This is a banana.


• This is an egg.

If the above is correct, then why does this sentence sound wrong...?

• The account requires an username.

Answer

When a word begins with a u, sometimes it a acquires what linguists call a "y-glide": a pronunciation that makes it sound like it begins with a "y":

• user (yoozer)


• uniform (yooniform)


• ubiquitous (yoobiquitous)

And so on.

Now think of words you pronounce that begin with "y": a youth, a yew — you wouldn't say "an youth" or "an yew".

So we say "a user" but "an understanding" — just that simple.

subordinate clauses - I think/know vs. I think/know that

I wonder when verbs like think or know are followed by that; I encountered both forms, is there a difference?

For example,

I know that he did it. // I know he did it.

Are the two sentences both correct?

Answer

Yes, they are both correct. I'd use the second because that's more idiomatic and shorter than the first one. There are times when you don't need "that" in a sentence and this seems to be one of those instances.

grammar - I didn't know he IS/WAS

I didn't know he was/is such a good person.

Which is correct in the above sentence. Is/was and why ?

(Assume the person is still alive and is still a good person)

grammaticality - "I was wondering what time it is" or "I was wondering what the time has been"

Can you tell me which option is more natural in this English sentence?

I'm sorry to trouble you but I was wondering what

(A) time it is
(B) the time has been

---

The whole story is that this multiple-choice question comes from a placement test for a coursebook. The complete question is as follows

I’m sorry to trouble you but I was wondering what

(A) time it is
(B) the time has been
(C) is the time?
(D) was the time?

I excluded (C) and (D) as ungrammatical and chose (A) as the most natural-sounding to me, but the answer key says that the correct answer is (B), which doesn't sound right to me. Now I'm a little bit confused.

This coursebook is for the Polish market and I am Polish.

writing style - What are the real rules for choosing between the simple past and past perfect when both actions are in the past?

What are the real rules for choosing past perfect versus choosing past simple when you have two different past actions?

I ask because the English sequence of tenses rules I was taught would have made me choose different tenses than those the writers in all three examples I show below chose.

That makes me think I wasn’t taught the correct, or at least the complete, rules.

What are they really, and why?

---

1. Why is past perfect used here for the second verb instead of past simple again like the first one?

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • They soothed him with hugs and the first kind words he had heard since the beginning of his chastisement.
   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   Why is it had heard instead of simply heard, like this?

   
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   • They soothed him with hugs and the first kind words he heard since the beginning of his chastisement.
   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   Is the second version also right?





2. Why are both verbs in the second sentence in past simple instead of the first one of them being in past perfect to show that it (had?) happened first?

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • We played tennis yesterday. Half an hour after we began playing, it started to rain.
     
   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   Wouldn’t it be correct to use after we had begun playing here, like this?

   
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   • We played tennis yesterday. Half an hour after we had begun playing, it started to rain.
   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   Is the second version also right?




3. Here again, why is the first verb in past perfect instead of in past simple like the second one?

   
   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • One of the young men who had been injured in an attack on our supply lines was a laborer on the construction site.
   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   Why not use this version instead?

   
   
   

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • One of the young men who were injured in an attack on our supply lines was a laborer on the construction site.
   
   

   
   

   
   

   
   
   

   Is the second version also right? What about this one?

   
   
   

   
   
   

   
   

   
   
   • One of the young men who were injured in an attack on our supply lines had been a laborer on the construction site.
   
   

   
   

   
   

---

If the originals are all perfectly right, then are my proposals also right or are they wrong? Could they ever be right?

Could the originals ever be wrong? How do you decide which to use?

Do they mean different things to a native speaker?

Answer

It's quite hard to say in any particular case that it's wrong to use the past simple rather than the past perfect. For cases (1) and (2), I would say that the tenses the writers chose are the most likely tenses for native English speakers to use. For (3), we simply don't have enough information to decide one way or the other.

1. The hugs were after the beginning of his confinement, and the verb had heard acquires the entire time frame of his confinement from the since, so the time frame of the verb had heard is before the hugs. Here, the order of events is different from the order they occur in the sentence, so we are likely to use the past perfect.





2. We usually don't use the past perfect if the order of the verbs is clear. Here, the verbs occur in the sentence in the same order that they happen (if this isn't the case, it's a trigger for using the past perfect), and there's also the preposition after in the sentence, so the order of events is perfectly clear, so the past perfect is optional here. You could use it, but most native English speakers wouldn't.




3. There are two events here, and if I ignore the tenses in the sentence, the order of these events isn't at all clear. I would infer from the tenses in the sentence that he either started or resumed his work at the construction site after he was injured in the attack. If he first worked at the construction site, and then was injured in the attack severely enough that he couldn't work, I would consider the writer's verb tenses to be wrong.

Capitalization of German words in English sentences

If I write an English text and use some German nouns in there do I have to write them capitalized or not?

If I would have a whole sentence or quote in German I would probably use German grammar and capitalization rules but what about single words in an English sentence?

Answer

You do not need to capitalize nouns unless they're proper (or at the beginning of a sentence).

Particularly if your audience is made of English speakers who aren't expected to have knowledge of German vocabulary or grammar, the capitalization of an ordinary noun may cause confusion.

It's a good general practice to italicize foreign words that haven't become an accepted part of the English language yet, though.

word usage - Can "grammatical" mean "grammatically correct"?

I have been seeing phrases like, "That sentence isn't grammatical" etc. recently, and at first I wrote them off thinking, "Oh, well that technically isn't right, but I get what he's saying so I'm not going to make a fuss..." The thing is, I've been seeing it more and more, by different people, and I can't tell if it's just that the speakers (well, this I've been seeing this on the internet, so I guess it "the posters") aren't native English speakers, or I've missed some sort of shift in the usage of the word "grammatical". Can anyone shed some light on this?

Answer

To say that a sentence is grammatical is to say that it conforms to the rules of English grammar as found in the way in which native speakers normally use the language and, in the case of Standard English, as codified in various academic works of grammar such as ‘The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ and ‘The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language’.

The introduction of 'correctness' introduces value judgements which tend to reflect the prejudices of the writer rather than the way the language is actually used. Some people, for example, will say that it is incorrect to place an adverb between to and the plain form of the verb, or to use less when describing things that can be counted. Those are matters of opinion, not of fact. Describing any construction as incorrect is unhelpful and inadequate. That is why, in most cases, it it makes more sense simply to say whether or not a construction is grammatical.

grammar - ending a sentence with a preposition 'of'

I know many questions have been asked for ending a sentence with a preposition in this community. However none of that seems to be providing the answer which I am looking for in this scenario. Please consider following sentence.

Traditionally celebrities have been considered as one of the very few people who enjoy really luxurious lifestyles where many of us can only dream of.

Is it grammatically correct to end the sentence with the proposition 'of' ? or should I have used something like 'about'.

Pls consider that my English is not that great and I feel little awkward about this sentence I wrote. But unfortunately I can not find a reason. Have I made any other grammatical mistake ?

Answer

I think that, technically, you should say

Traditionally celebrities have been considered as one of the very few people who enjoy really luxurious lifestyles of which many of us can only dream.

To be honest though, people don't speak like that anymore. I would, however, write like that, particularly in a relatively formal setting, such as an essay, paper or publication.

neologisms - Is there a word for people who have shared the same locality?

A "contemporary" is someone who has lived at the same time (more-or-less, anyway) as another person. e.g., Bret Harte (1836-1902) can be said to have been a contemporary of Mark Twain (1835-1910).

What about people who have lived in the same place, but at different times (such as myself and Mark Twain (Angels Camp, California)) - is there a word for that? "Congeorary" or so?

Or people who have lived in the same place and time (I don't even want to guess at what the word might be)?

terminology - Collective noun for lightning(s) / thunderbolts

What is the collective noun for lightning(s) / thunderbolts?

A ________ of thunderbolts/lightning(s)

Can we use the plural form of lightning with a collective noun? Or should it stay in singular form?

For example:

The valleys of Grand Canyon were being struck by a ________ of lightnings and rumbling like a giant open-air opera house with the following thunders.

(Note: This would be a literary sentence than an everyday speech)

Note: A single lightning event is mentioned as a flash and if it hits the ground or an object, it is mentioned as a strike.

Note 2: Lightning is generally a mass noun but it can be used as a count noun also, especially in literary sense. OED has a definition for the literary sense as a count noun:

[count noun] literary a flash or discharge of lightning: the sky was a mass of black cloud out of which lightnings were flashed.

You can find literary usages in Google Books as well. Plural form was more common in 1800s and the usage has dropped dramatically but there are still some contemporary usages.

Lightning is used in plural form in technical contexts also. Below are the examples from a technical book called "Lightning Physics and Lightning Protection" (by By Eduard M. Bazelyan, Yuri P. Raizer) also.

The statistics of flight accidents show that aircraft of identical size may differ considerably in the capacity to excite lightnings.

---

The lightnings people observe most frequently are descending discharges, which originate among storm clouds and strike the earth or objects located on its surface.

Thunderbolt is a count noun.

Note 3: Below is a similar question asked before:
Collective Noun for Fire

The difference between fire and lightning in the context of countability is that fire is also both countable and uncountable but both senses have a common usage.

Answer

Lightning is the generic term for this weather phenomenon. In normal, non-technical English an individual instance is a lightning flash, a bolt of lightning or a lightning strike. There is no collective noun for them.

However, you could refer to a set of lightning flashes, bolts or strikes by one of the nouns used to describe a group of objects or phenomena. I would suggest something like a succession of lightning flashes. Besides electrical storm, the term lightning storm also exists as a way of implying or describing multiple lightning flashes.

Other suggestions in a non-exhaustive list of possibilities: barrage, volley, parade, procession, sequence and display, depending on which aspect or characteristic of the irruption of flashes seems most salient for the context in which you are describing them.

Because discharges of lightning are ephemeral, and do all not occur simultaneously even during a violent electrical storm, they do not exist as groups in the same sense as a group of children exists, say -- which would be one reason for the lack of a collective noun.

idioms - Why don't we pluralize "foot" in measurements?

For example, to answer the question, "How tall are you?" valid answers include:

• Five feet.


• Five foot three.


• Five feet, three inches.

Why the discrepancy between feet and foot, seemingly only in the second case.

---

This question is inspired by this question: "Forty foot" or "forty feet"?

edit: I do not believe the answer to this is related to the other question. The explanation for the other question is because of how adjective modifiers work. My question is a very different case, unrelated to adjectives. My observation is that I am asking about a particular exception case which applies only when "foot" is followed by a number which is assumed to be inches. That's extremely specific, and I doubt that the etymology has any relation to why we leave adjective modifiers singular.

Answer

I think it's "idiomatic by association".

(this NGram should be enough to at least prove a trend)

There's long-standing 'idiomatic' use of the singular noun-form in 'adjectival' compounds such as toothbrush, ten-foot bargepole, four-wheel drive, etc. The answer to "how tall are you?" isn't really a noun, and it isn't a verb. It's closest 'basic' linguistic element is in fact an adjective (describing your height). People sense this, so over the decades they've simply shown an increasing tendency to apply the same 'singularisation' rule they've always been used to in related contexts.

OP correctly identifies a tendency to use the older pluralised form with more 'precise' measurements. One reason may be that people speak more carefully knowing they've got the longer utterance to come. Without conciously thinking, they just override the 'idiomatic' tendency in favour of the 'older, but perhaps more accurate' plural. The ones who do that are decreasing all the time, but obviously most of us would avoid pluralising the explicitly-named inches if we hadn't already pluralised feet.

It's the same with UK x pounds y pence (and US X dollars y cents, maybe?), where you often hear the first unit singularised and the second omitted. I suspect there's an increasing tendency to omit both units just to avoid the awkwardness of possible mixed plurality.

grammatical number - Is it correct to say "lesson count" or "lessons count"?

If I mean "number of lessons", which grammatical construction should I go for? I can imagine three of them:

1. Lesson count


2. Lessons count


3. Lessons' count

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

Is there any difference between:

-

and

-- or in some cases, a long dash

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

punctuation - How do I punctuate a series of quotes from TV shows?

I want to write this:

“Dy- No-Mite!” “Stifle it Edith.” “Good Night John Boy.” “Nanu Nanu.” “God will get you for that.” “Book em Danno.” “Da plane, da plane.” “Eizabeth, I’m coming.” “Kiss my grits!” “Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.” “Who loves you, baby?” “Just one more thing.”

Do commas go between quotations or as part of the quotation? What if there is a question mark or exclamation mark as part of the quote?

capitalization - Which words in a title should be capitalized?

Are there any concrete rules that say which words (parts of speech) in a title should start with a capital letter? What would be a correct capitalization for the title of this question?

Answer

This Writer's Block page on capitalization sums up the rules in one page which is the most useful that I have found, basically these rules from the Chicago Manual of Style plus a number of minor rules which are worth reading:

1. Always capitalize the first and the last word.



2. Capitalize all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinate conjunctions ("as", "because", "although").


3. Lowercase all articles, coordinate conjunctions ("and", "or", "nor"), and prepositions regardless of length, when they are other than the first or last word. (Note: NIVA prefers to capitalize prepositions of five characters or more ("after", "among", "between").)


4. Lowercase the "to" in an infinitive.

Indefinite article in the "An [adjective] [number] [plural noun]" construction

I wasn't sure how best to phrase the title of this question.

I'm interested in constructions of the following form:

An estimated 50 people died in the bombing.

'An estimated' could be substituted with adverbs like 'approximately' or 'about', so it seems that prepending the indefinite article to certain words produces an adverb.

My question is why the indefinite article should function in this way.

For one thing, the use of 'a[n]' when the following noun is generally plural seems odd.

There are quite a few words that fit this pattern:

• An additional ...


• An approximate ...


• An estimated ...



• An extra ...


• A good ...


• A huge ...


• A mere ...


• A possible ...


• A record ...


• A scant ...


• A whopping ...

Answer

Dictionary.com's fifth definition of a is:

5. indefinitely or nonspecifically (used with adjectives expressing number): a great many years; a few stars.

This usage of a is standard and often seen in this type of context.

Grammar question: "had been"

"In March 2014, I led a team of students to campaign against the way in which a society election at my university had been conducted."

In this sentence structure with a date at the front, is it correct to use "had been" in this way?

Answer

It's correct either with or without the opening.

I led a team of students to campaign against the way in which a society election at my university had been conducted.

In March 2014, I led a team ... in which a society election ... had been conducted.

During my 3rd year of studies, I led a team...

Those are all well-formed and comprehensible sentences.

grammar - created by the idea of

What is the correct way to say that something was 'created by the idea of someone else...' For example, if John Doe came up with an idea and I developed it into a project, I would say:

This project was ___________ [created by the idea of] John Doe.

But Google gives only two results for the exact search of "created by the idea of": https://www.google.ca/#q=%22created+by+the+idea+of%22&*

... which probably means that I am wrong (that this is not correct).

Answer

The project was first conceptualized by John Doe.

Conceptualize
Form a concept or idea of (something)

Also for a more 'project' orientated definition:

Conceptualization:

The ability to invent or formulate an idea or concept. The
conceptualization phase of a project occurs in the initial design
activity when the scope of the project is drafted and a list of the
desired design features and requirements is created.

meaning - "A English nerd" versus "an English nerd"

On some forum today I referred to myself as a English nerd. Now I'm wondering whether maybe I'm an English nerd.

My gut feeling tells me that there is a slight nuance in meaning between the two phrases and that even though the general rule is to use an in front of a word starting with a vowel, I think a is more appropriate in this case.

The a in a English nerd refers to the word nerd and the adjective is only added to denote the type of nerd that I am.

Whereas using the phrasing an English nerd would imply that I am a nerd who happens to be English (I'm not).

Now, my question is: Did I analyze this correctly and is there in fact a nuance in meaning? Or should I have used an English nerd to comply with the general "a versus an" rule?

Answer

There is no different nuance in meaning as you describe in any dialect of English I am aware of.

The a/an pattern is a purely phonological pattern; using one or the other has no impact on meaning. The use is simply governed by the sound of the following word. So, we say:

• A boy ("boy" starts with consonant sound)


• An old boy ("old" starts with vowel sound)


• An hour ("hour" starts with a vowel sound)


• A used automobile ("used" starts with a consonant sound)


• An extremely tired man ("extremely" starts with a vowel sound)

Whatever sound comes directly after the indefinite article determines whether it takes the a form or the an form. It doesn't matter if this is a noun, adjective, adverb, or anything else.

Now, there are some dialects that do things differently, but that difference amounts to allowing a more often (usually with free variation). Again, semantics does not come into the picture.

If there is any true nuance in meaning for you, then it is something that (as far as I know) is attested only in your idiolect.

single word requests - What to call someone who is unable/bad in holding a converstation

Okay, So I am in often in a conversation with this person. But I have now realized that all our talks have been futile because he keeps on repeating the same topics. Topics I have talked about before.

I just want to tell him you are 'x word' and don't want to continue having conversations with him.

Answer

The person is a poor conversationalist:

one who converses a great deal or who excels in conversation a witty conversationalist

grammatical number - Are the people in 'Everyone' and 'Everybody' sentences referred to using singular or plural grammar?

I looked through some past queries and I believe this particular take on the question has not yet been addressed:

Which of the following sentences is correct?:

Everyone was working as a volunteer.
Everyone was working as volunteers.

Should the 'volunteers' be referred to as singular or plural and why?
I personally imagine 'a volunteer' as being one giant volunteer made up of multiple people and 'volunteers' as being each separate volunteer in the group.

Thanks!

punctuation - Should "A-Player" Be Hyphenated?

Stupid term, but still: Is it hyphenated or not?

Bob was really happy to have hired Alice; she was an 'A-Player' from the world of private equity and would add a lot to the firm.

Answer

"A-Player"--in context of being a top-notch athlete/participant--should be hyphenated. In absence of the hyphen, it would be mistaken for "a player" in the sense of any singular player.

Alternatively, you could quote the 'A,' as in 'A' player. The confusion possible with this method is apparent in the comments on the question itself: it seems to refer to the first in an ordinal set of players, presumably to be followed by 'B' and 'C' players, not a designation that could be applied to all deserving players.

note: The aforementioned comment has been deleted.

tenses - Difference between "I reached home" and "I have reached home"

I often confuse these two things:
"I reached home" and "I have reached home".
Once my friend asked me, "Where are you? "
I messaged him: "I have reached home".
He told me not to use "have reached "...

reached = past tense, have reached = present perfect

Can someone please clear this doubt so that I don't make the mistake again.

Answer

If you were texting the message as you were getting home, or just after arriving home than it should be:
"I've reached home."
You use the present perfect because the time of the action is not specified and the important information is that your journey's over and you are now at home.

If you specified a time then you'd have had to use the preterite:
"I reached home a couple of minutes ago (at 10...)."
Or if you were in a sequence of events, e.g :
"I reached home and had somethingto eat."

grammar - "the growth of he and his sister" in this sentence from the Guardian

Just read this line on the Guardian:

He dismantles his bedroom and helps tidy the house, daubing white paint over the pencil marks on the doorframe which have measured the growth of he and his sister from infancy until now.

Can't figure out how he is correct here. Shouldn't it be him?

grammar - "As a [noun]" followed by mismatching subject

There is one particularly commonly used language construct that I find logically incorrect. However, as a non-native English speaker, I can't decide authoritatively on whether the usage is actually wrong.

Consider the following sentence:

As a web developer, I often help my friends with their websites when asked.

It is clear that I am a web developer and that I, when asked for help by my friends, do the favor for them.

Compare it with the following (disregard the slight difference in meaning — what is relevant is the change of subject):

As a web developer, my friends often ask me for help with their websites.

What does it mean now? I think it means that my friends, who are a web developer (!), often ask me for help. However, in informal writing, this usage is so common that it might actually happen to be correct! Perhaps in my head I'm automatically trying to translate the sentence into my native language, in which it sounds somewhat more ridiculous (it might also be the case that the ridiculousness arises merely from the fact that I am more used to the language I speak every day).

What is your view on this matter? I'd like to hear the opinion of a native speaker or someone who is experienced enough to provide a definitive answer.

Answer

Generally speaking, a dependent clause needs to be as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. The word as used in this manner introduces a clause that modifies the subject of the sentence.

In the first example, which is correct, the phrase as a web developer applies to the immediately adjacent subject of the sentence, I. This makes sense and is grammatically correct.

The second example is ambiguous and grammatically incorrect. The position of the clause as a Web developer suggests that it modifies the subject, but there is a mismatch in number: the clause is singular, but the subject is plural.

Your reader can assume you mean to modify either the subject or the predicate or both, but this leads to ambiguity. Here it might not matter so much: the I of the sentence is probably a Web developer or he wouldn't be asked, and the friends are probably Web developers too or they wouldn't be asking.

But sometimes it matters a great deal. Who's killing whom in this example?

As a mass murderer, his friends sought to execute him.

But good grammar makes another important difference: it rests more musically on the mind's inner ear, which makes for good writing as opposed to mediocre writing in which we know what the writer meant, even if he didn't say it correctly. Or at least we think we know what he meant.

grammaticality - Which of the following is correct (or better): "Two Players" or "Two Player" as a game menu item?

I have published a simple game for two players, whose menu contains the following:

• Single Player (human vs. computer)


• Two Players (two players playing on the same device)


• Bluetooth (two players on two different devices)

(Without the texts in parentheses.)

So, is it correct to say "two players" or "two player" (as in "a two-player game")? If both are correct, which one is better for this purpose?

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

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

(off) to the main street.

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

Answer

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

meaning - Is "has made it his business to" polite or impolite?

In this sentence:

He has made it his business to reintroduce the theory to a new
generation of activists.

1. Is "has made it his business to" an impolite expression?




2. Is it a radical expression?




3. Has it any implicit meaning that he reintroduces the theory, but he shouldn't do it?

EDIT: These answers confused me, First sentence of Source article may help better understanding this expression in the context.

Answer

To make [a task] one's business is to devote oneself to the task, and treat it as a priority. There is often an implication that the person is taking on a task that no one else is willing or able to do:

When I saw what state the club's books were in, I made it my business to ensure that all of the accounts balanced correctly.

Depending on the context, this may be a welcome and necessary activity, or it may be seen as presumptuous. You should not automatically assume that the use of "made it his business" indicates that the person is acting impolitely; you must figure that out from context.

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

• It is John who lied. (nominative)


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

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

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

or, even more to the point:

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

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

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




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




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

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

verbs - Unknown Grammar (or passive continuous infinitive)

Here is a sentence I have trouble parsing:

A member of staff objects to their image being used in a particular way.

I cannot find a grammar reference according to such sentence. Is it passive continuous infinitive? But why do we put their image after to?

When is the object of a verb the subject of the gerund in structure "subject + verb + object + preposition + gerund"?

1) This reminds me of climbing Ben Nevis years ago.

2) I told you about losing my credit card, didn't I?

I'm quite sure that the person who climbed Ben Nevis is "I" not "This" in 1).
But, I'm not so sure that the person who lost "my credit card" is "I" not "you" in 2).

My question is when the object of a verb is the subject of the gerund in structure "subject + verb + object + preposition + gerund"?

Capitalization of idioms in titles

If I'm using an idiom in a title then should all the elements of the phrase be capitalized or just the ones that are usually in capitals?

For example, which of the following should be used?

be up and Running

be Up and Running

be Up And Running

Answer

If you're using an idiom, then in formal writing none of the words should be capitalized beyond what standard grammar and punctuation (beginning of a sentence, proper names, etc) require.

In a title, which words are capitalized will depend on the stylistic concerns of your medium, but generally it will be: first word, last word, and main words, with secondary words (conjunctions less than five letters, prepositions, articles, etc) left uncapitalized.

Conjunctions of more than five letters may be capitalized, and typically, in most professional publications, they are.

heading - Rules for capitalization in presentation titles

Hi everyone,

I am German and the German language follows very strict rules of capitalization: A word starts with an upper case letter if its a noun or at the beginning of a sentence. In the English language however, nouns are usually written with a lower case letter at the beginning.

But right now I am working on the slides for a presentation and I wonder what the rules for capitalization are in titles? I do have a template here and on that it looks like in titles all nouns are written with an upper case letter in front. Is this true? What is the general rule here?

orthography - Spelling "web development" with/without hyphen

I'm trying to check the correctness of translation of some university courses from my native language to English... Is it correct to spell "web development" with hyphen?

I'm quite sure that "Web Development" is correct. Is "Ruby on Rails Web-development" correct, too?

While I remember coming across "web-..." in adjectives (for example, "web-based"), I don't remember any cases of spelling "web" with hyphen in nouns...

Answer

Web-development is incorrect.
Hyphenated adjectives are used when they qualify a noun.
like Web-based Frameworks

Web Development has evolved to be an umbrella term and hence should be treated as a non hyphenated noun

it's/his/her vs. their in singular

An expression below embarrasses me. Why not "it's" but "their" litter?

a cat can use their litter box.

in the context we are talking about a few cats, but in this, specific, example we speak about one cat.

word choice - Ending sentence with "supposed to"

Is the following sentence acceptable?

He arrived ten minutes earlier than he was supposed to.

It doesn't sound right, but I can't think of any better way to end the sentence.

grammaticality - "A lot of ideas" is or are?

My boyfriend and I are arguing about whether the phrase "a lot of ideas" should be followed with is or are. I say that it should be is because the verb is linking to a lot, not ideas. If it were "lots of ideas" I would say it is definitely are. He thinks, though, that since a lot is synonymous with several it should be are. Which is correct?

Answer

Logically you are correct; "a lot" is the subject of the sentence. Colloquially, "a lot" can also mean "many", which takes a plural verb.

If you were talking about a lot more directly as a lot, you would use the singular:

This lot of wares is being shipped to (address).
Up next at the auction is lot 6124.

For cases where I really mean "many" I try to say either "lots of" or "many" instead of "a lot of X are".

grammaticality - Why is "extremely longer" not correct (according to the ACT)?

The sentence that included the question was:

• 
  

  In addition, LEDs last far longer than standard bulbs.

  
  

Question: Which of the following alternatives to the bolded portion would NOT be acceptable?

F. considerably

G. a great deal

H. extremely

J. much

Answer: H

"Extremely" is an adverb (and not materially different in definition from the other answers available) and should be able to modify the adjective "longer", correct? I don't have an answer explanation, so it's unclear why they chose this. Can someone please explain why this is the answer? Thanks!

grammaticality - Can / Should you begin *and* end a sentence with a preposition

Here's the phrase in question which originally ended with a preposition:

1. Who is the client currently residing with?

A way to rephrase to put the proposition at the beginning would be:

2. With whom is the client currently residing?

I think this approach satisfies the inner grammarian, but shifts away from natural language.

Some users found it confusing ^{(and what is language but a tool for communication)} and suggested the following alternative phrasing to have the preposition at both the beginning and the end:

3. With whom is the client currently residing with?

I think this hodgepodge tries to satisfy grammarians while also being accessible to the masses.

But does it deliver on that?

Grammarians should take issue because I think this is the least gramatical of the three, and it seems cumbersome for average users.

In terms of language and clarity, which phrasing is preferential?

Answer

Both of the following sentences are grammatical and, depending on who you ask, acceptable from the point of view of style:

✔ 1. Who is the client currently residing with?
✔ 2. With whom is the client currently residing?

First of all, it's a myth that grammarians say you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. It's one of those persistent proscriptions that got started by someone and never left the collective unconscious. Ask almost any grammarian, and they'll say it's perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition; however, it may not be the style that a particular author chooses to use when writing something.

Second, while there are traditional conventions of grammar when it comes to who versus whom, neither one is, currently, considered to actually be wrong. It's more of a preference as to which should be used. To whom (or [preposition] whom) is kind of a set phrase, so it's common to see whom used in that context. In other constructions, where whom would traditionally have been used, who is now the more common word—and it is used without comment.

So, by that token, the following would also be considered acceptable (although most people would probably use the first sentence form instead—because, currently, it sounds more idiomatic):

✔ 2b. Whom is the client currently residing with?

---

The following, however, would be considered awkward at the very least—if not outright ungrammatical:

✘ 3. With whom is the client currently residing with?

It looks like it's trying to get away with using a preposition at the end of the sentence by somehow constructing the start of the sentence in such a way that its use at the end is excused. Except that it's not.

In effect, what this sentence is saying is:

✘ 3b. Who is the client currently residing with with?

The second with is redundant. That one instance of with has been moved to the start of the sentence is irrelevant—there shouldn't be a repetitive use of the preposition in the first place, no matter where each is located.

---

If it sounds more natural to leave the preposition at the end of the sentence, then just leave it there. There's nothing wrong with doing so. If it sounds better to move it to the front, then do that.

But don't attempt some hybrid situation where it ends up being in both places at once. That's imply wrong on all counts of grammar and style.

As for which of the acceptable versions you should use, that's up to you and your audience—and the style that you decide to use in general.

---

Having said that, while a proposition at both the start and end of a sentence is wrong in this case, it's not true that it's always wrong.

Here are some examples of sentences that start and end with a preposition:

In what currency would you like to pay for the movie you want to go to?
On whose authority did you think I would let you in?
By what person would you like to be looked after?

They may all be phrased a bit oddly, but they are all grammatical. The prepositions being used reference different things, so they are not redundant.

nouns - "A friend of my father" vs. "a friend of my father's" — which one is right? Why?

I have seen them both in my reference book, which is written by a native speaker. I wonder why there are two different phrases to describe the same meaning and am looking forward to some reasonable details to explain why this is so.

Comma before "and" which is being used after a list of items containing other and/s

I am confused about whether one should put a comma before an "and" which is being used after a list of items containing at least one other "and".

I don't use the Oxford comma, and I feel it's not necessary to put a comma before an "and" which is before the last item. I do know that if one item has an "and" in it, then we have to put a comma before the "and" to clear any ambiguity. But I am confused about a particular sentence which is mentioned below:

I will certainly go to university with a more motivated and mature attitude and contribute to its multicultural environment.

Here, I don't think a comma is necessary before the "and" which is before "contribute", as there is no ambiguity. So should I put a comma or not? If I do not put one, is it grammatically incorrect?

grammaticality - "Who wants ice-cream?" — Should I say "(not) I" or "(not) me"?

With the enthusiastic question of "Who wants ice-cream?", what is the more correct response?

1. (Not) I.


2. (Not) me.

Neither response is a sentence. The first response of "(not) I" sounds stuffy, like it should be followed with an indignant sniff. The second sounds like American idiom and acceptable for casual speech.

What do you say?

Answer

Generally speaking, in English, accusative (also known as “objective”) pronouns (like me) are the “default” form. That is, unless there is a specific syntactic rule requiring use of a different case, such as nominative (I), genitive (my/mine), or reflexive/intensive (myself), in English you use the accusative case.

In the syntactic context where a pronoun is not serving a role relative to an explicit verb, such as when it is the simple answer to a question, or if one is labeling something, such as a photo, accusative pronouns are standard. “Who wants to come?” “Me.” Nominative pronouns are impossible here—you cannot answer the question “Who wants to come?” with “I”, nor would anyone label a photo “I”.

This holds even if negated: “Who wants ice cream?” “Not me.”

If you want to use the highest register, most formal English, however, you should avoid the question of what case to use with pronouns standing alone, and use a complete sentence: “I do not want ice cream.”

capitalization - Capital letter in the word "one"?

Suppose I have a headline for a subsection of a book or article that goes something like: Everything Collected in One Place.

Is this correct or should it be: Everything Collected in one Place. ?

Pronoun-antecedent agreement question

I was reading this article about jokes on 30 Rock. A sentence seemed strange to me, and I had to reread a few times. They are talking about a writer, Robert Carlock, writing jokes for a character, Dr. Spaceman:

Robert Carlock, in particular, is the Spaceman expert. Most of the
jokes for him, as this one did, come from him.

So, the antecedents are in the first sentence, and the pronouns are in the second. From the context you can figure out that the first him is referring to Spaceman, and the 2nd him is referring to Carlock. The sentence just seems very awkward. Is it grammatically correct? Could there be a more clear way to have written it?

Answer

This pronoun-antecedent relationship is studied under the umbrella of anaphora.

Wikipedia describes it thusly:

"In linguistics, anaphora /əˈnæfərə/ is the use of an expression the interpretation of which depends upon another expression in context (its antecedent or postcedent)." - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

There is always some ambiguity introduced with the presence of two or more antecedents. The sentence is not ungrammatical as such, but it is quite a load on the brain to understand and should be cleared up.

The greatest clarification (keeping the current form) would be achieved by repetition of the antecedent, which is usually awkward. I would have combined the sentences into a more singular thought -- something like this:

"Robert Carlock, in particular, is the Spaceman expert; as a result, most of Carlock's jokes, like this one, are borrowed from Spaceman."

Hope this helps.

phrases - How does 'shot to death' function?

In these examples:

UCLA engineering professor shot to death in apparent murder-suicide

16-year-old Chicago boy shot to death while walking to school

Gorilla shot to death when child falls into enclosure

Does it function as an adjective or adjective phrase? As a verb, can you say to shoot to death?

conjunctions - Are there rules about using "that" to join two clauses?

He will understand that I was not joking.

He will understand I was not joking.

Which of the sentences is correct? Are there any specific rules about the use of "that" in the sentences I reported as an example?

Answer

That can almost always be dropped. In your example, that is being used as a conjunction, i.e. it is introducing a subordinate clause as the object of the main sentence. In most situations where this is the case, it can be dropped. I cannot think of any where it can't be dropped.

When that is used as a demonstrative pronoun, e.g. "that was a nice question," it must be kept or replaced with another pronoun, e.g. "yours was a nice question."

When used as a relative pronoun, it can usually be dropped. For instance, "several people read the question that you wrote" can also be "several people read the question you wrote". But if used in a question with who, it should be kept. For example, "Who was the person that wrote this question?" cannot be *"Who was the person wrote this question?".

I'm sure I missed something, but the comments should keep me honest.

punctuation - How do I handle articles with parenthetical statements?

If I were to use a (normal) parenthetical statement, the article would not cause problems. If I were to use a (unusual) parenthetical statement, the article seems incorrect.

How should I proceed? Is one of these options correct:

This is a (unusual) statement

This is an (unusual) statement

This is a(n unusual) statement

The last seems most appropriate to me but I suspect that is due to me and not the appropriateness of the sentence.

grammaticality - "Alex and I" vs. "me and Alex"

Is it improper to say "me and Person X"?

I always hear it said as "Person X and I", but have personally learned to say "me and Person X".

Is there a difference between the two versions and is one of them incorrect? "Person and I" just sounds more formal to me.

Answer

You would use "X and I" if you and X are the subject of the verb.

You would use "X and me" if you and X are the object of the verb.

For example:

"Smith and I are going to the store."

"She gave the apples to Jones and me."

grammaticality - do you use " The" with mathematical methods?

1. For intra-cluster relationships, we applied mathematical optimisation to choose the best tree produced by neighbour joining
   
   method.

Or

2. For intra-cluster relationships, we applied mathematical optimisation to choose the best tree produced by the neighbour
   joining method.

What is the rule for using "the" before mathematical methods in general?

grammatical number - S-V agreement: It is not clear what is/are meant by A and B

In the following sentence, the verb “are” strikes me as odd.

In paragraph 6, it is not clear what are meant by “the front unit” and “the central element”.

It seems that “. . . it is not clear what is meant by . . .” would be more natural.

However, thinking more about it and flipping the sentence around yields something like:

“the front unit” and “the central element” mean what?

So, it seems that logically the verb should actually be “are”?

What is going on here? Is the plural correct (are)? Or is there actually some other subject in the original sentence, and therefore “is”.

Answer

You are correct: it should be is. The writer perhaps mistakenly treated by “the front unit” and “the central element” as the subject, which in fact is singular what. The by phrase is an adverbial constituent of instrument or similar.

Now it could be argued that what should be plural in this clause, which is in theory possible. However, it could just as well be analysed as singular: the clause could be considered elliptical, where parts have been omitted for brevity, as it is normally done:

In paragraph 6, it is not clear what is meant by x and [what is meant] by y.

Moreover, the phrase what is meant is almost universally used in the singular and could be said to be idiomatically fixed. The plural sounds odd to my ears.