Subject Verb agreement with comma-aside of a different pluralization

I ran across an interesting conundrum this morning when writing to someone. I wrote the following:

Markdown, or flavors of it, is all over the net these days.

My question is, what is the correct subject/verb agreement there. Without the aside (bonus question, what's the proper term for the "or flavors of it" part of that sentence?), the verb is clearly singular. However, since the extra information introduces a plural aspect, I was curious which one controls the verb.

Markdown, or flavors of it, are all over the net these days.

That just sounds clunky.

Answer

For starters that bit of "additional information" which is included in your sentence is called a "non-restrictive clause," and you're right to call it an aside. Non-restrictive clauses are added to sentences to provide additional information/context to the sentence without changing the overall meaning of the sentence. Because you're using a non-restrictive clause, the main meaning of the sentence doesn't change if you add or subtract that clause.

With that being said, your true sentence is "Markdown is all over the net these days." Which means that your verb "is" should agree with your subject "Markdown." In that case you should use the singular form "is"

Purdue owl actually has a perfect example which explains your exact situation:

The team captain, as well as his players, is anxious.

There are technically two subjects here: Team Captain and Players, however, in this case, the sentence's chief subject is the team captain, and not the players.

Here's some information about non-restrictive clauses and subject/verb agreement:

Bonus Response | You're also right that the sentence does sound strange and a bit off, so you might just consider (if it's that critically important to you) finding another way of phrasing it such as "Markdown is all over the net these days. Or at least, flavors of markdown are." But that's a personal choice.

grammar - "How long have you [had/been having] this?" - Cont. or Simple?

I'm studying Present Perfect tenses at the moment and have been wondering what tense should I use in this example:

How long have you [had/been having] this thing?

So I know that in some cases (with verbs like know, like, seem and another dozen of those) it's preferred that you don't use Cont. like "I've been seeming", even to me it sounds very unnatural.

But what about the "have" verb? I'm studying with "English Grammar in Use" by Raymond Murphy and his book doesn't have the word have in the list of those exception verbs that you should use with Present Perfect Simple instead.

Though there's an example:

How long have you had that camera? (not have you been having)

What should I stick with? In which cases and why? "Have you been having" seems to be a normal construction for me, but my experience is surely insufficient.

Is it just an exception like "I've known for a long time" instead of "I've been knowing for a long time"? Is there any cases where I should still stick with Present Perfect Continuous while using the have verb?

Thanks in advance!

Answer

You don't normally use Present Perfect with stative verbs (have, be, like, seem, prefer, understand, doubt, know, etc.) Here's a longer list - in general, they apply to states that last for some time.

In some contexts, such as "How long have you had/been having these symptoms?", there's no real difference. Arguably, been having calls more attention to the fact that you're still having the symptoms, but I doubt many people would consciously either make or hear that distinction.

A "rule of thumb" for to have is: when it means to experience, you might want to use Present Perfect; when it means to own, you almost certainly don't.

Here's an example for to be using the "slightly unusual" Present Perfect in a construction which is perfectly valid, and is probably the most succinct way of expressing the intended meaning...

By now the new cook will have been being introduced to her duties for several weeks.

american english - "student list" vs "students list"?

What is more accurate to say when writing a noun before a list?
"student list" or "students list"
(also "student group" vs "students group")

possessives - “in you_ and your family’s best interests”

I’ve seen this picture of a leaflet being tweeted today. It’s supposedly issued by the UK government and distributed widely:

Am I overlooking something or does it really contain the grammar error discussed in "You and your" vs. "Your and your"?

I could see the possessive ’s applying to the whole phrase

it is in (you and your family)’s best interests,

because the plural interests wouldn’t properly match singular your, i.e. it’s a short form of either of

• it is in your best interest and in your family’s best interest


• it is in your best interest and in your family’s best interests

instead of

• it is in your best interests and in your family’s best interests

nouns - The use of reflexive pronouns

I am currently doing homework for a linguistics course I am taking.

The question is about creating a rule to make confirm if certain sentences are grammatical or ungrammatical.

Here are some examples, with those with a star in front signifying that the sentence is ungrammatical.

Set 1:

a. I saw myself in the mirror.

b. * Myself saw me in the mirror.

c. I showed the monkey himself in the mirror.

d. * I showed himself the monkey in the mirror.

Set 2:

a. Carla read a book about herself.

b. * A book about Carla upset herself.

c. John’s teachers respect themselves.

d. * John’s teachers respect himself.

Set 3:

a. I know that Mary likes herself.

b. * I know that Mary likes myself.

For this homework, I need to create a rule to make all those sentences with no * grammatical, and all the sentences with * ungrammatical. This rule has to apply for all 3 sets of sentences.

Currently, the rule I have come up with is:
A reflexive pronoun can only be used to an entity that has already been mentioned.

However, this rule only can be applied to sets 1 and 2.

Does anyone have any idea on a rule that can be applied to all 3 sets?

grammar - Difference between two question formats?

I have seen people using following two formats to form a question:

1) Why do people lie?
2) Why people lie?

The difference is, in the first one, there is an explicit use of do whereas the second question omits do.

Would you kindly explain the differences between these two question forms.

past tense - I noticed vs I have noticed

Is there a difference between I noticed and I have noticed? What is the correct use of each of these?

Thanks

word choice - The meteor/meteorite fell over there

Let's not get too pedantic on the exact difference. What I'll stick with is this:

• If it is still in the air, falling, it's a meteor.


• If it has hit the ground, it's a meteorite.

In this case, which of the following is correct?

1. The meteor fell over there.


2. The meteorite fell over there.

This sets up a scenario where the object is now a meteorite, but was previously a meteor. The action we give to it, i.e., falling, corresponds to its state as a meteor, but it is a meteorite now; it is no longer a meteor.

If we're talking about an action of something that changes state, do we use the current state, or the state it was in at the time it was performing the action? Could it be that the verb form we pick affects this, i.e., that using "was falling" would cause "meteor" to be the correct choice, as falling in the present tense is something only a meteor can do, and that using "fell" would cause "meteorite" to be the correct choice, as only a meteorite can be done falling, mandating a past tense form?

Answer

"The meteorite fell over there" is correct because you're talking about a thing present-tense thing.

Another example:

• The man grew up in the countryside.

He's a man now, even though he was a boy when growing up.

However, if you're talking about something in the past-tense, i.e. describing the night it fell, you would use meteor:

• The sky was dark and the moon was bright as the meteor fell to earth.

And:

• He used to go fishing when he was a boy growing up in the country.

personal pronouns - Narrative in second person: singular or plural?

The lack of distinction of singular-plural pronouns for the second person in English (quite strange for native Spanish speakers, as myself) is usually unimportant, I guess, because the ambiguity is either irrelevant or obvious from them context. But I was wondering, from a translator point of view, about narratives in second person. Take for example the beginning of "The catcher in the rye":

If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably
want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was
like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and

all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going
into it, if you want to know the truth.

Or, from "The mating season" (P. G. Wodehouse)

I wonder, by the way, if you recall this Augustus, on whose activities
I have had occasion to touch once or twice before now? Throw the mind
back. Goofy to the gills, face like a fish, horn-rimmed spectacles,

drank orange juice, collected newts, engaged to England's premier
pill, a girl called Madeline Bassett ... Ah, you've got him? Fine.

In Spanish, these examples areusually translated as plural (ustedes/vosotros), but the truth is that literature uses both forms: singular (the author speaks directly with the present individual reader) and plural (the author speaks globally to "the public").
Do English native speakers assume (from some rule, convention, or spontaneously) the singular or the plural person here, or it's inherently ambiguous?

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?

grammatical number - Attached is my thoughts. Plural or singular?

In an email I wrote :

Attached is my thoughts.

And then thought about it.

My attachment is a singular attachment. My thoughts are in the plural, within the single attachment.

But the very fact that I thought about it makes me wonder if this is one of those occasions when, whatever the formal and technical condition may be, the psychology of the statement overrides.

Any thoughts ?

Answer

Grammatically speaking, as far as I know:

"Attached are my thoughts."

Same as "My thoughts are attached."
(That's simple present tense in passive).

Or better

"Find attached my thoughts."

But

"Attached is my document"

same as:

"My document/ file is attached"

or better:

"find attached my document.

differences - Simple present vs. present continuous

What is the difference between saying:

Are you still working there?

Do you still work there?

Which is more common in spoken vs written English?

Google books returned results for both of them.

grammar - Omitting articles when contrasting people or things with "and"

There's a rule that says articles can be omitted when nouns referring to two contrasting people or things are joined by 'and'.

The independent allowances for husband and wife will both be
available.

...the natural relationship between father and son.

In a formal sense, the main difference between teacher and student is the amount of education.

...as the distinctions between employer and employee are

gradually eroded.

...with little gardens between river and road.

There was a pause, and doctor and patient looked steadily at each
other across the quiet room.

Does the same principle apply to nouns that by default have the definite article? If so, are the sentences below correct? Why is the definite article in sentence 3 omitted in the phrase "whereas for past tense"? Shouldn't it be "the past tense"? Is the definite article in "past tense" omitted because there's also an element of contrast?

1. The relation between the sexes has always found its cosmic expression
   in the relation between moon and sun. (I'm talking about the earth's moon and sun)




2. Even as the French king was hatching plans to destroy and annihilate a nascent coexistence between English language and
   English national identity, the supremacy of French culture was
   preserved by the language in which late medieval England conducted its
   official business. (Can the definite article in "English language" be omitted?)




3. For English, Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 143) point out that the difference between present perfect and past tense is that in
   the present perfect the primary focus is on the present moment,
   
   whereas for past tense it is on the past.

word choice - Multiple people possession

What is the correct grammar to use in a phrase like "Chris' and Claire's email addresses"? Is it correct to add the apostrophe to each owner in the list?

Answer

I assume the fact that OP's example specifies addresses in the plural means that Chris and Claire have separate email addresses.

Thus the phrase is actually a contraction of "Chris' email address and Claire's email address", so both apostrophes are valid (I personally would write Chris's, but opinions may differ on that).

meaning in context - Contextual difference between "That is why" vs "Which is why"?

Please consider the below sentences.

I have flunked the exam, that is why I am attending coaching classes.
I have flunked the exam, which is why I am attending coaching classes.

Is there any change in the meaning of sentence if I replace That is why with Which is why? For me both are suitable for the above context and unable to differentiate change in the meaning.

grammar - Should a noun after the determiner *their* take in the form of singular or of plural?

Should I say

Some people use the word "flat" to describe their phone when its battery is dead.

or

Some people use the word "flat" to describe their phones when their batteries are dead. (I wanted to use "their" here to refer to the phone's instead of the people's)

or

Some people use the word "flat" to describe their phones when their battery is dead. (I wanted to use "their" here to refer to the phone's instead of the people's)

Which one is grammatically correct and why?

Answer

From the comments, it appears that you want to refer to 'some people' for which the pronoun is obviously their) and 'their phones', but use a singular battery. Put like that, it is clear that you will have to rephrase, since there is no correct pronoun for both singular battery and plural phones.
Your first example is common, but you should be aware that 'singular they', though commonly used, is also commonly criticised. (e.g. here and here).

Your second is grammatical, but if there is a difference between 'the batteries belonging to the phones' and 'the batteries belonging to the people' (do you really think so?), then it is ambiguous, and cannot be rescued without changing the sentence: when the battery is dead or ...to describe phones with dead batteries would be common rephrasings.

Your third is simply bad English (mixing singular and plural), unless, unusually, all the phones (or, of course, all the people) share one battery.

quotations - How does one end a sentence correctly when using a quote excerpt?

Apologies if this has already been answered, I have searched but couldn't find anything. Also I'm not using American English, so periods are outside of the quotations by default.

What's the correct way to include an excerpt from a quote at the end of a sentence?

He described it as "...terrible, an absolute disgrace...". Other locals agree with him.

He described it as "...terrible, an absolute disgrace..." Other locals agree with him.

He described it as "...terrible, an absolute disgrace". Other locals agree with him.

I would have guessed the third answer is correct, however not including the "..." seems wrong, as it implies that the quote actually ends, but I may be wrong.

Answer

You do not need to include the ellipsis on either side of the quoted text—because the quote does not begin with a capital letter, it is implied that it is not the start of a sentence. Additionally, there is no reason to make clear that the sentence does not end with the quoted material you've provided.

Both are unnecessary.

In fact, most good writers avoid quoting complete sentences because in most situations, the significance that you, the author, are highlighting is found in only a handful of words.

How would you write the possessive with yourself and another person?

How would you write the possessive with yourself and another person?

For example:

Would you like to join Bob's and my group?

Shall I answer Yes/No to this question?

I'm filling an application which asks the following question:

You have not attended the X company Selection Process in the last 6 months. * Yes/No

I've not attended any selection process. So, shall I say Yes/No to the question.?

Shall I say Yes since the statment is correct or shall I say no since I've not attended any such process?

Other similar statement in the application I find difficult is:

You have declared break in studies/work experience and pending backlogs, if any, during your academics.

Is it Yes/No given that I don't have any backlogs...and I filled everything correctly..?

Other question in the applications which might give you a clue are these:

1.You have considered only the Marks/CGPA obtained during the normal duration of the course for calculating Obtained/Total Marks/CGPA.

2. You have completed each of the above mentioned academic courses in the stipulated time as specified by your University/Institute and as per X selection guidelines and do not have any extended education.

For above two questions, the answers are unequivocally Yes.

Answer

These questions are basically statements (not grammatically questions) in a true/false format. Some questionnaires would offer True/False or T/F as the answer options.

In this case, if the statement is true, answer yes. If the statement is false, answer no.

Based on the information you have given, the answer to Question 1 is yes, and the answer to Question 2 is no.

If there is room on the form, and you want to take the time, you could write

Q1: No, I have not. (You could also say Yes, I have not, but that might be a bit confusing)

For Question 2, you would have to say

Q2: No, I have not.

As several other commentators have suggested, the questionnaire is not the most clear.

grammaticality - List with different last item with just one "and"

I have no idea how to describe this. I run into this usage all the time in English, and to me it seems wrong, but considering how common it is, I'm wondering if it's actually accepted. Consider the following sentence:

Roger installed windows in offices, lamps in apartments, doors in schools and repaired roofs.

This is a list of three items that Roger installed, and the last phrase ("and repaired roofs") does not belong in the list. As such it would seem that the word "and" is missing before "doors".

Is this wrong English usage? What would be the closest thing to this pattern that would make it correct?

grammatical number - Plural forms which end in -x such as tableaux

Words borrowed from French and ending in -eau originally had plural forms which appended an -x rather than an -s. For e.g., the plurals of tableau, beau, and plateau were tableaux, beaux, and plateaux respectively. While the use of plateaux and beaux has petered out in favour of plateaus and beaus, tableaux has not.

My questions:

1. How are these -x plural forms pronounced?


2. Is there any particular reason why tableaux is still the preferred plural form unlike plateaux, beaux, and portmanteaux?

Answer

The OED attests as occurring in English texts the following irregular -x noun plurals:

• aboideau > aboideaux


• bandeau > bandeaux


• bateau > bateaux



• bayou > bayoux


• beau > beaux


• bijou > bijoux


• bordereau > bordereaux


• bureau > bureaux


• château > châteaux


• chou > choux


• damoiseau > damoiseaux


• fabliau > fabliaux


• fricandeau > fricandeaux



• jeu > jeux


• lambeau > lambeaux


• maquereau > maquereaux


• morceau > morceaux


• Pineau > Pineaux


• plateau > plateaux


• portmanteau > portmanteaux


• procès verbal > procès verbaux


• réseau > réseaux


• rouleau > rouleaux



• seau > seaux


• tableau > tableaux


• taureau > taureaux


• torteau > torteaux


• Tourangeau > Tourangeaux


• trumeau > trumeaux


• vœu > vœux

Most of those are far too rare to be considered anything other than unassimilated, but of those that aren’t, the Ngrams do not bear out the OP’s assertion that the -x forms have fallen by the wayside. In fact, only the very oldest ones have been superseded by -s forms.

---

In the following Ngrams, the -x spelling is in blue and the -s spelling is in red. Notice how the blue nearly always dominates.

---

That one is interesting because it is one of the few that shows a distinct difference depending on whether the “British” or “American” corpus has been selected.

British plateaux vs plateaus

American plateaux vs plateaus

Only the French loanwords that have been around longest, and used the most, have lost their irregular inflection. Indeed, one of the very oldest, chapeau is even unattested in the chapeaux form.

On the other hand, words that require special treatment, like châteaux or nouveaux arrivés, can be expected to retain their imported forms longer. It may also be that people who know to use the import as an import, also know to import its irregularity: notice how
vœux, voeux, and voues all occur, but never
vœus. In the same way, there are no instances of châteaus, since if they know enough to hat the a, they surely know enough to -x the plural.

modifiers - Explanation on when the possessive should be used instead of an attributive noun

How would you explain to a person who is learning English, and whose native language does not have attributive nouns, when the possessive should be used instead of an attributive noun?

In particular, how would you explain it referring to the following list of sentences?

• Today's news is bad


• This week's schedule has been changed


• Tomorrow's lunch will be at the French restaurant


• This year's report will be communicated in the reunion room


• Last summer's vacations were memorable


• Last year's meetings were a complete disaster

Answer

All of your examples have something in common: though some of the attributives that you give have the form of noun phrases, they are all primarily adverbial in usage:

• Today we're watching the news.


• This week we have to make a schedule.


• Tomorrow we should have lunch.


• This year they gave a good report.


• We visited there last summer.


• She had the records of the meetings last year.

These adverbial phrases have limited currency as nouns. You can sometimes use them as the objects of prepositions, as in Before yesterday I had never heard of her, or as the subject of a sentence as in Today was a good day. However, they don't show the full range of syntactic variation that ordinary noun phrases do: they can't be pluralized and they resist being used as attributives. As your examples show, if you want to use an adverbial in this manner, you're required to mark it with the possessive -'s.

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.

pronouns - What’s the rule for using “who” and “whom” correctly?

I can never figure out whether I should use who and whom. Most people use who for both colloquially, but some people say this is not correct.

What’s the rule for using who and whom correctly?

Answer

The easy way to tell which is technically correct is to substitute he and him for who and whom, then rearrange the word order to see which sounds right.

“Who were you speaking to?” becomes “You were speaking to he” — which is clearly incorrect.

Why do so many people use a preposition with which to end a sentence?

I see it a lot, even though my elementary teacher told me it is wrong. This is probably a new development, a sign that our language is in decay. Soon none of us will be able to understand each other. But this sloppiness is a disaster, up with which I will not put.

What are your own experiences with this terrible phenomenon? How may we roll it back? Should moderators strike out at such language abuse? What do you do to correct your friends, family, and colleagues? Do you leave them notes, too? Voice mails? Should all existing literature be corrected and republished as well, the old editions burned?

grammar - past simple or present perfect

This is an excerpt from an official Cambridge exams preparation book:

"Mike: Thank you. Lots of people ........(help) us last year and we want to thank everyone."

The task is to fill in the correct verb form of "help". Present perfect or past simple can be chosen. The correct answer is "have helped" according to the key. I disagree. "Last year" is a finished period of time in the past, so the past simple should be used. Am I wrong?

punctuation - Is it ever acceptable for a period to come after a quote at the end of a sentence?

I've heard that you should always place ending punctuation inside of quotes, no matter what.

Are there any cases where it is appropriate for a sentence to end with ".?

Answer

Yes. See the Economist style guide:

If the quotation does not include any
punctuation, the closing inverted
commas should precede any punctuation
marks that the sentence requires.

More at the Guardian style guide.

punctuation - How are bracket ellipsis [...] used in quotations?

I see this type of syntax often, but I do not know how, when or where they should be used.

"It is the case that [...] the inconvenience is altogether imaginary."

Is it okay to use if I need to insert a quotation into an essay, but the quote is long and I want to omit the irrelevant parts? Am I allowed to use the syntax multiple times per quotation ?

meaning - Parenthetical statement that expresses a condition

I am studying a book and one of the lines (which was written in the 30's) is,

We had admitted that we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable.

My question is whether or not it is to read this as two separate statements — meaning one could be true and not the other; or does it mean if the first is true then the second is also true?

hyphenation - Hyphenating measurements in case of a fraction

I am now quite comfortable with the rules of hyphenating measurements (For example, 5-foot-long rod, 7-inch-long handle, etc.) However, what is the rule for hyphenation if the number is a fraction. Say, 1/2-inch-long piece of ginger? I would ideally want to keep the fraction, the instance I am using it in, does not allow the usage of "half-inch-long".

grammatical number - it's vs their (country)

What is correct?

Australia constantly improves its roads.

Australia constantly improve their roads.

Australia constantly improves their roads.

Thank you!

grammaticality - Correct use of hyphen to prefix multiple words with one

I wrote:

An open -source and -society loving person

and had this corrected by a native English speaker to

An open-source-and-society loving person

Which to me changes the meaning of the phrase. The first one is meant to be short-hand for prefixing both "source" and "society" with "open", while the second one does not seem to connect "society" with "open".

Is either of the forms more correct than the other? Should it be written differently all together?

orthography - What is the correct use of hyphens and capitals in "Big Brother style pop competition"?

Not sure it technically should have any, but a Big Brother style pop competition feels like quite a mouthful as it is so I’m wondering whether hyphens might help.

Also want to check the capitalization of Big Brother is accurate.

grammar - Are there rules governing pre- and/or post-modification of noun groups by participial adjectives?

Which of the expressions "supplies needed" and "needed supplies" is / are correct?

1. Have we now received all the needed supplies?



2. Have we now received all the supplies needed?

Is there a pattern one can use to predict whether a participial adjective is used prenominally, postnominally, or both? And if both, may there be differences in meaning?

grammar - "fine at your side" vs. "fine on your side"

What difference(s) do the prepositions below make in the meanings of the following statements:

I hope things are fine at your side.

I hope things are fine on your side.

To me the first one rhymes more with the area around the person while the second one with the person itself. What do you think?

modal verbs - Simple Present for Future Actions

Why can we use the following statement when we mean future events?

What time do you get there?

Or should we rather say:

What time will you get there?

Is there a difference?

Answer

The present tense can express the future when plans are being discussed, particularly in reference to timetables, routines and schedules. For that reason it is sometimes called the ‘diary future’.

grammar - Punctuating illustrating questions

I am writing an academic report and I am trying to figure out how to punctuate the following:

The previous results cannot provide an answer to questions like, what is the probability of X given Y and Z ?, because the precise correlations between the variables are still unknown.

My questions are:

• Should I use italics for the question, wrap it with quotes or not use any indication on it?


• Should I put a question mark at the end of it?



• Do I need commas before and after the question?

I have read the answers to this related question: How to puncutuate when using self imposed questions in a declarative sentence. However, I'm not sure this is the same case, as it is not really an internal though but more like an open question to the reader.

Reformulations of the sentence are also welcome.

PD: I'll kind of abuse the question here, but just checking, that usage of regular font within italicized text to emphasize the hypothetical variable names is ok, right?

Answer

(1) Is it necessary to capitalise 'what'?

I believe the following is from Aarhus University (but sadly can't link); while the example is slightly different, only a prescriptivist would argue that the reason for choosing not to use the capital does not apply equally here – there's no confusion about where the question starts if it's put in italics:

In American English, quoting from written texts is done in almost
exactly the same way as speech...

The report states that "all accidents are avoidable," and suggests
that safety officers should be "better trained."

Note that although 'all accidents are avoidable' might have been the
beginning of a sentence, no capital letter is used if this is more
natural for the flow of the text.

(2) Is a question mark necessary here?

Wiki has:

Note the point of using a question mark. The primary purpose of a question mark is to
indicate that the sentence is a question. It's also useful for demonstrating surprise,
skepticism, uncertainty, and the unknown.

Here, the question is delimited adequately by italics if used, and identified as a question by actually being given as one. However, I see no reason not to use the question mark here: it serves the further function of signalling a pause for the reader. I wouldn't double-punctuate (?,) in this case, as it's best to avoid bloat where not essential – though I wouldn't consider a non-italic comma, or zero punctuation, incorrect in place of the italic question mark.

(3) Are (a) quotation marks, (b) italics mandatory?

Writer's Relief gives the wise advice:

.3. Some writers use quotation marks to set off thoughts, but this can
get complicated, especially when thoughts and spoken dialogue are
mixed.

.2. Another useful technique is to use italics to format thoughts,
which is an effective tool when thoughts and spoken dialogue are
interspersed. This technique is becoming standard practice among
publishers—and for good reason. The different type style makes it

quite clear when a person is thinking versus speaking aloud.

Since the question is hypothetically framed here, I'd choose what I also consider the clearer option, italics rather than inverted commas.

(4) Is a comma (/colon ...) necessary before the 'quote' / exemplar?

This has been discussed before; modern practice allows a choice of the punctuation considered most suitable in any given case (among the comma, the colon, or zero punctuation).

I'd choose:

The previous results cannot provide an answer to questions like what
is the probability of X given Y and Z because the correlations
between the variables have still not been estimated to a sufficient
degree of accuracy.

Unless the people who decided whether or not my work was acceptable had different views on English. But happily having to conform to arbitrarily applied styles is not a major consideration here.

writing style - Is 'Oxford Comma' Capitalised?

I was taught in primary school that a common noun refers to a thing, idea, person, etc. whereas a proper noun refers to a specific thing, idea, person, etc. and that when referring to specifics and proper nouns, the words were always capitalised.

The way I see it, the Oxford comma is a specific type of a thing (comma), hence a proper noun, ergo capitalisation for both words.

A theoretical example of this is Tom's ball. If Tom owns a ball, it is not capitalised. However, when he prints a new pattern on many balls of the same variety and gives them to his friends, he would call it a Tom Ball, rather than a Tom ball, right?

Why is this not the case for the Oxford comma, seeing it is not Oxford's comma?

I would appreciate if you could also make reference to the example I used in the question in your answer to further assist me in understanding.

Possessive form: Others vs Others'

I’ve encountered these sentences in the net:

“My morals are mine, not others.” “Decisions are yours, not others.” “American values are ours, not others”.

I wonder whether they are correct regarding the possessive form of others. I think it should be others’ not others. For example, the first sentence should be

“My Morals are mine, not others’.”

I’ve searched the net with the words “possessive forms”, “possessive forms ending”, “possessive without noun”, “possessive omitting noun”, “possessive pronoun”, and other related words to find the correct possessive form that is without following noun (like others’, the book’s, the car’s. I don’t know what this form is called in English), but to no avail. I believe that, when I was a student (not a native English speaker one), I was taught that I could omit the noun after apostrophe s if it was understood what the omitted noun is. So the word others’ should be the correct word. But when I searched the net to check with these words - mine, not others’ / yours, not others’ / ours, not others’ – the word not others came up much more often than the word not others’.

That quite surprised and confused me. So, I posted a question here in hope that someone could help me.

The 2nd edited part:

And as I said, I’ve tried to learn more about the correct use of the possessive apostrophe s that is without a noun following but couldn’t. Now, I’m not sure what said was clear enough. To be more clear, the following is an example of what I’m trying to mean:

The golden key is this car’s key, not that car’s.

Is the use of < that car’s > in the above sentence correct, and is there a technical term for such a word (the use of apostrophe s without a noun following)? I’d like to learn more about it but don’t know what is(are) the word(s) to search.

Best regards,

Chirapat

possessives - When a name finishes in "s" can you say Jaume Casals's biography?

Is this sentence correct?

Here you can find Jaume Casals's biography.

I think the final " 's " is unnecessary, but I am not 100% sure. Could anyone help?

Thanks.

syntactic analysis - How to parse the grammar of a sentence that appears to have two tensed verbs

This question came from a student of mine - he wanted to know how to parse the grammar of this sentence, which appears to be simple but clearly is not:

• Peter seems to have found his glasses.

Sentences of this form are very common in English but the syntax is puzzling. The main verb is clearly seems, usually a link verb, so the basic syntax ought to be:

Subject + Link Verb + Subject Complement S+LV+SC

But the verb phrase to have found appears to be tensed (present perfect), and the meaning delivered is similar to the the tensed form (he found them and they are still found). But this verb phrase can not be tensed and does not agree with the subject (if it did it would be has found). It has to be a verb complement.

Now, the rule for subject complements is generally that they are either an adjective phrase or a noun phrase, but this complement is neither, and yet it clearly is describing the subject.

So the question is - how do we parse this?

Other sentences with the same form follow:

• The answers given seem to have addressed your question adequately.


• I am lucky to have found this site.


• The library seems to have closed.

So, what is the best way to parse the grammar of sentences like these?

Answer

How to parse the sentence is not simple. First, it is not a simple sentence. It has two clauses, each with a main verb. The matrix verb is seem, and it is tensed. The rest of the sentence is part of the subordinate infinitive clause, whose main verb is find. But infinitives don't have tense, so it is not a tensed verb.

The logical structure of the actual sentence is something like

• *seem* (PAST (*find* (*Peter*, *his glasses*)))

which means, roughly that some past event of Peter finding his glasses appears (to the speaker) to have happened. That is, the infinitive clause

• (for Peter) to have found his glasses

is the subject of the verb seem. English does not allow that construction, however:

• *For Peter to have found his glasses seems.

Instead, English requires either the rule of Extraposition, which puts in a dummy it as subject, and requires a that-clause:

• It seems that Peter has found his glasses.

Or it requires the rule of Subject-Raising, which has applied here, moving Peter, the subject of the subordinate clause, up to become the supposed subject of seem:

• Peter seems to have found his glasses.

Raising requires an infinitive complement, which is of course not tensed.

grammar - Can "masters" (plural) be used to refer to a single entity?

I was perusing the forums of a video game I play. I began reading a thread about the lore of the game, because a few things lore-wise are left pretty vague. Two individuals got into an argument about the use of the word "masters" by a character in the game.

The sentence is as follows:
Character: "The Tenno will surpass their former masters."

Now, guy A says that "masters" is referring to a single entity & Tenno is inclusive of the guy saying it. Guy B says, no it's plural so it's referring to multiple people.

So, to elaborate on my question, is there ANY way whatsoever that "masters" in it's plural form could be used in reference to a single person? The reason I'm bringing this question here is because, based off the lore provided & inferences made by the player base & typically agreed upon by the majority, it is believed that the "character" is inclusive in "The Tenno" (that's part of that vague lore I mentioned earlier). Their was a group several hundred years ago that were the masters of the Tenno (which are a faction btw), but now, more recently, they have a single master, a single entity. I'm sorry if none of this makes any sense or I've provided a bunch of extraneous details.

If all of that is too confusing guy A made this statement: "It's quite possible syntax-wise to mention a singular object as plural. Trust me, I'm a linguist." (I think he meant to say "to mention a singular object with a plural word). Is this possible?

Thank you for your time. I can provide a link to the forum page if desired.

pronouns - That vs Which when talking about a subject

This is actually the title of a question I just asked a minute ago ::- ). While writing it, I remembered one of my most terrible dilemmas ever: when to use "which" and when to use "that"? Even worse, Microsoft Word sometimes forces me to add comas before "which".

Phrase in question:

What tense to use when writing about an ongoing action in a text which will be published / read in the future

vs

What tense to use when writing about an ongoing action in a text that will be published / read in the future

Answer

which and that are both correct.

I don't think you really need our help on this. You just need to have more confidence in your own writing. But if you really want to know:

The cat, which was sitting in the tree, miaowed.

Here, the sub-clause sitting in the tree gives you extra information. The commas around which was sitting in the tree show that you could delete the sub-clause, and the sentence would still be valid:

The cat miaowed.

For this kind of sub-clause, which we call non-restrictive, you should use which.

Now compare to:

The cat which was sitting in the tree miaowed.

The cat that was sitting in the tree miaowed.

Here, the sub-clause specifies which cat you are talking about. If you delete the sub-clause the sentence is no longer valid. It is called a restrictive sub-clause.

In a restrictive sub-clause, that and which are both fine. Some of the more prescriptive style guides recommend that you should reserve which for restrictive sub-clauses, but that is really just a matter of taste.

MS Word's style checker follows these more prescriptive style guides, so when it sees a which it assumes that you are using a non-restrictive sub-clause, and insists that you add commas. Needless to say, MS Word is wrong.

conditionals - What does the expression "If + subject + was/were + infinitive" mean in American English

I just want to ask you guys about the general meaning of expressions that use the following pattern in colloquial American English:

If + subject + was/were + infinitive, ...

Examples: (Written by native American Speakers)

1. If I was to make a booking, which rooms are the closest to the pool?


2. If I was to say what I am, I'd be a Labor man.


3. If you were to buy the iPhone 8 plus, will you be able to get it activated through Boost?


4. What would happen to a cactus if it was to be planted in a rainforest?

And here is what I think it means: It’s a way to express a condition that didn't happen, and it could also be used to express a condition that is likely to happen in the future as in the first example.

Is that right, do Americans use the expression often?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

grammar - "The one what is blue" - WHAT versus THAT

I have a student who consistently uses "what" for "that" as in "The one what is blue." I need to come up with a rule(s) that would work for a 3rd grader, and am having difficulty finding anything. Lots of pages for "that" vs. "which" and when to use, or not use "that" But no simple way to help remember this particular piece of grammar. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated.

FYI, this is not dialectical...no one in the family or around this area says it that way.

word choice - "Lighter" vs. "brighter"

I'm trying to find information about the grammatical correctness of interchanging lighter and brighter in the sense of:

1. I turned on the lamp and the room became lighter.


2. I turned on the lamp and the room became brighter.

I think that 1 is wrong, but I can't find information backing that up. Could anyone explain why, especially as some dictionaries may list light and bright as synonyms (ex: Dictionary.com (def 24), citing Random House)?

[edit]

I think I can narrow my question sufficiently, especially per my comments below. I believe using the term lighter to refer to levels of light, such as in the first phrase, is incorrect as as lighter appears to mean paler, while brighter means more vivid, intense, or luminous; however the two meanings while similar, do not appear to overlap. I am try to get confirmation/refutation of this.

For example, brightness and lightness appear to refer to two separate, but somewhat related, properties of perception: brightness to radiance or luminosity, and lightness to value of tone. (Compare: bright red to light red)

Finally, and the primary basis of this question, is a reference from the OED:

a. Bright, shining, luminous. Of a fire: Burning brightly. Phrase, on (of, in) a light fire : in a blaze (very common in 16–18th c.). Obs.

["light, adj.2." OED Online. Oxford University Press, September 2014. Web. 30 October 2014.]

The key here being the "obsolete." The other two variants pertaining to the same topic - one an adjective and the other an adverb - are likewise obsolete.

For illustration, consider the two additional example sentences:

1. The lamp is too light.


2. The lamp is too bright.

Thus, I suppose, the question worded distinctly would be:

Is the first sentence incorrect? If not[/so], is it colloquially and/or grammatically [in]correct?

semantics - Can a conjunction be used to combine multiple meanings?

Years ago, while taking a college linguistics class, I posed this sentence to my professor:

I pushed the chair with my mother and a broom.

Granted, this sentence is ambiguous, and I won’t delve into all the possibilities here. Instead, my question is focusing on the conjunction and as well as the word with.

My intended meaning of this sentence had been that my mother had been sitting in the chair (not that my mother had helped me push the chair) and that I had used a broom to push the chair containing my mother.

My professor claimed that the sentence is syntactically correct, but he wasn’t sure if semantically, a conjunction could be used like this to combine separate meanings like I’m trying to do here.

prepositions - Is > a valid noun phrase construction to indicate purpose of the head noun in a normal sentence (i.e. not in a title)?

The following two sentences are patentese (written in language used in a patent):

A display apparatus includes a display device for displaying an image.

The display apparatus may include an optical film for limiting reflection of external, ambient light.

In 'normal' general English, I would say that writing "to display" and "to limit" sounds more natural, where the "to" is short for "in order to", thus using the << noun + "to (in order to)" + infinitive >> noun phrase construction instead. Also, acceptable would be << noun + "for the purpose of" + gerund >>, but this is perhaps unnecessarily long-winded.

Doing a search online gives acceptable examples of the noun phrase construction << noun + "for" + gerund >> used in titles, for example:

A simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein

Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

For these titles (that are a noun phrase standalone construction without a verb), the << noun + "for" + gerund >> construction is valid and sounds natural to me, but what about if we change these into a normal sentence including verbs, for example:

We describe a simple method for displaying the hydropathic character of a protein.

There are options for limiting the potential to emit (PTE) of a stationary source under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

The latter quoted sentence sounds fine, but the former sounds a bit unnatural to me due to the << noun + "for" + gerund >> construction within.

[[My original question, referred to these two quotes of titles with this unintentionally misleading comment: But these seem to be missing a verb, if what is intended is a normal complete sentence.]]

So, I'd like to ask:
Are the first two sentences quoted above acceptable? Do they sound natural? If not, why not and what are the best alternatives?

hyphenation - Is "two-thirds" or "two thirds" correct?

I just recently answered a question related to how much water was filled in a glass. I answered "two thirds" but the answer was wrong because in the key answer book it was "two-thirds". Please tell me if my answer is wrong and why?

Answer

Typically speaking, there is no significant difference between "two thirds" and "two-thirds". Which one to use is mostly a matter of style and is not important when determining reader or listener comprehension.

In the case of something like an IELTS exam, I would expect both "two thirds" and "two-thirds" to be accepted as correct answers. If I were marked wrong because of the missing hyphen I would bring it to the attention of my teachers and ask for a correction.

To be safe, however, you should include the hyphen since it is less likely to be interpreted incorrectly. "Two-thirds" is slightly more correct and anyone scoring a fill-in-the-blank section of a comprehension test is slightly more likely to mark it as a correct answer.

If you are curious about a technical correctness, than Fractions as phrasal (compound) adjectives discusses the issue in slightly more detail.

As always, with anything related to answers to tests and exams, you should also consult your teachers or professors. They are likely to provide help that is more accurate for any given context.

orthography - Use original American spelling in a document with British spelling?

It's the World Trade Organization (and not the World Trade Organisation).

So in a document that otherwise uses British spelling (and hence organisation rather than organization), should I stick to spelling in full the WTO in its original American spelling? Or should I changed the z to an s?

american english - What are the names of the two phonetic changes in this sentence?

I'm going to be teaching English to French high school students for another year in September, and they all have a hard time with my variety of English (they're used to hearing British English). Specifically, they have trouble with my pronunciation of /t/, vowel sounds, and my merging of words when speaking at a normal pace. I want to be more aware of these phonetic 'phenomenon' so that I can explain them to the students to help them better understand me.

An example sentence that demonstrates all three phonetic issues:

Insert it into the computer.

The "standard" phonetic transcription for this sentence in American English is:

Insert it into the computer.

/ɪnˈsɜrt ɪt ˈɪntu ðə kəmˈpjutər/

I'm from Michigan, and we have a tendency to replace /t/ with /d/, schwa-ify a ton of vowels, and eliminate spacing between words. So I would pronounce the above as:

Insert it into the computer.

[ɪnˈsɜrdɪdɪndəðə kəmˈpjutər]

The first change is /t/ to /d/ - this I know is called flapping, specifically the flapped /t/. So I'm really just curious about the second two: replacing vowels with /ə/, and the elimination of spacing between words (liaison-ification of words?).

As far as my phonology education goes, /ə/ is the most common vowel sound in English, so it's not surprising that I tend to replace vowels with it. But I'm not sure if there is a proper phonologic term to describe that process. As for eliminating spacing/making liaisons between words, I have no idea what that would be called.

What are the names of the other two phonetic changes in the above sentence?

word choice - What's the difference between "arguable" and "debatable"?

I have noticed that people use 'debatable' a lot, while 'arguable' is used quite less.
What's the difference and when should one use one or the other?

Answer

According to Merriam-Webster, both these words can be used to refer to something the truth of which is in doubt:

Debatable:

2a : open to dispute : questionable

Arguable:

1 : open to argument, dispute, or question

However, a second meaning for arguable is

that can be plausibly or convincingly argued

That is, arguable can be used to describe a proposition which someone wishes to present as true. Debatable, on the other hand (especially in light of the apparent synonymy of questionable), is often used to describe a proposition which someone wishes to present as false or at least unlikely; see for example Merriam-Webster's sample phrase

the debatable wisdom of going back for another helping from the buffet

which, it seems, would indicate that going back is presented as unwise.

word choice - What is the proper way to refer to the Original Poster (OP)?

In a comment, I was corrected by referring to a user named alice as a "he". I said (context):

I know he thinks he needs all of the eigenvalues, but I've learned that ...

and was corrected to by another user

But a protip: the username "alice" and the pronoun "he" typically don't go together. Probably better to stick to gender-neutral singular they.

Which of these would be correct?

1. I know he thinks he needs all of the eigenvalues, ...


2. I know he/she thinks he/she needs all of the eigenvalues, ...


3. I know they think they need all of the eigenvalues, ...


4. I know the OP thinks they need all of the eigenvalues, ...

Clearly this question is related:

Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")?

I'm interested in the last case where OP is essentially a pronoun, but the usage sounds awkward. Is there a good way to refer to OP or should I stick with "they"?

Answer

As the comments say OP is a noun here.

He/she is too longwinded. "They" is gender neutral. Theirs, they're, they are, them etc.

I would go with option 4 as it identifies "them" as "the OP". Option 3 could confuse readers about who the actual subject is.

pronunciation - "A/An" preceding a parenthetical statement

When a/an precedes a parenthetical aside (sometimes seen in informal/conversational writing), should the vowel rule depend on the first word in parentheses, or the next word in the "regular" flow of the sentence?

I need a (memorable) idiom (preceding an m word; use a)

or

I need an (memorable) idiom (preceding an i word; use an)

Answer

The example given is not parenthetical:

(i) I need a (memorable) idiom.

A parenthesis is a remark which you insert into the middle of a sentence as if you are interrupting yourself. A parenthesis contributes to the meaning of the sentence but interrupts and stands outside its syntax. In writing, we typically use curved brackets, dashes, or commas to mark a parenthesis.

The syntax of the example sentence is not interrupted by the word memorable. Instead, the word memorable functions as an adjective modifying idiom. Consequently, the pronunciation rule applies to the word memorable and the article to use is a.

Compare this variation:

(ii) I need an (well, if I need anything at all) idiom.

Not an example of great writing, to be sure. But it shows how a parenthesis interrupts and stands outside the syntax of a sentence. The phrase “well, if I need anything at all” is not part of the noun phrase “an idiom”. The pronunciation rule still applies, but it applies to the word idiom and the article to use is an. This is true even though you would not normally pair an with well. You would, for instance, say:

(iii) I need a well known idiom.

The difference is that well is parenthetical only in example (ii) above.

expressions - Is there a phrase for "assuming facts to be correct in a statement"?

There is a kind of error or fallacy I often see, which is close to "Begging the Question", but I understand that the true meaning of "Begging the Question" is closer to "circular reasoning".

The fallacy I see can be seen in the following sentences:

• "Because the official language of the USA is English, it should be the priority in schools".


• "Why are nightmares more common in children than adults?"


• "How do humans know when they're being watched?"

All of those sentences take as a given something which may or may not be true. English isn't the official language of the USA and so on.

So, is there a definitive word or phrase for that type of statement or question?

In a court a lawyer might say "assuming facts not in evidence"...

Coordinating Conjunction and Subject-Verb Agreement

1. Is surfing the internet and using social networking websites a form of
   entertainment? Why or why not?




2. Are surfing the internet and using social networking websites forms of entertainment? Why or why not?

Which of those sentences—(1), (2), or both—are correct? Which sounds more natural?

I've heard that when using and between two nouns that usually go together, a singular verb must be used. However, I'm not sure if "surfing the internet" and "using social networking websites" can also be treated this way.

I think number 2 is more grammatically correct, but it doesn't sound good to me.

Can anyone share their insight regarding this concern?

grammaticality - Is it incorrect to begin a question with some qualifying phrase or statement?

A few example questions would be:

If you're not too busy, can you wash the dishes when you're done?

I don't think I can; can you wash them?

I've done them too many times this week, don't you think?

The first example has a (preposition?) that can't stand on its own as a complete sentence, and the last example adds a question that would be a fragment on its own, whereas the second example could be rephrased as two separate sentences and read mostly the same. The crux of my question is, if I may make an example of it in itself, are all or any of these sentence structures right or wrong, and should I be rephrasing them as separate sentences? Also, right or wrong, can you provide the terms for those parts of the questions and sentences so that I may better reference them in the future?

Answer

Your first example is a common structure for a polite request structure, beginning with "If you're not too busy...". The word could might make it more polite than can, especially with a "please".

The second example feels a bit incorrect without context. I would use two sentences, or something like:

"I don't think I'll have time to wash the dishes before I have to go. Could you please wash them, if you have time?"

But to make something that feels correct with the semi-colon:

I don't think I can get to the dishes; could you wash them?

The third example is called a "tag question" and is perfectly correct. You may have noticed tag questions are used a lot by British speakers of English, right? ;-)

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good explanation of tag questions, but they tend to be separated by a comma at the end of a statement, like:

[…], isn't he?

[…], weren't you?

[…], aren't they?

[…], don't you think?

[…], isn't that right?

verbs - "Suppose we have a collection of blog posts where each document was/is a post"

I found this in a book:

Suppose we have a collection of blog posts where each document was a post.

Shouldn't it be:

Suppose we have a collection of blog posts where each document is a post.

Or is it correct as it is?

questions - Who do you want to talk to? Whom do you want to talk to?

Who do you want to talk to?
Whom do you want to talk to?
Which one is correct sentence?

grammaticality - Sentence structure for grammar: parallel vs. what feels natural

Are the following both grammatically correct, or is one incorrect and why? (Usage context: book, not an essay).

Original:

He erases whatever he wills, and fixes. With him is the original record.

Friend's suggestion:

He erases and fixes whatever he wills. With him is the original
record.

grammar - redundant definite article

I have a colleague who insists on inserting "The" into the following sentence ---

"If you're familiar with Johnson City's hip, comfortable The Ellis Hotel, you'll love the new Autograph Collection by Marriot."

The rationale for inserting "The" is that the hotel is persnickety about their name, and my colleague insists on deferring to the hotel's preferred style.

I maintain that the geographic identifier --- "Johnson City's" --- functions as a definite article, thereby making "The" redundant and grammatically incorrect. I.e., we would never write, "If you're familiar with the hip, comfortable The Ellis Hotel, you'll love . . ."

Is this in fact ungrammatical ? Or is it merely bad writing ?

If the former, what specific rule has been violated ?

personal pronouns - "Being [he/him] is not easy." Which is prescriptively "correct"?

"It is I" follows a well-known prescriptivist rule

This question is about prescriptive grammar. It’s a fairly well-known prescriptivist rule that “me, him, her, them” (in other words, pronouns in the objective case) should not be used after forms of the verb “to be” in sentences like “It’s me” or “The culprit is him.” The recommended alternative is to use “I, he, she, they” (pronouns in the nominative case) instead. Constructions of the form “it is me” can apparently be found as far back as the 16th century, but I’m not interested in learning how well (i.e. badly) this rule reflects actual usage. I want to learn more about the prescriptivist rule itself, and what forms educated people have prescribed for various situations. (It’s possible different people proposed slightly different rules.)

For example, I was not aware until recently that the objective case is prescribed after “to be” in sentences of the form “They thought her to be me.” The explanation is that “me” should agree in case with the antecedent “her,” which as the object of the sentence is in the objective case.

This rule is sometimes stated along the lines of "‘to be’ should link two noun phrases of the same case" (from Mark Israel’s "It's me" vs "It is I", adapted from an article by Roger Lustig, referenced in this question: Which one is correct to say: "It's me" or "It's I"?).
However, this is not sufficient as a comprehensive guide to the use of pronouns after to be, because there is not always a nominative or objective antecedent.

I found a grammar book from 1919 that seems to give slightly more guidance: Correct English, Volumes 20-21, edited by Josephine Turck Baker. In general, it follows the principle that “‘to be’ should link two noun phrases of the same case," but it also describes some exceptions.

Here's my summary of its rules, based on the examples given (I think the book's wording of the rules is unhelpful, as some of them falsely appear to contradict one another):

My interpretation of the rules in "Correct English"

1. Pronouns should be in the nominative case after

   
   
   
   
   
   • am, is, was, were
   
   
   • have been, has been, had been
   
   
   • can be, could be
   
   
   • may be, might be
   
   
   
   • shall be, will be
   
   
   
   
   

   
   Example: “I hardly think that it was he to whom Mr. Blank referred.”
   I would assume the author left out some combinations of modal verb and "be" from this list merely for reasons of space, so it should be read as including should be, would be, etc.




2. Pronouns should be in the objective case after “to be” when it is immediately preceded by an antecedent in the objective case.

   
   
   

   Example: “They supposed it to be me.”




3. Pronouns should be in the nominative case after “to be” when it is not immediately preceded by an antecedent in the objective case, and it is preceded earlier in the sentence by an antecedent in the nominative case.

   
   
   
   

   Examples:

   
   
   
   
   
   • "It was thought to be he to whom the speaker referred."
   
   
   • "I should like to be he."
   
   
   • "Do you think that you should like to be he?"
   
   
   
   
   

   
   It seems possible that sentences such as “I am free to be I” (which seems to be the same in structure as the first sentence, aside from substituting an adjective for a participle) would also fall under this category, although unfortunately no examples of this type are given. (if so, it would contradict this Grammarphobia post.)




4. Pronouns should be in the nominative case after “being” when it is immediately preceded by an antecedent in the genitive case.

   
   
   
   

   Example: “I had no thought of its being he.”

These rules still leave a gray area, however.

What form "should" be used where there is no antecedent of any kind?

In particular, I've thought of two cases:

What form did people prescribe after “being” when it is not preceded by an antecedent of any sort?

Being [he/him] is not easy.

What form did people prescribe after “to be” when it is not preceded by an antecedent of any sort?

To be [he/him] is not easy. It is not easy to be [he/him].

“It” is not an antecedent in the second sentence, as we can see from sentences such as “It is not easy to like her.”)

My thoughts

There is precedent for the use of the nominative after the copula without a nominative antecedent in sentences like “I had no thought of its being he.” I’m not sure why the nominative is prescribed here—it clearly would be ridiculous to use a genitive pronoun after the copula in such circumstances, but why not an objective pronoun?—but in any case, that’s clearly established in the book. So it seems a minor extension to use the nominative in sentences “Being he is not easy.” And in fact, the way the rule is phrased in Correct English suggests this: "A noun or pronoun after the verb be in the gerundial construction (being) is in the nominative case." It still sounds odd though, and there are no example sentences like this in Correct English (all of the example sentences have genitive pronouns before the gerund), so I’d like to know if it was actually prescribed by other sources.

The construction with “to be” is different. My best guess is that we would suppose an elided subject such as “[for me] to be” which would suggest the use of the objective case (“It is not easy [for him] to be him.”). But that assumption seems like it could also apply in sentences of the type *“I should like [for me] to be him,” and yet Correct English nonetheless prescribes the nominative case for the predicate noun in this sentence.

The situation in Correct English is confusing because at one point, it says "as the objective case always precedes the infinitive verb, the objective case must always follow the infinitive verb," and later on it says "The pronouns I, he, she, we, they follow to be when to be is not preceded by a noun or a pronoun." This is the apparent contradiction I was talking about earlier; you should look at it in context to see if I'm misinterpreting it. All of the example sentences where a nominative pronoun follows to be actually have nominative nouns or pronouns earlier in the sentence that can serve as antecedents, so it's not clear to me if this rule is meant to be exceptionless, or confined to certain grammatical contexts.

The kind of answer I'm interested in

As I said up top, I don't want to hear about actual usage or practical advice. I'm interested in learning what people have said is "correct" in these circumstances (preferably with examples, to make the construction totally clear). The more well-known or influential the prescriptivist, the better.

single word requests - Is there a common noun form of the adjective "repetitive" that doesn't have a negative connotation?

Is there a common noun form of the adjective 'repetitive' that doesn't have a pejorative connotation and that denotes a state rather than action?

Edit: I am not looking for the word 'repetition', as the suffix '-ion' conveys the meaning of "action or condition" (dictionary.com), which is not yet the level of abstraction I am thinking of.

I am tempted by the word 'repetitivity' [and its suffix "-ity", which is "used to form abstract nouns expressing state or condition" (dictionary.com)]

But: Although the word 'repetitivity' exists (first detected in 1930 by Ngram Viewer), it doesn't seem to be common within any discourse.
None of the dictionaries I consulted (Oxford Dictionaries, Cambridge Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, etc.) knows this word.
But isn't it instantly intelligible?

Grammarist knows the word "repetitiveness" but quite clearly states that the word has mostly a negative connotation (hence misunderstandings are around the corner!):

• "Repetitiveness is the noun form of the adjective repetitive, which is used to describe something or someone as having the attribute of repetition. This term is usually negative, as in something repeats without need or becomes very tiresome in its repetition." [my italics]

Surprisingly, the Urban Dictionary knows the word "repetitivity" (the one I wanted to use) - but it assigns a negative connotation to this word too!

Example sentence: "English teachers often find it hard to convey to young learners such abstract ideas as generality and repetitivity, when they have to explain the main uses of the Simple Present tense."

Important: What I am looking for is a word for a concept more abstract than the concept of "repetition".
Compare:

exclusive - exclusion - exclusivity

Answer

I think you might be looking for something like recursiveness or recursivity, both of which are nouns meaning (Oxford Dictionaries):¹

The property of being recursive

which is an adjective that is a close synonym of repetitive. Again from Oxford Dictionaries:

Characterized by recurrence or repetition.

Similar to your own "progression" of words, we thus have

recur (verb) —> recurrence (fairly concrete noun) —> recursive (adjective) —> recursiveness/recursivity (more abstract noun)

I personally prefer recursiveness as slightly easier to say. (Your own suggestion of repetitivity I find particularly difficult to say, though it would otherwise work.)

---

¹ Yes, the basic definition of both words is word-for-word identical, omitting only the cross-reference to one another.

grammar - it were best (to) & I were best (to)

Shakespeare's plays are replete with both these constructions.

Is were in these constructions equivalent to the modern would?

pronouns - Choosing between 'I' and 'me'

Which one is grammatically correct: It was me who called you., or It was I who called you.? Similarly, which one is correct among these two: He and me were going to the forest, or He and I were going to the forest?

Answer

It was me who called you and It was I who called you are both grammatical in Standard English, with the second being more formal than the first.

He and I were going to the forest is also grammatical in Standard English. He and me were going to the forest is not, but it may be found in other dialects.

articles - "The" before acronyms and abbreviations

I saw several posts about usage of "the" before acronyms, but I still haven't found any answer on my question. Let's say I developed a System for Definitions' Retrieval (SDR). So, should I refer to it as "the SDR" or just "SDR"?

The sentence is:

Integration of (the/a/?) SDR database with lexical (synonyms, antonyms, etc.) databases.

Answer

In this contex, "SDR" appears in adjective context for "database", so the choice between the/a is strictly in classic context of "the database" or "a database" (depending on a broader context), and the acronym doesn't change a thing (except choice between a/an if that's what you pick; in this case the first letter of acronym is a vowel in pronunciation so an es-... ).

The situation would be different, if you abbreviated System for Definitions' Retrieval Database to SDRD - in that case you'd get to choose freely between Integration of SDRD and Integration of the/an SDRD (choice between the and an according to classic rules, if you integrate one random SDRD out of many, then an, if you pick a specific one, the)

grammaticality - Is ”what there is a reason to do” a valid construct?

From page 76 of Frederick Schauer’s Thinking Like a Lawyer:

What there is a reason to do is different
from what should be done, all things considered, just as what there is a
right to do is different from what the right-holder actually gets to do, all
things considered.

Is this subject correct? If so, would someone please explain and gloss it?

I can’t pinpoint why, but it sounds wrong. I guess its meaning is “What should be done due to a reason. . . .”

Supplementary: Thanks to the answer below, I now apprehend the meaning of my sentence, but I still find the construction confusing. Would you please explain, in more detail, why this is 'essentially not (very) different from these examples'?