slang - How prevalent is this reversal of "yes" and "no"?

Example:

Aren't you going to the store?

Where I am from, the correct answer indicating I am going to the store is yes. The contraction "not" is ignored. Is this sort of confusion prevalent elsewhere?

---

I don't understand what is so complicated about my question here:

Is this sort of confusion prevalent elsewhere?

I am not asking for any of the answers provided here. They are all grand answers, but they have nothing to do with my question, which is is bold this time. I am not asking how to answer this sort of question. I am not asking what this sort of statement means. I am furthermore not asking for an opinion. If you don't understand how ignoring the adverb "not" is confusing, please don't answer. I am asking a very simple question; one desiring a very simple answer.

To reiterate, the confusion arises from the fact that the proper response of "yes" and "no" is reversed.

pronouns - "Me and my wife" or "my wife and me"

Which is correct: me and my wife or my wife and me? The sentence in which this is used is

Ms. Smith informed me and my wife that she was afraid of being accosted.

grammaticality - Usage of the gerund preceded by the possessive adjective/determiner?

I read this thread on the usage of the gerund preceded by the possessive adjective/determiner with much interest.

I have another question about the usage of the gerund preceded by the possessive adjective/determiner.

In a test from a textbook I am using, one must choose the correct form of the bracketed word in the following sentence (I have simplified it somewhat):

Company X experimented with its (expand)____ into a new business area.

The given answer is "expansion." To me, this intuitively feels more comfortable than the gerund "expanding".

My question, however, is the following:

Is the gerund also grammatically correct in this sentence?

In the example sentences throughout this thread so far, there are no cases in which the subject of the sentence and the subject of the gerund clause are the same, not to mention cases in which the verb of the gerund clause is intransitive and followed by a preposition.

For example:

The monkey seemed to be preoccupied with its prying off the lid of the jar.

Again, this sounds very awkward to me, but I'm not sure if it's incorrect.

I also wondered if there might not be a rule that if a verb has a standard nominalized form (expand -> expansion), it needs to take precedence over the gerund when it is preceded by the genitive case.

Are such matters entirely irrelevant to my question?

Answer

I agree with J.M. and Jimi.

It's semantically acceptable to use a gerund following a possessive adjective/determiner, but, as with anything, it can be clearer in some sentences (e.g., "his new shoes really helped with his running...") than in others ("Company X experimented with its expanding into a new business area...").

Just my two cents!

grammaticality - "Would have" in the main clause of a real past conditional

(Addressing a person who's not sure whether they have paid their fees - real past):

• A. If you have paid the fees, they have activated your account.


• B. If you have paid the fees, they would have activated your account.

Is B an acceptable usage to indicate speculativeness in the main clause?

punctuation - Use of dash or comma in bulleted list?

I have been charged with taking over a monthly prayer letter which had been managed by several different staff members. Each had a different way of handling a bulleted list. One used a dash while the other used a comma. One used a period at the end of each statement while the other omitted punctuation. I appreciate feedback as to the proper format for separating the students' names from the prayer requests as illustrated below (comma or dash?) and also if punctuation (periods in this case) are correctly omitted from each request.

Students:

• Iris - asking for prayer for her older sister to make right choices in life

• Velzi - that her family remains united

• Isabel - for healing for her mom who is not feeling well lately

• Jenny - for her family

• Zoila - for her as she gets ready for the new school year

OR

Students:

• Iris, asking for prayer for her older sister to make right choices in life

• Velzi, that her family remains united

• Isabel, for healing for her mom who is not feeling well lately

• Jenny, for her family

• Zoila, for her as she gets ready for the new school year

pronouns - Please put it on the rack above yourself

Why do we say

Could you please put it on the rack above you?

In other words, why is there no reflexive needed here?

Can we also say "above yourself”, that is, use a reflexive pronoun?

pronouns - Is “It must be him with whom you enjoy doing your assignments, not me” correct?

I’d like all of you to please consider the following sentence:

It must be him with whom you enjoy doing your assignments, not me.

I have known that after 'to be' verb pronouns words take the subjective form. For example:

It is he who was absent yesterday.

So, can I say that the first sentence is erroneous? Would it be correct to write

It must be he with whom you enjoy doing your assignments, not I.

grammaticality - Is it ever grammatically correct to say "I'm sure they're."

I currently can't think of a good reason grammatically; but there are plenty in terms of clear communication.

grammaticality - Which is correct: "between me and Larry" or "between Larry and I"?

Which is correct?

1. I agree with the plan worked up between me and Larry.


2. I agree with the plan worked up between Larry and I.

meaning - What does "pass it" mean?

I love the show Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, but I can't understand the meaning of this sentence:

We eat a bag of dirt, pass it in a kiddie pool, and move on...

What does pass it mean? Is it to share or something else?

word choice - Task, project, assignment, job. Which one is correct in my case?

I have a tiny table/bulletin board to display information for all members to remind them of their deadline task.
They work for one large project, each is assigned to code for a specific thing.
Which correct word should I use as the table's title?

Project Deadline / Task Deadline / Assignment Deadline / Job Deadline?

I don't know about how your company's team works on a project (member job dispatch). Because in my company it is done so, in case of one member who might keep pace with others or times when he can't code before deadline, it's problematic, right? How to solve this?

single word requests - Use of peri- prefix where sub- and super- are commonly used (Or, is periterranean valid?)

While trying to construct a description of the various train networks of London, I wanted to use the word periterranean to mean "close to the ground", with reference to subterranean (under the ground) and, I suppose, superterranean (above the ground).

I am aware that superterranean would typically cover both the "on the ground" and "above the ground" cases, but I wanted a word to distinguish, say, the Docklands Light Railway (much of which runs on raised tracks) from the London Overground (much of which runs on surface tracks). Of course, both should be distinguished from the London Underground, even though 55% of the Underground is, in fact, above ground.

Extensive Google searches failed to bring up anything of relevance, so my question is this: Are there any examples of periterranean used in the context I have described, and, if not, what would be a more appropriate word?

Answer

I'm afraid that would be a bad choice. Greek peri- means "around, about", which is not what you want. Cf. perimeter, perihelion, periphery, etc. In Latin, the prefix used to indicate "near" would be ad-, which assimilates to at- before a t-. So atterranean would be properly formed and somewhat near your intended meaning.

hyphenation - Should "no longer" have a hyphen?

I have always put a hyphen in the fragment "no-longer X", but neither the BBC website or the Economist seem to put one in. I always thought that

The piece of string was no longer than five inches.

should not have one, but

After I cut it, the string was no-longer whole.

needed one, because longer is a comparative. Certainly when I read the two sentences above aloud I put a different emphasis on the words.

Does anyone know if this is or was common? I'm from the UK, if that makes a difference to the answer.

contractions - Is there another way to write the possessive -s?

I have a question regarding the possessive. Which one of the two is correct?

1. Caroline's car


2. Caroline her car

Or are they both correct?

grammar - conditionals: what's the difference between these two sentences?

There is a sentence in a paragraph from the novel 'And the Mountains Echoed':

"But these were gestures, Abdullah knew, acts of duty, drawn from a
well far shallower than the one she reached into for Iqbal. If one
night their house caught fire, Abdullah knew without doubt which

child Parwana would grab rushing out."

The scenario is described in the past tense.

But I learned that for conditional unreal things happened in the past, we can use the past perfect tense. So can I change the sentence to:

If one night their house had caught fire, Abdullah knew without
doubt which child Parwana would have grabbed rushing out.

1. Can I assume that the first sentence using the simple past tense refers to a conditional situation in the past (we don't know it happened or not) yet the second sentence using the past perfect tense refers to not only a conditional situation in the past but also something that didn't happen in the past?




2. If the paragraph used the present tense like:
   But these are gestures, Abdullah knows, acts of duty, draw from a well far shallower than the one she reaches into for Iqbal. If one night their house * caught * fire, Abdullah knows without doubt which child Parwana would grab rushing out.

In this case, could I assume that the "If sentence" describes something that happens now even if the simple past tense is used?

meaning - What is the difference between 'framework curriculum' and 'curricular framework'?

I know that curricular is an adjective and curriculum a noun, but are they both used in exactly the same meaning? Or are there some differences concerning what they imply or apply to? Being a non-native English speaker I would say that they are the same or at least are used as synonyms. I would prefer to use "curriculum framework" but quite often the translation e.g. from German 'Rahmencurriculum' is made with "curricular framework".

clauses - Comma usage and sentence elements

appologies if this is a very simple question, but your help would be appreciated.

I asked a question a couple of days ago regarding the usage of comma within sentences. I have been reading various rules regarding comma usage but still somtimes have a bit of difficulty knowing exactly where they should be placed.

In the following sentence would sombody be kind enough to give a brief overview regarding why each individual comma has been used.

Sometimes, though, a simple subject can be more than one word, even an entire clause.

I'm under the impression the first two are used to introduce introductory elements. I would also guess that "A simple subject can be more than one word" is the independant clause. But why is this clause seperated from the final element "even an entire clause".

Once again apologies if this is basic.

Many thanks.

grammar - Double possessive: a friend of Steven's

I am wondering about the "double possessive" I have been reading about.

I have a couple of sentences as an example:

He’s a new client of Jane and Kevin’s and a close childhood friend of Steven O’Neill’s.

I thought that the above sentence was correct, because it sounds natural to use the apostrophe S to me, in the same way that we say "he's a friend of mine."

However, I have heard people criticize sentences such as that one above as having a "double possessive" because of the OF as well as the apostrophe S.

Is the above sentence correct or should it be:

He’s a new client of Jane and Kevin and a close childhood friend of Steven O’Neill.

Thank you - any help would be greatly appreciated.

meaning - "Never mind" in American English and British English

Reading some forum pages about the meaning of the phrase never mind, I realized that there's a difference in usage of it, between American and British English. What's the difference in meaning of this phrase in American English and British English?

Answer

I'd say there really isn't much difference in usage between American English and British English. In both dialects, it can be used to mean "it's alright", and dismissively to mean something like "shut up, I'm annoyed". A lot of it depends on tone of voice.

questions - "Which" or "what" for accepting multiple choices from a list

I know that, in the context of radio buttons (the options are limited and they choose one), I should use which. For example, Which is your favorite color?

( ) blue
( ) green
( ) red

I also suspect that for an unlimited text box, the correct option is what. For example, What is your favorite color? ________________

My instinct tells me that the same is true for checkboxes. For example, What colors do you prefer?

[ ] blue
[ ] green
[ ] red

When they can select multiple answers, I should use What colors do you prefer?, not Which colors do you prefer?, right?

grammaticality - If I am saying "Someone and Myself's (possession)", what would the correct usage in this phrase be?

I was just wondering how to properly use the phrase, I am trying to talk about something that belongs to both my friend and myself so how would I say that? My friend and myself's? or a different way?

grammaticality - How is this sentence to be interpreted?

One thing that bothers me - a lot - reading older English texts, is the apparent tendency of writers to write what appear to me to be sentence fragments. For instance, today I found this old "map":

http://i.imgur.com/hPLXDrK.jpg

The map contains this sentence near the top:

"Four Hundred Passages in the Bible that Condemn the Globe Theory, or the Flying Earth, and None Sustain It"

Ignoring the actual claims made by this sentence (I've seen this type of thing in other more reputable works but I can't recall any of them at the moment), it seems to me that this isn't a valid English sentence. I have tried to determine the parts of speech and haven't come up with anything convincing. I'm trying to figure out how this could ever have been grammatically correct. The word "that" seems to completely wreck what would have been a perfectly valid construction. But even worse, with the word "that" the following "and" seems very mismatched.

Is this sort of thing deliberately a non-sentence? Is there a way to interpret it as a valid sentence? It seems like this thing was pretty common in the 19th century; is this some sort of cultural thing whereby titles of pieces of writing were overly wordy incomplete sentences? How should I interpret this sort of thing?

word choice - Difference between "I have got" and "I have gotten"

I see these two expressions are used almost identically in different contexts. Is there a difference between I have got and I have gotten?

Saxon Genitive vs. Adjective Noun (Model Parameters vs. Model's Parameters)

The suggestions in this same forum say that the use of the phrase "the car's antenna" is correct.

Questions:

1. Nobody mentioned the use of "the car antenna" -- which to me would be much more natural, although not perfectly precise. It is clear that the particular "car's antenna" may be borrowed from e.g. a transistor radio, so that in that case "the car's antenna is a transistor-radio antenna". [Please correct all that is wrong here, and comment the use of the hyphen.]




2. I want to write a short and elegant title in a computer program that would describe "the parameters of a model". Is it correct to use:
   2.a The Model Parameters, or for short, and because it is in the title: Model Parameters;
   2.b The Model's Parameters, or for short, in the title: Model's Parameters.

By definition of the Saxon genitive, the more precise would be 2.b, correct? But when you Google "model parameters" and "model's parameters", you get about 3 millions for the (a) choice and 30 times less (a hundred thousand) for the (b). And I bet that most of the people wanted to say the same thing: "the parameters of the model", and were trying to abbreviate it. Was there anybody who wanted to say something like "the model-like parameters", or "modelish parameters" -- I guess no one!

The same thing applies to:

3.a The user password;
3.b The user's password.

Please comment heavily on the question 2. It would be nothing strange that most of the people just write what is common or simpler, but what woul the experts suggest? In cases like this, where the distinction is almost negligible, is it OK to go for the simpler solution. It also concerns another example from this pages: "The ProductName's Desgin" or "The ProductName Design".

Thanks in advance.

descriptive grammar - When describing an action by two persons is it ever correct to name oneself first?

When describing an action by two persons and that action has a negative outcome or nature, is it correct to name oneself first? As in I and he played poorly.

grammar - Dependent clause after pronoun

This question arose from why sentence #1 is correct and why sentence #2 is incorrect -

I pity those who lost their money in gambling.

I pity them who lost their money in gambling.

I have asked the question in ELL forum, as well as in Linguistics forum.

But the answers their made me more confused.

RULE 1

Jlawler's comment contains the direct answer to the question. Definite personal pronouns (I/me, you, he/him, she/her, it, we/us,

they/them) cannot take a restrictive modifier. In other words, they
cannot take a dependent that narrows the set of entities that they
denote. This trait of personal pronouns underlies their use as test
words for constituent structure. For example:

 (a)  The man with the hat knows the woman with the scarf.

 (b)  He knows her. 

 (c) *He with the hat knows her with the scarf.

Sentence (a) is the starting sentence. Sentence (b) shows proform
substitution; the personal pronouns he and her have been
substituted in for the noun phrases the man with the hat and the
woman with the scarf. Based on the acceptability of sentence (b), one
concludes that both the man with the hat and the woman with the
scarf are constituents. Definite pronouns such as he and her (and
them) take the place of constituents, in this case of complete noun phrases.

The unacceptability of sentence (c) reveals that the strings the man
and the woman in (a) are not constituents. In other words, the
definite personal pronouns he and her cannot take dependents
(=modifiers), since they necessarily replace an entire noun phrase.
This fact explains why them who lost their money in the question is
bad English. The relative clause who lost money is a postdependent
(=postmodifier), and as such it cannot modify them (because them
as a definite personal pronoun cannot be modified).

The plural demonstrative pronouns (these and those) behave

differently. They can take postdepndents (=postmodifiers, i.e. a
modifier that follows them), e.g

 (d)  These with hats know those with scarves. 

This is simply a trait of the plural demonstrative pronouns (these
and those) -- there is no good explanation why plural demonstrative
pronouns behave differently than definite personal pronouns; they
simply do. Note that the plural demonstrative pronouns also behave

differently than the singular demonstrative pronouns in this regard,
e.g.

 (e)  *This with a hat knows that with a scarf.

Singular demonstrative pronouns (this and that) are behaving like
the definite personal pronouns; they cannot take dependents.

The combination plural demonstrative pronoun + restrictive relative

clause can actually be viewed as a particular construction in
English and related languages. That is, it is a combination that
occurs relatively frequently and has therefore been lexicalized.
German has a very similar construction, e.g.

 (f) Diejenigen mit einem Hut kennen diejenigen mit einem Schal. 
     those      with  a   hat  know     those   with  a   scarf.

By acknowledging that one has a particular construction, one is in a

sense admitting that there is no real grammatical "explanation" for
the phenomenon. It simply exists.

Finally, note that there are certain apparent exceptions to the
principles mentioned above. There are uses of personal pronouns that
actually allow modification, e.g.

 (g) He who studies a lot gets a good grade. 

In this example, the personal pronoun he is not referring directly
to a specific entity, which means it is not definite; it is, rather,
being used as an indefinite pronoun; it means 'the one, anyone', e.g.
Anyone who studies a lot gets a good grade.

MY CONFUSION

Reading this answer make the following sentence consider wrong -

It is she who stood second in class.

So another person came up with another rule -

RULE 2

Nominative personal pronouns can be modified by relative clauseas just

like demonstrative pronouns; it's the objective personal pronouns that
can't. He who, she who, they who, you who are all grammatical, if
archaic. Him who, her who, them who, however, aren't.

MY CONFUSION

Now this rule create a conflict with the rule 1 I quoted first. In the first rule it says - He with the hat knows her with the scarf - sentence is wrong, but if we consider the second rule then this particular sentence should be correct.

Another problem with the second rule is that it makes the following sentence incorrect -

The action was performed by her who is the secretary of XYZ company.

So another rule came in picture -

RULE 3

"Them," combined with the "who," has to be used with a preposition
like "to," "from," or "with."

"I pity them," by itself, is a grammatically correct sentence, but
when you connect the dependent clause with "who," it is no longer
correct.

Now I am really confused. Can anyone here please help?

grammaticality - Plural words/singular modifiers

Something I've always been confused about even as a native English speaker...

Say, someone is discussing a concert and they say: "there was a huge amount of people there". Is this correct, or should it be "there were a huge amount of people there"? People is plural while huge amount is one singular thing. Can someone explain this to me?

Answer

A simple way of looking at it is: Words that come after a Preposition (e.g. "Of") are considered part of a Prepositional Phrase, and thus they're normally skipped as the "determining" Noun.

In your example, "amount" is the real Subject and not "people."

By the way, we normally say: "number" for people and other Countable Nouns. As in: "There was a huge number of people."

But, "There was a huge amount of water in the tank."

verbs - Have written and wrote. They mean the same thing?

I have written a letter.
I wrote a letter.

Do they mean the same thing or there is a difference?

If there is a difference then where should I use "have written" and "wrote"? (I'm also talking about every other verbs)

Answer

The tense and aspect are different. "Have written" is present perfect, whereas "wrote" is simple past. This website explains it pretty well.

Present Perfect refers to completed actions which endure to the present or whose effects are still relevant.

Use the past tense to indicate past events, prior conditions, or completed processes.

In these examples, you could say #1 and #3 whereas #2 and #4 are incorrect.

1. I have written a letter. Would you like to review it?



2. I wrote a letter. Would you like to review it?




3. I wrote a letter yesterday.



4. I have written a letter yesterday.

word order - "even to" and "to even"

Going off this question, where the sole answer put forth a rule of thumb:

Grammatical reason: it is considered best for clarity's sake to place the emphasizer ("even," here) closest to the entity of interest.

The placement of the adverb "even" has piqued my interest with these sentences, some of them from various online dictionaries:

...declined even to consider the idea.

her mother didn't like her even to walk past the barroom because she was worried that there might be drunk people inside

For it is shameful even to mention the things being done by them in secret.

...to pay for things such as groceries, or even to purchase a cup of coffee.

These sentences do not accord with the aforementioned rule. I am wondering:

1. What stylistic differences do "even to" and "to even" make?


2. Is this an AmE/BrE thing? Is one way more preferable in any English language tradition?


3. My hypothesis is there are sentences where either one will do just fine and has the exact same meaning without nuances. But there should also be sentences--even among the handful examples listed above--where one way is more preferable than the other. What are the rules?

grammatical number - Organisation - singular or plural?

In formal (not colloquial) English, is an organisation such as a sports club singular, plural, or is it discretionary? E.g. is it preferable to write "The X club WAS formed" or "The X club WERE formed", or doesn't it matter?

grammar - Is it "George and I" or "George and me"?

Recently, at McCain's funeral Obama said:

"After all, what better way to have the last laugh than to make George and I say nice things about him to a national audience."

Is it "George and I" or "George and me"?

grammar - Why isn't the nominative case generally used with "to be"?

In German, constructions with sein, which is uninflected infinitive meaning "to me", seem to generally use the nominative case. For instance, this is a dog translates to das ist ein Hund, and ein here is in the nominative. In German, this seems related to what the subject of the sentence is.

In any case, I was thinking about this and wondered about why in constructions like it is [inflected pronoun], using the nominative case for the pronoun instead of an objective case seems slightly overly formal.

That's not to say that the nominative case is never used. For instance, from the book of John:

Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, “Whom are you looking for?” They answered, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus replied, “I am he.”

(This is from the New Revised Standard Version, but the King James Version gives the same.) Now, this seems grammatically correct to me, but it probably seem unnatural to the casual listener if, upon asking who Jane Doe is, I answered with "I am she" instead of "I'm her."

Why is this the case? Has this just always been the case in more informal English? Or have there been shifts in usage?

When asking someone his nationality, do I include an indefinite article?

For example, do I say:

Are you a Russian?
Are you an American?

– or should I say:

Are you Russian?
Are you American?

grammar - Function of Numbers in a Sentence

A question was recently posed about the sentence

"This is what 51,000 people looks like."

The question was, "Is this grammatical?"

It seems opinions vary on how to handle this sentence. I feel that 51,000 is an adjective describing people and so "looks" should be "look" as in "This is what 51,000 people look like."

These are my questions:

1) What function does 51,000 serve in the sentence?
2) How are numbers treated in general when they appear before nouns? I ask because I have heard people say "Here's 30 Dollars." Should it be "is" or "are?" Seems like people are referring to "30" and not "Dollars."
3) What function does "look" play in the above sentence?
4) Also, it seems that because 51,000 is written as a number (instead of fifty one thousand) people are treating it like a group whereas if it were written, I think it would be harder to do that. Does writing it as a number or as words change things?
5) Also, if the sentence were "Here is what 51,000 people looks like." would the word "here" change the sentence and how we parse the it?

Answer

1. Quantifiers generally act as determinatives, which define the nouns they modify. This is different from adjectives, which describe the nouns they modify. You can tell the difference because determinatives cannot be inflected for comparison, and they can't appear as predicate adjectives. You can say either

Purple people are here or People here are purple

but you can only say

51,000 people are here.

You can't say

People here are 51,000.

2. Whether you hand someone a twenty-dollar bill or a two ten-dollar bills, you say

Here is twenty dollars.

Because that's a single amount, no matter the denomination of the bills.

3. "Look" is a stative verb in your example. It means "appears."





4. I don't see how numerals or words affect the grammar. Whether you choose a singular or plural verb depends on whether you mean the group as a whole or as multiple individuals. If you say

51,000 people seems small for a protest rally

you mean that it's a small crowd.
If you say

51,000 people seem small

you mean that either they are all midgets or they are being viewed from afar.

5. "Here" is an adverb of place, telling us where they people appear as they do. Its presence or absence doesn't change the basic structure of the sentence.

grammar - Why use "an" before a word that starts with a "L"

In this document, it says:

An LTI (Linear, Time-Invariant) system, in a simplified sense, will exhibit two behaviors

Can someone explain why the use of "An" instead "a" is correct here?

Answer

The "a" v. "an" distinction is phonetically based. If you say L T I, when you pronounce the letter L is pronounced "el" (as in the proper name "Eleanor") which starts with a vowel.

If the acronym had been dispensed with, you would have used "A" instead.

punctuation - Comma placement when using quotes that end with a question mark

I've been writing a letter to an editor, and one line of my response reads:

In your article "What Makes Free Will Free?" you mention...

My question is: where should I place a comma to transition from the quoted article title to words you mention... after it? Should I place the comma in the quotes, or outside the quotes? Traditionally, I would place it in the quotes, but I wasn't too sure if I could place a comma right after a question mark like that.

Answer

The quotes here delimit the article title. Since the comma is not part of the title, it belongs outside of the quotes. If this were a book title, it would be either italicized or underlined, but the comma would not. The same logic should apply here.

grammar - Where to use "the"

Which sentence is correct?
are we meeting before the class or
are we meeting before class

What's the truth about the subjunctive and conditional statements, anyway?

I have generally (I would say always, but I'm not sure I always thought this) supposed that in English, uses of the subjunctive are quite limited. They include desires, judgments, etc. ("I desire that she go"), general propositions ("the very idea that he marry her"), assorted hypotheticals involving to be ("If I were mad"), and some archaic expressions that you can find in Shakespeare.

Now, in pursuing a question for someone, I find myself confronted with the possibility that many ordinary conditionals in English are in fact subjunctive-carriers. Some sources omit mention of the subjunctive; some state that it's only the "type two" conditional that takes the subjunctive ("If I got up early every morning..."); and some seem to imply that just about every conditional statement is really a subjunctive one.

My first point of concession is that, on some inspection, this so called second type might really be a subjunctive after all; if the protasis "if I were" is subjunctive, then "if I liked" must be as well.

But after this point, it gets quite murky. Do you really mean to say that a standard pluperfect conditional construction, such as "If I had gone along, I would have had fun" really contains the subjunctive mood in one or both pieces?

Now that I think about it, the indicative mood doesn't seem quite right, and surely there must be some mood happening, but the subjunctive? One thing that I am quite sure of is that in this kind of conditional, there is nothing about it that would ever differentiate it from indicative anyway: "If I had gone along" and "I had gone along" have no difference in inflection.

Does that mean that the subjunctive is imputed simply by virtue of uncertainty or doubt? That would mean that the most simple type of conditional, a present-future conditional, is subjunctive also: "If I fail, you'll hate me". The thing is, the more I inspect these fragments, the more conceivable it becomes; aren't we really saying "given that I fail", which has the look of a subjunctive to it?

However, this is where I hesitate. If mere doubt is the condition to require the subjunctive mood, that would mean that "I'm not sure if he is rich" is subjunctive, when we know that it is not, and that to try to employ it ("I'm not sure if he be rich") makes us sound like a pirate.

Maybe I have the sound of French teachers too much in my ear, telling me that the subjunctive is rarely used in English in comparison with the far more robust French equivalent. Can someone please sort this out?

Tense change: previous actions on something that's currently true

I'm describing a situation that happened in the past. To explain it, I want to use a description that is both true now and true when the situation happened.

Specifically, I want something like:

She touched me where my neck met my collarbone.

Since my neck is still attached to my collarbone (thankfully), I'm wondering if I shouldn't use the present tense here instead:

She touched me where my neck meets my collarbone.

Which is preferable, and why?

Answer

[I believe this question already exists somewhere else on this website, but I can't for the life of me find it.]

In short, though the present tense is also possible, the most natural choice would probably be the past tense:

She touched me where my neck met my collarbone.

---

The main clause happened in the past, while the subordinate clause is a timeless fact; that is, it was true in the past and it is true now. Which tense to use in the subordinate clause? General rules about the sequence of tenses shouldn't normally be involved, since it is a timeless fact.

The most logical choice would be to use the present simple, because that is the common choice for timeless facts in a main clause (cf. mice like cheese, the Earth revolves around the sun, Liechtenstein borders on Austria, etc.). If I said "Liechtenstein bordered on Austria", you might expect to hear that the borders were changed later.

However, this is where assimilation or attraction of tenses kicks in: if a certain tense is used in the main clause of a sentence, especially a past tense, most writers will have a natural inclination to use this tense throughout the sentence where possible, because it looks neater in some subconscious way. (Note that this doesn't apply so much to tenses other than the past.)

In this case, since the subordinate clause is true now and was also true in the past, the simple past tense is possible; I'd say that either tense would be all right, but the past tense looks a bit more natural, especially in speech, where this attraction usually has an even stronger influence.

---

Fowler as edited by Burchfield agrees that this is a common phenomenon:

A certain assimilation normally takes
place in many forms of sentence, by
which the tense of their verbs is
changed to the past when they are made

into clauses dependent on another
sentence whose verb is past, even
though no notion of past time needs to
be introduced into the clause.

He mentions that the past tense is normal, but the present tense is also used in this type of sentence, to a somewhat more vivid effect.

grammar - When should a verb be followed by a gerund instead of an infinitive?

Some verbs are followed by ing, e.g. I enjoy swimming. We can't say I enjoy to swim. Likewise, some verbs are followed by to, e.g. I decided to make a plan.

Which particular verbs are followed by ing and to? Can you please provide a list for that?

Moreover, which verbs can be followed by both without having the meaning changed?

Answer

You can find such a list, for instance, in the Penguin Handbook.

Note: as of December 2014, the above link does not work. 
There is a copy of The Brief Penguin Handbook here;
the Verbs Followed by Gerunds or Infinitives section is here.

The only way to know is to memorize which verbs are followed by gerunds and which are followed by infinitives. The relevant categories are:

Verbs Followed by Infinitives

Most verbs are followed by infinitives.
If the verb is not found in the list below, it is probably followed by an infinitive.

Verbs Followed by Gerunds

The verbs in the following table all need to be followed by gerunds.

The students don’t enjoy going over the same rules again and again.

• admit (to)


• appreciate


• avoid



• be accustomed to


• be used to


• can’t help


• consider


• delay


• deny


• discuss


• dislike


• enjoy


• feel like



• finish


• get used to


• imagine


• keep (on)


• look forward to


• (not) mind


• miss


• postpone


• practice


• put off



• recommend


• regret


• report


• resent


• resist


• risk


• stop


• suggest


• tolerate


• understand

Verbs Followed by an Object Before the Infinitive Verb

I advise you to go to school early today.

• advise



• allow


• *ask


• authorize


• cause


• challenge


• convince


• encourage


• *expect


• force


• get



• help


• hire


• inform


• instruct


• invite


• *need


• order


• permit


• persuade


• *prepare



• *promise


• remind


• require


• teach


• tell


• train


• urge


• *want


• *warn


• *would like

*Some words can be used without an object as well as with an object.

I want him to go. I want to go.

Verbs Followed by Either Gerund or Infinitive

Sometimes the meaning changes according to the verb used.

He doesn’t remember giving the homework to Mr. Young.
He didn’t remember to give the homework to Mr. Young.

• attempt


• begin


• can (not) bear



• can (not) stand


• continue


• hate


• intend


• (dis)like


• love


• neglect


• prefer


• remember


• start



• try

Verbs Followed Only by the Simple Form (no “-ing” or “to”)

Four verbs are called causative verbs.
They are followed by an object; the verb after the object is always in the simple form:

• let: They let him go on the trip (instead of “let him to go”).

I let him take my book home for one night.

• make: We made her do her chores first.

I made my sister cry.

• help: She helped her finish her homework.

I helped him find the bookstore.

• have: The teacher had him stay after school.

I had my teacher explain the answers.

Verbs Followed by Either the Simple Form or the Gerund (no “to”)

Some verbs are called verbs of perception and are followed by either the simple form or the “-ing” form.

• see: I see him go.

I see him going.

• notice: I notice him run to school every day.

I notice him running to school every day.

• watch: I watch him struggle with his homework.

I watch him struggling with his homework.

• hear: I hear him sing.

I hear him singing.

Others including: look at, observe, listen to, feel, smell.

punctuation - Should I use a colon or semicolon?

Which of the following punctuations is more appropriate?

Strict liability serves to uphold the rights of individuals: in this case, the rights of the neighbor to the security of his property.

or

Strict liability serves to uphold the rights of individuals; in this case, the rights of the neighbor to the security of his property.

How can I join many adjectives to one word and create a grammatical phrase?

I have to describe an object that is:
a pair of

• round/rounded earrings,


• made of wood/wooden,


• with bosses of brass/brass bossed?

How can I put it in a single statement?

I think that it could be right to say "round wooden earrings with bosses of brass" but I'm not sure, since I'm not a native speaker of English.

Answer

"round wooden earrings with brass bosses" is the most natural way of saying this to the English ear, although you could say "brass bossed round wooden earrings"

My personal thought is it's probably better to put whatever you consider to be the most important features first qualifying them after with the less important ones.

grammar - What is the difference between 'I almost completed...' and 'I have almost completed...'

While having a conversation, my friend said 'I almost completed...', but when I heard that line, it sounded to me like 'I nearly did something, which I should not have done, and thank god for that' although what he actually meant was he had little work left to do then. Am I missing something? Or is 'I almost completed...' grammatically incorrect?

Answer

I almost completed

Indicates an action in the past, which you were doing, and is all gone now. So you say "I almost completed the running race, but had to stop half-way through."

I have almost completed

Means something is still ongoing, and you expect to finish soon.
"I have almost completed the race, there are only 500m to go."

(The tense names give these two away - "almost completed" is past tense, "have almost completed" is present perfect.)

questions - How would the following sentences would be transformed?

1. Having Considered the question of expansion carefully the committee decided against the project.

Begin - Although _________________________________.

2. Someone had cut John's hair.

Begin - John _________________________________.

3. It looks as if Rahul has applied for the wrong job.

Begin - Rahul seems _______________________________________.

4. a) His uncle instructed him not to drive recklessly.

   
   
   

   b) He told him not to drink at that time.

Join the above 2 sentences

Answers of above sentences according to me -

1. Although the committee considered the question of expansion carefully, they decided against the project.




2. John had his hair cut by someone. or John's hair had been cut by someone.




3. Rahul seems to have applied for the wrong job.




4. His uncle told him not to drink at the time of driving to avoid driving recklessly.

So are the my answers correct?

Answer

For Someone had cut John's hair., I would say—

John's hair had been cut by someone.

or

John had had his hair cut by someone.

The sentences in number 4 are a little odd, and it's not exactly clear what's being said, but I'd go for something like this:

His uncle instructed him not to drive recklessly by drinking.

If "at this time" is important (even though it's not clear what time is meant—while driving? Who drinks when actually driving?), it might be better to stay non-committal:

His uncle instructed him not to drive recklessly, and told him not to drink at that time.

or

His uncle instructed him not to drive recklessly, telling him not to drink at that time.

punctuation - How to punctuate an embedded quoted question within a declarative sentence?

I'm having a devil of a time trying to determine how to punctuate an embedded quoted question within a declarative sentence. A comma is used to introduce the quote, but things get hairy at the end of the quote.

When Ms. Peremptory asked, "Are you ever going to be ready?" I was unable to respond.

Is this situation best handled with no closing comma? Placement in any of the possible spaces between the closing "y" in "ready" and the subject of the sentence produces visually confounding -- though possibly grammatically correct -- results.

possessives - Is it "John or Mary's house" or "John's or Mary's house"?

I understand that if John and Mary own a house together, it is John and Mary's house. If they jointly owned multiple houses, they would be John and Mary's houses. I also understand that if John and Mary each own one or more houses, then one would refer to John's and Mary's houses. However, what if John OR Mary own a single house. Would that be John or Mary's house or would it instead be John's or Mary's house?

To take this a little further, substitute for John and Mary an individual person who might be an owner or a renter of a single house. You don't know or care if the house is in the possession of an owner or of a renter but you want to convey that the person might be either an owner or a renter. Would one refer to the owner or renter's house or to the owner['s] or renter's house?

In real life, I'm looking into "the Social Worker['s] or Attorney's employee identification card." A form must be accompanied by a copy of the employee identification card of the person submitting the form. The form could be submitted by the Social Worker or by the Attorney.

I'm also looking into "the child['s?] or youth's birth certificate." The birth certificate belongs to (is that of) a person who might be a child or a youth. (There is no single word we use at my job that refers to young minors and to older minors collectively).

There's the possibility of my restructuring or 'pluralizing' the sentences to convey the intended meaning but it'd be best if I don't.

A million and one thanks all.

adjectives - Is it preferable to generally use nested prepositional phrases or a hyphenated adjectival phrase?

I've recently run into some sticky situations involving how to write out complicated concept descriptions. Take this example:

Which metrics are appropriate for evaluating the accuracy of a prediction of difficulty level?

My visceral response is that the nested prepositions ("for...of...of") bog down the reader. One option is to wrap one of the prepositional phrases into a hyphenated adjectival phrase:

Which metrics are appropriate for evaluating the accuracy of a difficulty-level prediction?

If I wanted to compress this even more, I could fold in another prepositional phrase:

Which metrics are appropriate when evaluating difficulty-level-prediction accuracy?

Unfortunately, these hyphenated cases look ugly and are arguably (especially in the 3rd case) as hard or harder to understand than the original sentence. Have any style guides or other sources justified using nested prepositional phrases over hyphenated adjectival phrases, or vice versa?

apostrophe - Dickens' or Dickens's?

This BBC report (link) suggests that we should use "Dickens' Great Expectations", but I remember there is a rule from Strunk and White (here) that would suggest "Dickens's Great Expectations".

Is this just a difference due to British English vs American English?

BBC's report:

Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council's grammatical error
appeared on an advert for a performance of Charles Dickens' Great
Expectations in July.

Strunk and White

Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.

Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend 
Burns's poems
the witch's malice   

This is the usage of the
United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University
Press. Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es
and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience'
sake, for righteousness' sake. ...

pronouns - "that which" used together

When I read essays from Eliot, I find him using "that which" frequently, e.g.

1. the combination which is the murder of Agamemnon is probably as complex as that which is the voyage of Ulysses.


2. A very small part of acting is that which takes place on the stage!


3. They belong to a different race. Their crudity is that which was of the Roman, as compared with the Greek, in real life.

I can kind of guess its usage, but I want to know more about this grammar structure. Searching on Google mostly gave me the simple difference between "that" and "which", and some examples using "that which":

1. that which we call a rose (from "Romeo and Juliet")


2. that which we persist in doing

It is a pity that Google search does not direct me to any useful page about "that which". Can someone explicate its grammar for me?

Answer

The combination of that which in the example sentences is fine. The that is a pronoun referring back to a noun phrase and the which is the relative pronoun used for non-animate antecedents. If we expand the shortest of the OP's example sentences to replace the pronoun that with its noun referent, we get:

• A very small part of acting is acting which takes place on the stage!

We can see a similar (personal) pronoun / relative pronoun combination in:

• He who hesitates is lost.

numbers - Interrogative form of a sentence

Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon.

I need to convert this into a question.

If "Neil Armstrong" was the answer, the interrogative form would be

Who was the first man on the Moon?

How do you ask this as a question if "first" was the answer?

Another example would be

Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States

British English plural verb for group noun in a contraction

I'm curious about the use of the famous British plural verb form with a group noun¹ in a contraction. The general custom for the plural is discussed here and here but those don't call out contractions.

England football fans are currently singing the following to the tune of September by Earth, Wind, and Fire:

Woah, England are in Russia,

Woah, drinking all your vodka,

Woah, England's going all the way!

Now, it's a football song, not high poetry, but note that in the above, the first line uses England are but the last line uses England's. Unless we magically decide that the first England is the team but the second England is the country, that's...interesting.

The plural contraction is really awkward:

• England're going all the way


• Family're hard work sometimes


• The group're on it

...and as we know, awkwardness tends to get smoothed out of language.^{[citation needed] ;-)}

Is this just a fudge to make the song's meter work? Or is it a deeper pattern to use the singular form in a contraction even when using the plural form otherwise, perhaps because of the awkwardness?

Sadly Google Ngrams won't let me look for England is going vs. England are going (and England is vs. England are is too general) and in any case, I'd be flooded with American English results. Trying to search Hansard, unfortunately Google Search treats the ' as a space.

I can't use my own instinct on this and am having trouble coming up with other examples to look for: I'm an English/American dual national who spent 30 years growing up in the U.S. reading British novels and watching British television on PBS, who's been back in the UK for 18 years. So my dialect is mid-Atlantic and horribly confused. :-)

---

¹ E.g. the team are vs. American English's the team is for nouns representing groups of people (roughly; there's lots of nuance).

Answer

It's just a fudge to make the meter work.

meaning - 'Closest Healing' or another phrase for a book title?

I have written a book and will publish it.

I have suffered a lot from a disease over a decade, but after I prayed to God in fasting I found its healing was very close, not far from me.

Therefore, I am going to publish the book to help patients not to be suffered as me but to find true healing that is nearby.

I just can consider its title such as "The Closest Healing" or "The Nearest Healing."

I neither know what others are available nor know which is better among the two above.
As English is my second language, I cannot figure out their nuances.
Which one is better, or other word?

I like to use Healing than cure or remedy as its concept contains Whole Person Healing.

Please help me to find out a good English title.
Thank you.

Answer

Jut my opinion, but although the two words "closest" and "nearest" are essentially synonyms, to me "closest" seems to connote something that is even closer than near, and could easily be understood as "inside".

I cannot give you a nicely logical answer, but "The Closest Healing" seems better than "Nearest".

On the other hand, another similar title comes to mind: "The Healing From Within".

Your project sounds interesting - do you have a publisher already? And is this a translation into English from your first language, or is it written originally in English?

grammar - Is ''How many stops is Tokyo from here?'' grammatically correct?

When do you want to ask which stop you want to get off at, can I say how many stops is Tokyo from here?? In this situation, I expect an answer like '5 stops.'

Answer

Yes, the question is perfectly valid English.

Another way to say the same thing would be: "How many stops until Tokyo?"

grammar - Are both "see you at the lesson" and "see you in the lesson" correct?

I have been studying English with many teachers. Some of them say "See you in the lesson" while others say "See you at the lesson." Yesterday, one of them told me that the correct way of saying it is "See you at the lesson."

Are both of them correct? If one (or both) of them is incorrect, please tell me why.

grammar - "Than I" or "Than Myself"

Which is grammatically correct?

My friends seem to be having more fun than I, Me, Myself, and Them

Also,

Good people are always ready to help those who are not as fortunate as Theirs, Them, They, Us

Answer

For the first sentence:

• Me is the most natural choice: My friends seem to be having more fun than me.




• I in this context would be old fashioned and sits uncomfortably with a modern phrase like having fun. (It would be more natural in something like Is there more pitiable a wretch than I?, where both the choice of words and the sentiment itself are old fashioned.)




• Myself is odd here. American English seems to make more use of reflexives, but generally for second person, I think, that is, substituting yourself for you. My guess is that this indirectness may be something of a politeness strategy. If so, then even these dialects might resist use of myself here (no need to be polite to yourself).




• Them is of course fine, but it would not refer back to you, the speaker. It would refer to some other salient group.

For the second sentence:

• The most common pronouns here would be them or themselves. (There's a dialect split here, but I can't recall the details.)




• Oddly, they doesn't sound old fashioned here to me, just wrong. I feel it needs to be followed by are (not as fortunate as they are). Maybe other native speakers can weigh in here.




• Theirs is out. It's a possessive pronoun, and, so, would give the sentence meaning that good people help people less fortunate than something previously mentioned that they possess.




• Finally, us is fine, but it implies that you are not one of the good people and that good people use your standard of living as the benchmark for their altruism. If you want to say that, that's your business ;-)

Preposition with traveling

I have a question about how to use or if I can use the word traveling together with 'with' preposition.

Number of commuters spending more than two hours travelling to and from work up by 72% in last decade.

Is it possible to use with in the sentence above?

And how about this:

I am traveling to Beijing tomorrow and coming back in 5 days. I should have booked a longer stay since one day will go with traveling there and an another with coming back.

Thanks in advance
Tom

comparatives - "than do I" vs. "than I do"

I need grammatical explanations for the following two sentence structures:

1. The mistakes children make in learning to speak tell linguists more about how children learn language than do the correct forms they use.


2. Freedman's survey showed that people living in small towns and rural areas consider themselves no happier than do people living in big cities.

If noticed, would someone explain me why "do" appears after "than" in the both of the sentences above?

So, would it be correct if I say, "You explain it more clearly than do I"?

grammar - Must the subject be "I" when I start a sentence with "Considering"?

I think the best way to do this is using the examples below:

Considering it's going to be summer in Australia, you don't need to
take that many clothes with you.

Is the sentence correct?

Because I think the one that considers it's going to be summer in AU is clearly "me (who says the sentence)", not "you" in the sentence.

So I am wondering if the subject should be "I" in this case, for example:

Considering it's going to be summer in Australia, I think you don't need to
take that many clothes with you.

Answer

Considering "itself" is a preposition and a conjunction as defined:

preposition& conjunction

Taking into consideration: [as preposition]: ‘considering the
circumstances, Simon was remarkably phlegmatic’ [as conjunction]:
‘considering that he was the youngest on the field he played well’

[Oxford Online Dictionary]

Therefore, you don't have to worry about the subject of the independent clause.

grammar - Is "now" a "preposition"?

My question starts from this question which asks about difference between currently and right now, which is not that complicated. However, in the middle of exchanging comments, I found a few points in relation to classifying adverbs and prepositions that I would like to ask here.

Wikipedia (I looked through other definitions, but it looks clearer) defines a preposition as:

The word preposition comes from Latin: prae ("before") and Latin:
ponere ("to put"). This refers to the situation in Latin and Greek
(and in English), where such words are placed before their complement,
and are hence "pre-positioned".

A preposition comes before its complement; a postposition comes after
its complement. English generally has prepositions rather than
postpositions – words such as in, under and of precede their objects,
as in in England, under the table, of Jane – although there are a
small handful of exceptions including "ago" and "notwithstanding", as
in "three days ago" and "financial limitations notwithstanding".

I am not asking a question about why ago could be considered as a preposition like notwithstanding which can be pre-positive and post-positive at the same time. I can guess why ago could be classified as a preposition, however, dictionaries say it is an adverb, not a preposition. I know dictionaries are for general public, not for grammarians.

The previous question about now seems to be more focused on the dual usages of now as an adverb and a noun. However, grammars like Oxford Modern English Grammar list now as a preposition (p.76).

1. Now, why in the world is now a preposition?




2. If now is a preposition, how about the adverb immediately?




3. Can you call a word (part of speech) that takes no complement (or object) preposition? Then, why do we use the word preposition for such words? Wouldn't it be better if we use a brand-new grammatical term?

possessives - What is the correct way to say "It was this week that Justin and my lives changed forever"?

What is the correct way to indicate "Justin and I" as being possessive of our individual lives in this sentence? Is there a way to do this without restructuring the sentence?

A friend of mine posted a Facebook status that said, "It was this week that Justin and my lives changed forever," in regard to a Facebook memory. This doesn't sound correct to me, as it is possessive and thus, I assume, needs a possessive suffix ('s) after either "Justin" or "my".

I've seen some other threads on here that come pretty close to answering my question, but they all follow the joint possessive (my and Justin's) with a singular noun, like "cat" or "seafood dinner".

The best solution I can think of is to change "Justin and my" to "our", but in a sentence that follows she says, "Now he's gone over a year...etc." without any other reference to Justin, so I feel like individual identity might be important to maintain. Some other possibilities that I've seen suggested include:

• It was this week that Justin and my's lives changed forever


• It was this week that my and Justin's lives changed forever


• It was this week that mine and Justin's lives changed forever


• It was this week that Justin and I's lives changed forever


• It was this week that Justin and my's life changed forever

Are any of these suggestions even remotely correct?

Thanks in advance, everyone!

---

Links to the threads I mentioned:

Another page I found - they suggest 'our' the the second last paragraph

Answer

The least amount of restructuring I can think of is:

It was this week that both my life and Justin's changed forever.

The use of both makes it clear that there are two lives—rather than a shared single life (in the case of a partnership).

Without any restructuring, the "best" that can be done (I think) is:

It was this week that Justin's and my life changed forever.

With joint ownership, the possessive belongs to the final subject. In the example, since the first subject has a possessive, it could be assumed that there is no joint ownership. Of course, this is still not ideal. I don't think there is a good solution without some degree of restructuring.

prepositions - How to use 'persevere'?

I need to translate a sentence and I cannot figure out a good way to do so. Can I use the word 'persevere' like this, or are there better ways?

Vincas consistently deepens his knowledge, he is not afraid of any difficulties that may arise, but perseveres by means of determination and work.

Do I need to change the highlighted part to anything else, or is it good as-is?

Answer

Your sentence: "Vincas consistently deepens his knowledge, he is not afraid of any difficulties that may arise, but perseveres by means of determination and work." (23 words)

There are probably 50 or more ways of translating your sentence, though into what language it is being translated is a concern, and the particular tongue might narrow your choices. Nevertheless, I kind of like

"Vincas consistently deepens his knowledge and is not afraid of any difficulties. By dint of determination and hard work he perseveres." (21)

I like "by dint of," though it is a bit old fashioned, perhaps. Then there's

"Vincas consistently deepens his knowledge and confronts any difficulties which may arise; by determination and hard work he perseveres." (19)

What about

"Despite difficulties, Vincas consistently deepens his knowledge, and through determination and hard work he perseveres." (15)

And last,

"Vincas consistently deepens his knowledge, confronts difficulties head-on, and perseveres with determination and hard work." (15)

relative pronouns - "To ensure" vs. "To ensure that" + subject + predicate

Is any of these two sentences incorrect:

-(without that): "To ensure the voters are not influenced by mass-media, the campaign will end 7 days before the elections take place."

-(with that): "To ensure that the voters are not influenced by mass-media, the campaign will end 7 days before the elections take place."

Is the presence of that mandatory?

Answer

I agree with both the previous commentators. WS2 is correct in saying that the relative pronoun here 'that' is frequently elided. I share Hot Licks's view that inclusion of 'that' is stylistically preferable.

comparatives - "Much more easy" versus "much easier"

My mom and I are having a dispute on much more easy versus much easier. For example, consider the sentence:

It's [much more easy]/[much easier] to do action X than action Y.

I say that much easier is correct and that much more easy is grammatically incorrect, while she says that both are okay. I understand that both are acceptable colloquially, but which is grammatically correct here? If you could explain why, that would be even better!

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

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

Edit:

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

adjectives - What do you call a person who requests a service?

I´ve been trying to get some answers on this topic here, here, and other sources. I'd like to know a way to refer to a person who has made a request, but is not my actual customer/client.

Just to illustrate, picture this scenario:

My client is the CEO of a company. A request has been made by his/her secretary, I still need to save his/her details to keep track of the service.

What would you call the secretary on this scenario? I'm aware the word "requestor" is not really used by native speakers, so how'd one call this person in a "not very long" way? (e.g. "person who has booked the service")

ps: i could use "Requested by:" but later i have to collect their contact info such as phone and email.

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

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




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

—At the margins, are both correct?

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

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

---

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

Answer

The Original Poster's Question

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




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

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

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

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

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

When not to use that:

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

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


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

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

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



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




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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Conclusion

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

In defence of which

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

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

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


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


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


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



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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

single word requests - How to refer to someone who works at a hotel?

I understand that a hotelier is "someone who owns or manages a hotel" (reference), much like a hotelkeeper (reference). However, these functions (owning and managing) are far too specific, the same way a concierge, a receptionist and a hotel desk clerk are.

I have also seen a few references to the word hotelry used as an adjective meaning "things that are related to hotels", but there doesn't seem to be any such entry in dictionaries.

Thus my questions are:

• Is there a word in English to refer to "people that work in hotels"?





• Is there a word to refer to "things that are related to the realm of hotels"?

Answer

A general term is hospitality worker. This broadly refers to someone who works in the hospitality industry, which also include, for instance, restaurants.

How to ask a question to get an ordinal number answer

Possible Duplicates:
How to phrase an asking sentence that must be answered with an ordinal number?
Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number

Given that I want to know Barack Obama is the 44th President of U.S.A, how can I frame a question like:

The how manyeth president is Barack Obama?

Answer

I'd go with the following structure:

Q: Where does Obama fall in the sequence of US presidents?

A: [He's the] 44th [president].

This reflects similar usage when discussing, for instance, rankings:

Q: Where did Harvard fall on the U.S. News & World Report list this
year?

A: 2nd.

word choice - What's the difference between direction and orientation?

I frequently see these two words in 3D programming. For example:

the direction of the directional light

the orientation of camera

So, what’s the difference between them?

Answer

I think that the words are very similar, but there is arguably a subtle distinction.

The word direction suggests movement. While it may refer to a static object, it describes it as if it were or could move toward the described location.

the position toward which someone or something moves or faces:
Cars were facing every direction after slamming into each other on the icy road.
I glanced in her direction (= toward her).
You’re headed in the direction of (= toward) Toronto.

The word orientation seems to connote that the object is static and there is no suggestion of movement. As noted in a comment to this post, it is a relationship to the environment.

the position of something in relation to its surroundings:
The church has an east-west orientation (= has one main side facing east and the opposite side facing west).

There are many cases where either could be used, (even a paraphrase of one of the examples under direction)

Cars were oriented every which way after slamming into each other on the icy road.

However, there are many when only one or the other will do.

He moved in the direction of the door.
His orientation allowed him to see the window while lying prone.

A substitution probably could be made, but it would call for a more convoluted sentence.

grammar - Is there an Extended Backus–Naur form (EBNF) that covers all of English?

Is there an EBNF (Extended Backus–Naur form) that covers all of English, and if so, what is it?

Answer

No.

It's been well demonstrated in the linguistic literature that natural human languages, including English, cannot be captured in a context-free grammar.

Here's a link for you (PDF): Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language