Saturday, March 31, 2018

expressions - In anything but....meaning and usage




I am reading some documentation and cannot fully understand the meaning of 'In anything but..'




In anything but the smallest applications it makes sense to organize the service
definitions by moving them into one or more configuration files.




I have already read "However, this book is anything but" meaning, but it seems different to me. What do you think?


Answer





In anything but the smallest applications it makes sense to organize




The word but can mean except or other than.




but



conjunction




conjunction: but




    2.


used to indicate the impossibility of anything other than what is
being stated. "one cannot but sympathize"



synonyms: (do) other than, otherwise than, except "one cannot but

sympathize"



https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=but+definition&ie=&oe=
.







.





In anything other than the smallest applications it makes sense to organize




This means,




It makes sense to organize in all applications that are not very small.



word choice - "from where it was stopped" vs "from where it has stopped"



This question is about the usage of was and has.




Which sentence is correct?




  1. The match will resume from where it was stopped.


  2. The match will resume from where it has stopped.




What is the difference between was and has in this scenario?


Answer




They are very different constructions, though both are (probably) possible here.



First, note that stop, like many verbs denoting a change of state, can be used both transitively and intransitively:




The boy stopped the ball. (transitive)



The ball stopped (intransitive).





The transitive use usually implies that the stopping was caused by something external, whereas the intransitive use does not.



The transitive use, like any transitive verb, can be made passive:




The ball was stopped [by the boy]




As usual for a passive, the agent is optional; but "The ball was stopped" implies an external agent, unlike "the ball stopped".




We would not normally talk about a match stopping without an external agent:




The referee stopped the match.




but




? The match stopped.





is dubious. We'd normally used a word like "finished" or "ended"; and any other way it stopped would be from an external cause.



Now, what about "has stopped"?



"Has" + past participle is how we form the present perfect, of the active verb. So "The match has stopped" is very like "The match stopped" (intransitive), but with a perfect instead of a simple past. Perfect is used when the speaker wants to express that an event in the past has some present relevance.



I think that (leaving aside the unlikelihood of talking about a match stopping without external influence, as I discussed above), the present perfect is much less likely here than the simple past "from where it stopped"; but it is possible.


grammar - Periods in quotes and how to end the sentence the quote lies in











If I am quoting someone in my writing, and I end their quote with a period, and the end of the quote is also the end of my sentence. How do I properly end the sentence? An example of this is in my last question:





For example, "The file is not updat(e)able.".




Here is another example:




The boss said, "If you don't get your work in by tomorrow, you're
fired.".





Is that how you properly end the sentence, or should I leave one of the periods out? If the latter, could you explain why?


Answer



For standard American English, omit the period at the end of the sentence and leave the one inside the quotation.


Friday, March 30, 2018

word order - Auxiliary verb and adverb ordering



(I'm not really sure if the title is a correct definition of my problem at all)



I'm not a native English speaker, and I'm used to say:




Spaghetti suddenly can talk





But I've seen a phrase from a native speaker




Spaghetti can suddenly talk




I don't want to rush to conclusions based on one example, so please tell me what's the correct way to say such sentences and how incorrect is the other way (informal or maybe rough error)?


Answer



Ignoring the fact that nobody would suggest that spaghetti can talk, suddenly or not, the phrases





Suddenly spaghetti can talk.




and




Spaghetti suddenly can talk.





mean that there is a sudden change after which spaghetti are able to talk. By contrast the natural meaning of




Spaghetti can talk suddenly.




should mean that spaghetti are able to talk in a sudden manner.



The most common form





Spaghetti can suddenly talk.




is slightly ambiguous between the two, but probably is usually intended to take the former meaning.



The four phrases are correct, though the most common is also most ambiguous.


Thursday, March 29, 2018

What word is an adjective meaning "not first"?

In the following sentences, what single word can I use to summarize the ordinal numbers second, third, fourth, etc.?





When you take your second, third, fourth, etc. flu shot, call me.



If you have your second, third, fourth, etc. dessert, you might get a stomach ache.



When you have your second, third, fourth, etc. child, avail of this family planning class.




I've looked at this related question but the words subsequent, later, other, and contender do not seem to fit this context.



In particular, taking the first example, using "subsequent" changes the object to plural.





When you take your subsequent flu shots, call me.




I'm looking for a word that keeps it in singular form as I am not referring to the whole set of flu shots after the first one, but rather to the specific second, or third, or fourth, etc. instance of that flu shot.

orthography - How do I decide whether I should spell the word "idolator" or "idolater"?

How do I decide whether I should spell the word "idolator" or "idolater"? Apparently, both are considered acceptable forms of the same word, so how do I determine which spelling I should use?

tenses - "Would" vs "Will"




In the following context is the word 'would' correct at all or do we have to use 'will'?




Some countries grow hashish, and sometimes they would smuggle it to other countries.



Some countries grow hashish, and sometimes they will smuggle it to other countries.




What is the difference between these two vs the present simple form?



Answer



Would makes it sound past tense. Also, "they" doesn't sound right, because countries don't smuggle, people do.



I prefer either:




Some countries grow hashish; sometimes it gets smuggled it to other
countries.





or:




Some countries grew hashish; sometimes it would be smuggled it to
other countries.




or even:





Some countries grow hashish, which is sometimes smuggled into other nations.



Is there reference material for dictionary abbreviations used in the first half of the 20th century?

I have a lot of abbreviations that I can't work out the meaning of from an old etymological dictionary and I'm looking for a reference that will explain them all.




I have a copy of an etymological dictionary about the Sinhala language, written in English by Wilhelm Geiger (a German), published in 1941. It has a table at the front to explain the abbreviations used for each language's name used but not for the different parts of speech.



E.g. (italicised text transliterated from Sinhala into English):



pahan, pasan a. pprt. pleased, glad



temanavaa v., prt. temuvaa to wet, moisten



mala s., st. f. mal flower




I have highlighted the abbreviations in bold. I have omitted the actual etymologies because they are not relevant to my question.



I can work out that a. is adjective and v. is verb and he also uses adv. for adverb but he uses s. for nouns (the majority of the entries are nouns) and st. f. and st. ff. for single and multiple plural forms respectively (i.e. one mala, two mal using the example above). I'm guessing that he's using the same convension as p=page and pp=pages for the "f"s, st. f.=one plural form, st. ff.=multiple plural forms. I have no idea what prt. and a. pprt. mean. It must have been common enough knowledge for his intended audience that he didn't need to explain these terms. Could it be that even though he has written the dictionary in English that he is using the German abbreviations (s.=substantiv noun)?



Where can I find out what all these (and the others I haven't mentioned) actually mean?

word order - Noun-adjective-noun: Can a noun phrase have an adjective in the middle?



Can a noun phrase have an adjective in the middle as in the following examples?






  1. car new tires

  2. salad high-calorie dressing

  3. house external wall

  4. nitrogen fine droplets





These examples seem ungrammatical to me, but the writer (who is not a native speaker of English) says that bringing the adjective to the front of the noun phrase would be incorrect, because, for example, in number 4, the droplets are fine, not the nitrogen.



Are there any rules that govern this sort of thing? And is the potential of incorrect adjective-noun modification pointed out by the writer a legitimate issue?


Answer



You cannot interpose an adjective between the nouns of a noun phrase. As the Collins Cobuild English Grammar states:




When a noun group contains both an adjective and a noun modifier the
adjective is placed in front of the noun modifier.





In most cases the noun phrase will be correctly interpreted, but it is legitimate to be concerned about potential ambiguity. For example, most people will probably interpret new car tires as meaning car tires that are new. So if, in fact, you mean that the cars are new but not necessarily the tires then you would be best advised to say the tires of new cars.


Wednesday, March 28, 2018

grammar - "Back then" or "back there"



When referring to someone from a different geographical area and a different time, what is the proper phrase to refer to them? "Back then" or "back there"? Does it depend on if your intended meaning is to highlight the time difference, or if you are highlighting a geographical difference?



Example: referring to first century Roman attire





"Back then, men wore togas" vs "Back there, men wore togas"




Example: referring to 19th century British fashion




"Back then, men sported long side-whiskers" vs "Back there, men
sported long side-whiskers"




Answer



It's true that back there is more appropriate if you wish to highlight a geographical distance, and back then is more appropriate if you wish to highlight temporal distance. However, I would say that in both your examples, back then is much more appropriate.



Generally, the phrase back there is for locations which are considered 'behind' the speaker's present location in some sense.




I'll meet you back there, in the store room.




This applies to being physically behind the speaker's current location or to locations that are temporally 'behind' the speaker. In other words, back there is used to describe conditions in a place where the speaker used to be.





I just arrived from Colorado; it was pretty cold back there.




Even though the second sentence is describing conditions in the past, the speaker is talking about very recent past—he/she just arrived—so back then would be inappropriate.



The only time these phrases can be used interchangeably is when describing something happened in the speaker's (relatively) distant past.





I had a happy childhood back there in Missoula
I had a happy childhood back then in Missoula




I suppose you could say, "back there, in ancient Rome…" but that just doesn't seem quite right for ordinary usage. It seems like more of a colloquialism or a literary technique intended to de-emphasize the temporal distance between the speaker and the topic and make it seem like ancient Rome wasn't that long ago.


grammar - Preposition before noun phrases

I have asked the same question in ELL stackexchange, but unfortunately haven't received enough answer/comment. The one answer I got is not satisfactory. So that's the reason I am asking it here again. Link to ELL post.







I have seen in some cases prepositions are omitted before some noun phrases. And it's explained that those phrases are actually an adverb phrases. But I know a simple thing. If the head of the phrase is a noun, it's a noun phrase. If the head of the phrase is an adverb it is an adverb phrase.



For example -





  1. Look both ways before crossing the road. [both ways is a noun phrase, where the head is ways, but still there is no preposition.]


  2. He approached me in a friendly way. [a friendly way is a noun phrase, where the head is way, but as expected unlike sentence #1 it's preceded by the preposition in. And I have never seen this phrase is used without a preposition. I believe dropping the preposition is wrong, according to the grammar.]



  3. She made a pickle a different way from her mother. [a different way is a noun phrase, where the head is way, but strangely there is no preposition before it. But I have seen examples of a different way used both with prepositions and without prepositions. I think the preposition here is optional.]





Now from these example sentences I have tried to demonstrate my problem/confusing area. My question is -



1. When a noun phrase is used as an adverb phrase?



2. When before a noun phrase the placement of preposition is obligatory (like sentence #2)? And where it's optional (like sentence #3)? And where placing the preposition is wrong (like sentence #1)?

grammar - Difference between the two sentences and their usage




  • Why don't you join a monastery?

  • Why do you not join a monastery?




What's the difference between the two sentences and when do I use each of them?


Answer



To my mind, the first implies that the monastery-joiner (let's call them) has not considered joining a monastery before, and the question is a suggestion to that effect. This means that it is a rhetorical question; the monastery-joiner is not expected to answer, only to consider the possibility of joining.



The second is a more direct question. It seems to imply that the monastery-joiner has already considered joining, but has not. The question asked directly for the reason of this.



Gramatically, they have very similar meanings, and indeed the first question could be used as a direct question as well. The contraction of 'don't' works better with the rhetorical meaning in a way that 'do you not' fails to do.



As for usage... it depends on context, but the above is a good guide.


Tuesday, March 27, 2018

syntactic analysis - Can a noun be an adverb?





This question, which I first posed on the ELL site a few weeks ago, remains effectively unanswered. Although there an answer did finally get
posted, it seemed to be more of a parody of an answer than a real one,
to me at least.



So here goes; please consider this sentence:





I can barely see a foot in front of me in this fog.




As a standalone sentence, it can’t be the answer to a question starting
with “What can you...” because “a foot” is here a unit of the length of
vision, and so a question it may be the answer to might be “How far can
you see in this fog?"



Would I be right saying that *barely° in this sentence modifies can

whereas a foot modifies to see? If so, does it mean that it plays the
role of an adverb? But can a noun be an adverb? If so, what type of adverb
is it in that sentence?



P.S. There’s a related post on the ELL site dealing with the role of a
foot
in a sentence, but it doesn’t seem to answer my question.


Answer



I can barely see a foot in front of me in this fog.



A foot here in English means a single foot, one foot. One foot is a distance. The determiner a is often used in lieu of one.




Barely is an adverb, other adverbs would work here:



I can almost see a foot in front of me in this fog. [substitutions]
I can hardly see a foot in front of me in this fog.



Almost, hardly and barely all qualify how the subject I in the sentence can see. Therefore, they are adverbs. These adverbs are often pre-positioned, unlike well which is often post-positioned.



To see a foot is a perception of distance. A measurement of distance. To perceive a distance. See is perceive (Merriam Webster).




Here is a scientific example of this usage:




Because both the incident fast neutrons and the emerging /spl gamma/s
penetrate fairly effectively, it ought to be possible to see some
distance into the ground.




Substitution for purposes of like structure: to see ten feet into the ground may be substituted in the text above. The seeing (perceiving) action is being performed by a detector.




The verb see means to perceive "with sight" and is transitive here. foot and distance are its complements in the preceding examples. [direct object complement of the verb see]



Ergo, foot is not an adverb or adverbial. One is hard pressed, furthermore, to see it as adverbial given the presence of barely in front of the verb to see.



to see a foot=to perceive a distance of one foot



The OP's sentence is the same as:
I can barely perceive a distance of one foot in front of me in this fog.



Answer to question: No, the noun foot cannot be a adverb.





see some distance



syntactic analysis - "...and all would have to be accounted for." Improper sentence ending at 'for'. Please suggest alternative




I have this statement that I do not want to end at 'for' (I read somewhere that it is improper to end at 'for').





The problem is hard as there are many sources of failures, and all
would have to be accounted for.




Please suggest alternative.


Answer



You do not want to end your sentence with for because you read "somewhere" that is improper.



I will give you a place to read the opposite:





There is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with for.




This should solve your problem.



On a general note: beware of any and all (restrictive) grammar and style advises that have accumulated over the years and that tend to be:





  • incomplete

  • based on false assumptions

  • unworkable

  • out of touch with linguistic reality

  • simply wrong



Most generalized "rules" tend to fall into one or more of these categories.
Famous examples include don't use the passive (given by someone who showed no understanding of passive constructions to start with) and don't split infinitives (unless they mean that you should not write wo [something else] rk).


grammar - "What he is looking for are books" or "...is books"?



Which of the following is correct?





What he is looking for are books written by Jane Austin.



What he is looking for is books written by Jane Austin.




Is it are to agree with the object books or is to agree with the subject he?


Answer



I believe either one is actually correct, since the thing that determines the verb's case is the noun that comes first in the predicate nominative expression (on the left side of the imaginary equals sign). In this sentence, that first noun is what, which is technically a pronoun, but stands in for the noun that comes later. But of course, at this point in the sentence, it has not yet been determined whether the predicate noun that what is referring to is singular or plural, so the verb is essentially given the benefit of the doubt and is allowed to take either case, regardless of what the predicate noun turns out to be. This flexibility really only arises out of the fact that what is naturally ambiguous in number. If the sentence had begun The things he is looking for..., the predicate would have had to have been are books. Similarly, if the sentence had begun The thing he is looking for..., the predicate would have been singular - is books.


Monday, March 26, 2018

grammar - "You have nothing to do" - "Yes I do" / "Yes I don't"











If someone says "You have nothing to do", what is the proper answer to say "what you just said is true":





  • You have nothing to do.

  • Yes, I do.





Or





  • You have nothing to do.

  • Yes, I don't




Answer



In English, if you respond to a negative question, like "You don't ...", with a simple "yes", it's ambiguous if you mean, "yes you are correct, I do not", or "you are incorrect, I do". People normally use more words to clearly state what they mean.



In your example, one might answer, "You are correct" or "That's right" to indicate that he does, in fact, have nothing to do. Or if he does have something to do, he'd say, "No, I do have things to do" or something of that sort.



We don't say, "Yes, I don't". Whatever one can say about the grammar of that sentence, it would be considered twisted wording.


meaning - What is the difference between "excuse me" and "forgive me"?




I am hesitated when I use the sentence "forgive my fault, please." instead of "excuse me, please." because the word "forgive" has a religious theme and probably carries some additional meanings. Also it seems the usage of the word "forgive" for apologies depends on the social rank of the people in the conversation too.



Question: What are the differences between "excuse me" and "forgive me" in current and historical meanings and usage? Does the meanings of these phrases change when the social rank of audiences changes? Which one is more frequent among literate speakers?


Answer



While forgiveness is important to some religious views, I do not think it is particularly important in this case.



When you excuse someone, you allow them to escape the consequences of their actions.



When you forgive someone, you cease resenting those actions.




One can forgive someone in your heart, while still holding that they must be punished or not relieved of misfortunes their actions brought upon them. One can excuse someone, but still resent them.



In the overlap, one is often taken to include the other, because the two do often happen together.



It's also more likely to speak of excusing an action that did not have any volition, such as an accident or eructation, and forgive of a deliberate action that led to some harm whether that harm could be foreseen or not. It would not be unheard of for the other to be used.



There isn't really any social rank matter, bar different etiquette rules as to what things one should ask to be excused for. In particular, saying excuse me after breaking wind or burping was once a classic "non-U" identifier, that is an identifier of someone who was middle class trying to pass for upper class (the working class at the time might ask it, and might not, the middle class almost always would, while among the upper class the polite thing was for nobody to pass any comment on it). Such class markers are not as firm as once they were.


grammaticality - Is it possible to get real property from the phrase "real and tangible personal property"?

My understanding from the research that I have done on the phrase "real and tangible personal property is has follows:




  1. Real and tangible are adjectives


  2. and is a conjunction that puts together words, phrases, or clauses that have the same grammatical function


  3. personal property is a compound word defined by Websters as a noun meaning personalty


  4. that this phrase could be written as "real and tangible personalty" which would have the same meaning. That the only way I could see this written to mean real property is to say: "real property and tangible personal property" If you made real a noun and tangible personal property a noun you still could not come up with "real property" as real could be a Spanish coin.



  5. I also do not believe this is legal question, as it is written in the Michigan constitution, which was ratified by the people at large not a group of attorneys.


Sunday, March 25, 2018

ambiguity - Present perfect or past simple?




I know the basic rules about using PP and PS (like specified time in the past etc.) but in some cases, it is not clear to me:



I have finished painting. - present perfect, I just announce that.



I have finished painting for today - not sure here? I say that today I will not paint anymore but still I feel PP could be possible. What tense should be here?


Answer



If the function is to identify when you finished painting then you might say
I finished painting today.
I finished painting for today at four.




But if the function is to identify the current state of the painting then you might say
I have finished painting.
I have finished painting for today.



These mean you are in one of the following (respective) states:
finished for good (for the indefinite future, for the current painting job)
finished for today



You could also say
I am finishing up painting for today.



Note that "painting for today" is the job in focus, not "painting (until completed)", so we are talking about entering the the state of "finished for today" rather than "completed painting".


Difference between "random want" and "whim"



What is the difference between the words random want and whim?




The definition of whim can be easily found in the dictionary:




a sudden wish to do or have something, especially when it is something
unusual or unnecessary




Random want is not on the dictionary. It turns out to be just two words combined together. But it seems to me to have nearly the same meaning as whim.




I came across this word chunk in the phrase made up by a native American:




They thought the problem to be settled was how on earth to get posters
to understand that CONTEXT is not just some random WANT on the part of
those who would like to answer, but an ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT.




But later in the discussion the native speaker writes:





random want fits better than whim




, which suggest that there is some difference for him between the words whim and random want.



So, what is the difference?


Answer



Jasper Loy's answer gave me some ideas. I want to lay out some elaboration in this answer.




random want is what happens by chance, not according to the plan.



There are several explanation for whim in different dictionaries:



OALD: a sudden wish to do or have something, especially when it is something unusual or unnecessary



Cambridge: a sudden wish or idea, especially one that cannot be reasonably explained



Macmillan: a sudden feeling that you must have or must do something. This word often suggests that what someone wants is not important.




So, whim carries the idea suddenness, unusualness, being unnecessary, without reasonable explanation and usually not being important.



Taking all this into account, it seems to me that whim can't be according to the plan (I don't see how something sudden, unnecessary and not important can be on the plan).



This means that whim is random want with some additional features of being sudden and unnecessary. Whereas random want per se doesn't have the idea of being unnecessary (still random, it might be useful), or sudden, or unimportant (it may turnt out to be important when this want appears).


Saturday, March 24, 2018

phrase usage - This means that or This means




I'm currently reworking my technical report and was wondering which of the following wordings is correct. If both are correct, which one is the better one?




This means that the behavior of the cmd.exe is accessible [...].



This means the behavior of the cmd.exe is accesible [...].



Answer




Both are correct. I'd usually go for the first one because it's clearer, the brain has less work to do to parse the sentence. It could depend on the rest of the sentence though; if you have fifty thousand "that"s you might want to take a few out to improve the flow, or restructure the sentence entirely.


vocabulary - Collective word for these people



I am looking for a word to describe people such as barber, ironsmith, tailor, carpenter etc. People with miscellaneous specialty who would move to a village to serve others who are normally into agriculture. Any ideas?


Answer



Tradespeople should suit your need.


word choice - Difference between "collaborative environment" and "collaboration environment"

I've seen these phrases in some technical articles. Is there any difference between these phrases?

Friday, March 23, 2018

Was vs. Were in the Subjunctive Mood

I am having trouble identifying the difference between the use of was and were. For example:
Sarah wishes she was/were more like mother.
Would it be were? If it is were, why?

verbs - Contradictions in the same sentence



Consider the following example:




This paper will turn red rather than blue which is her favorite colour.





What colour does she like, red or blue? Is there a comma missing after blue? Will adding it solve the confusion? Also, are sentences like these used in written English?



Are turning red and turning blue verbs in the sentence and colour the object?


Answer



Generally modifiers, or modifying phrases, come right after or right before the word they modify.



Adding the comma makes things clearer and makes the sentence seem a bit less like a "run-on" sentence, though in speech you probably won't hear a distinct pause between "blue" and "which."





This paper will turn red rather than blue, which is her favorite colour.




So "blue" is her favorite color, because "which is her favorite color" comes right after "blue."



Something similar you might hear/read:




This paper will turn red rather than her favorite color, blue





To say red is her favorite color:




This paper will turn red, which is her favorite colour, rather than blue.




Omitting the commas here would definitely be awkward.







Putting comma right before rather?




This paper will turn red, rather than blue which is her favorite color




Nope, this doesn't really change the meaning of it. It just slightly more emphasizes the fact that the paper will turn red - emphasizing "This paper will turn red" as the main idea in the sentence.


etymology - Was “tickle (someone's) fancy” originally a double entendre?

Recently, I asked users to provide modern-day equivalents of idioms and expressions that contained the words fancy and tickle. The question is titled Whatever tickles their fancy in the US?



I was pretty much convinced that the idiom was quintessentially British, and that few American speakers had heard of it, let alone used it in their everyday conversation. According to Google Books Ngram, I was very much mistaken, since the 1970s the idiom has become increasingly popular in the US (blue line) whilst the opposite is true in the UK.



enter image description here



Now for the fun part. Looking into its origin, I discovered that the idiom tickles your fancy (which basically means “what pleases you”) was originally (?) a double entendre. The term fancy was a euphemism for fanny which in BrEng is a vulgar expression for female genitals but in AmEng is another name for butt or buttocks.



In A Dictionary of Sexual Language and Imagery in Shakespearean and Stuart Literature By Gordon Williams, under the entry of fancy, it says





fancy It means vagina, with a pun on the sense of sexual desire (cf. the current ‘a little of what you fancy does you good’), in Thornley's Longus (1657) p.124, when Daphni's seductress ‘directed him to her Fancie, the place so long desired and sought’.




Under the entry of tickle, page 1389, it tells us




Merry-Thought (1731) I.27 records an ephemeral couplet of 1714: ‘Dear Doll is a Prude, And I tumbled her down; And I tickled her Fancy For half a Crown’. This quibbling phrase turns up in Maids Complaint (1684-6; Pepys Ballads IV.50), the maid enviously hearing “my dame Nancy declare how her Master did tickle her fancy With his dill doul; and in Unconstant Quaker (c.1690; Pepys Ballads V.241), where the Quaker maid was ‘left in the Lurch, after he had Tickl'd her Fancy’.





Unfortunately pages 1387 to 1388 are not available for viewing, so I have no way of knowing if the variant ‘Whatever takes your fancy’ was ever used in 17th or 18th century England.



Questions




  1. Was “tickle [one's] fancy” originally a double entendre expression?

  2. Where and when was it first used?

  3. Did Americans use this idiom as an innuendo? Are there any examples from 18th or mid-19th century American literature (i.e. 1700-1850) that support this? Instances of tickle [your] fancy will also count.

  4. Is there a term for an expression that used to be a double entendre but is now regarded as being "normal"?

of genitive - Noun case and case usage for "of you" in the clause "that was kind of you"




The clause or sentence, "That was kind of you," uses what seems like a genitive case "of you", but I'm not sure what type of genitive it should be considered.



The form of the answer I'm looking for is "CASE: case-use", i.e. "Genitive: apposition" or "Genitive: genitive nominative" or "Genitive: subject".



Research:




  1. Nouns in English fall into one of five commonly-accepted "cases": Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative, and Vocative. The preposition "of" usually allies with Genitive, and I think it would be Genitive here since it is a matter of the nature, substance, and origin for "of you". If I'm wrong, please say so.


  2. But, Genitive nouns can be used different ways. A cup "of water" is about contents or substance, being "Genitive: Substance" or "Genitive: Contents". We talked "about you" treats "you" as a direct object, but it has a Genitive way of being in the sentence, so it would be "Genitive: Direct Object". What would be the use here?





I would think it would be a "Genitive: Subject" because "That was kind of you" technically has "that" as the subject, but "you" is the word who actually was the subject of whatever action was deemed kind.



As for the "close" vote that wanted more research, I consider that an "elaboration", but if it's all the same, can the community please weigh in on the actual question and share knowledge please? If not, is it alright if I answer the question myself. Please what does everyone think?



I later edited to include, to be complete in background: These "5 noun cases" I refer to may be seen in English Grammar for Language Students by Frank Xavier Braun, but his explanation was brief, which is why I ask here. TY all for helping me clarify my very first question on this forum!


Answer



In "kind of you", "you" is (apparently) an "experiencer NP"




According to "Predicate-Argument Structure of English Adjectives", by Akira Ikeya, the prepositional phrase headed by of in an adjective phrase like "kind of you" expresses the "thematic dimension" of the adjective, and has the thematic role of "experiencer" (2.2.3.1).



I found another post on this site that also seems to suggest that the object of "of" in these contexts might be categorized as an "experiencer NP": John Lawler's answer to the question "How does the to infinitive work with adjectives like “wrong” and “wise”?.




The predicate adjectives (be) wrong and (be) wise are flip psychological predicates, which means they have an experiencer argument, which may be the subject, as in the first sentences above.



But the experiencer NP can also be expressed as the object of a preposition (of with these predicates) [...] This experiencer NP is coreferential here with the subject of [a following] infinitive clause.





I'm pretty mystified by the meaning of "experiencer" in this context: I would guess that it is some kind of jargon, since it doesn't make much intuitive sense to me to call the person who is being kind an "experiencer". But maybe you will be able to find some explanation if you look at some more sources that use this term.



There may be some more relevant information in "Syntax and Semantics of of in the Construction "It is A(djective) of NP to VP"-Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches", by Fuminori Matsubara (2000). Matsubara agrees with CGEL (quoted in Shoe's answer) in classifying the "of" prepositional phrase in this construction as a complement of the preceding adjective (p. 72).



Matsubara says




we can summarize the semantic characteristics
of of and the relation between the adjective and of NP in
this construction, as in (26) and (27), respectively:




(26) The core meaning of of:

Of denotes Provenance and Inherence of something
characterized by an adjective.



(27) The relation between the adjective and of NP:

Of NP is selected by the preceding adjective as its
complement.





(p. 79)



The idea that of denotes "Provenance and Inherence" is attributed to "Hosoe (1942: 35, fn. 1/103, fn. 1)"; the cited source is given as "Hosoe, I. (1942) An Advanced English Syntax, Taibundo, Tokyo."



There seem to be references to other relevant papers in section 2.1.1. of The Description of Adjectives for Natural Language
Processing: Theoretical and Applied Perspectives
. I particularly want to get my hands on "Arnold, D., Theoretical and descriptive issues in machine Translation, Phd dissertation, University of
Essex, 1989" and "Silva, G. and S.A. Thompson, “On the syntax of adjectives with ‘it’ subject and infinitival complements
in English”, in : Studies in Language, 1:1, 1977, pp. 109-126," but I haven't yet.



Other adjectives like kind




The prepositional phrase "of you" acts as the complement of the adjective "kind" in the sentence "That was kind of you". The grammar of complements often depends on the identity of the head word, so I think that it would help to look at the grammar of the adjective kind.



There are a number of other adjectives that behave similarly to "kind", and I am familiar with some literature on this category of adjectives that I summarize in my answer to the question "Is the sentence “Queueing is so thoughtful of you.” grammatically correct?"



Based on the literature that I have been able to find so far, there seems to have been more interest in explaining how the adjective and prepositional phrase relate to a following to-infinitive (as in "It was kind of you to do that") than in explaining how the of-prepositional phrase functions.



Why I avoided using the term "genitive" in this answer



A side point: I think I would disagree about modern English having five cases. That analysis seems overly based on the grammar of other European languages. No English word has a distinct vocative form, or a dative form that is distinct from the accusative form. Furthermore, the functions that are carried out by the "genitive" form in other languages are divided among several distinct constructions in English: e.g. our, ours, of us, of ours. So I would call "of you" a prepositional phrase (headed by the preposition of) and avoid calling it any kind of genitive.




I don't think this really affects the substance of your question much, if at all: I have just treated it as equivalent to the question "what kind of prepositional phrase is 'of you'?"


usage - When using "an" before a vowel sounds wrong











Consider the following sentence:
"This is a one-time deal" sounds right
"This is an one-time deal" sounds wrong



"One" is pronounced the same as "won", which wouldn't require an "an".



Is it proper/required to use the 'an' before a vowel rule when it just sounds wrong?



Answer



There is no rule that says you must use an before a vowel, only before a word that begins with a vowel sound and takes the indefinite article. University begins with a vowel but not a vowel sound, so it's always a university. The same is true for a one-time deal.


Thursday, March 22, 2018

grammatical number - Item collection or items collection?




To indicate "a collection of items," do you say "an item collection" or "items collection"? What's the rule?



A quick comparative Google Books search indicates that the first form is more common than the latter, but I don't know if I can trust that as a parameter.



Answer



For the sake of clarity, I'd suggest simply stating "a collection of items," However, to answer your question, I am inclined to think that they are both unclear in some sense.



Say I have a collection of phones. If I were to say:




  • "I have a phone collection."
    It is quite easy to understand, at least colloquially, but we need to understand what this means. In this sentence, phone is not a noun, but an adjective. It is describing the collection as a whole, not necessarily the constituents thereof.

  • "I have a phones collection."
    In this case, we are pluralizing an adjective which is not conventionally done in this scenario.




There are certain scenarios in which the latter would be more correct. For example:




  • "I have a clothes basket."
    or
    "I have an arts degree."
    The plural form is more appropriately used when there is little distinction between generic and specific meanings.


punctuation - Oxford Comma Conventions

According to the Wikipedia page for the Oxford Comma, "Use of the comma is consistent with conventional practice" and "Use of the comma is inconsistent with conventional practice." Did the Oxford Comma come before its omission, or was the Oxford Comma traditionally omitted?



It makes logical sense that every item in a list would be separated in the same way: by a comma. If the Oxford Comma is conventionally correct, when and why did people begin to omit it?

grammar - Job title + possessive case





Is the following construct (grammatically) correct?



Swiss mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler's contribution to number theory was [...]



It sounds clumsy to me; however, this rewrite sounds pedantic:



Leonhard Euler was a mathematician and physicist. His contribution to number theory was [...]


Answer



"Swiss mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler's contribution to number theory was [...]" is grammatical and natural.




You're right that the rewrite you suggest is pedantic, but that's just one way of rewriting it. If the remainder of the sentence is short, you can also rewrite it as, for example:




Leonhard Euler, an 18th-century Swiss mathematician and physicist, introduced and popularized modern notation and terminology, particularly in mathematical analysis.




There's more than one way to skin a cat.


Wednesday, March 21, 2018

grammaticality - Verbless Clause

Can anyone verify for me if this is a valid verbless clause? My editor is questioning the lack of a verb (this is for social media copy and would be followed by a URL) but I think it's valid.




This session, along with every other event session, available to you on-demand:





I mean, personally, I think social media content should be a little less beholden to pure grammar rules and follow a pattern more akin to the spoken word. However my work editor tends to not be ... 100% accurate.

negation - Answering the question: Do you mind if...?



The following always puzzles me as a non-native speaker.



When somebody asks the question "Do you mind if...", there seem to be two possible responses.




  1. "Sure" and "No, not at all", which both mean that the person doesn't mind.

  2. "Actually, I do mind", which means that the person does mind.




Why is this so confusing? Especially, how come people reply "Sure" to this question, if that could be understood to mean that they for sure do mind?


Answer



"Do you mind..." is a polite way of asking "Can you...." For this reason, it's usually acceptable to respond to the semantic intent of the question by answering "Yes (I can do that)", rather than responding to the grammatical form with "No (I don't mind)".



Native speakers sometimes get confused by this, too.


punctuation - Terminal comma?





I've always had this question but I didn't know the name for what I wanted to ask until just recently (figured it out while reading a tutorial for the Inform Interactive Fiction system).



When using commas in a list of things (see examples below) should there be a comma between the next-to-last item and the word "and"? I think it makes more sense this way (see examples below).





Example set 1:

        I like squirrels, cheese, and typographic design.
I like squirrels, cheese and typographic design.



To me, the second method doesn't separate the two items, or indicate a pause (and the average reader would pause between "and" and "typographic design" regardless of whether the comma was there or not, right?).



The separation makes things clearer, in my opinion:





Example set 2:

        I like squirrels, cheese, and mashed potatoes and gravy.
I like squirrels, cheese and mashed potatoes and gravy.



It gets worse when the item containing "and" isn't the last item:




Example set 3:



        I like squirrels, mashed potatoes and gravy, and cheese.

I like squirrels, mashed potatoes and gravy and cheese.
I like squirrels, mashed potatoes, and gravy and cheese.



In the second sentence in set 2, the terminal comma (is that even the right term for it?) is removed, and in the third sentence in set 2, it is re-inserted, but in the wrong place, drastically altering the meaning of the sentence. Read aloud, the sentences probably sound about the same, but I think I like the extra clarity added by the terminal comma, but see many texts in which it is omitted.



Is the terminal comma proper punctuation?


Answer



First, I don't know whether there is a specific name for the comma in question, but when I read terminal comma in your question, I thought you were suggesting that there might be a comma (instead of a full stop) at the end of a sentence.




In answer to your fundamental question, there is no right or wrong way here. Some people prefer to put a comma before the last item and some prefer not to. I don't know whether there is a UK - US split on preferences here.



The important thing is that when there is ambiguity as in your Examples 2 & 3, you should include a comma to make it clear what you mean.



If you have a simple list with no ambiguity, then the comma is optional.



If it's a list of clauses or long phrases (instead of short single-word or 2/3-word items), then it often makes it easier for a reader if you put a comma before the final item.



So, in summary, if it makes it easier for the reader, or if it is necessary to clarify the distinctions between multiple items (especially where the items include the word 'and'), then put a comma in. If it's not necessary for intelligibility, then it's optional and up to individual style.


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











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



Colleague’s original:




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





I changed to the following:




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




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





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




And these all seem quite natural.



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




In the fridge, you will find some beer.





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


Answer



It's grammatical.



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




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

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




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




  • *With no hesitation did he speak up.

  • *With no grace did he accept it.



Only is a negative.



Tuesday, March 20, 2018

grammatical number - Mixing plural and singular list items with a single verb

A friend wants to write,




There is no hardware to purchase, no additional software to install and no key fobs to worry about.



This is awkward because the verb "is" doesn't match up with the third item, which is plural and demands "There are" as the subject. However,




There is no hardware to purchase, no additional software to install and there are no key fobs to worry about.


sounds awkward as well.



Is there a good workaround for this problem where some list items are singular and some are plural, so they don't share a common verb?

grammar - "Oh for cute" - grammatical interpretation?

So I'm from Minnesota, and while most of our English is fine, we're known for a few -- shall we call them -- adaptations. One of these is the phrase "oh for <insert adjective here>".



It's used as an exclamation if I have my terminology down (which I might not). For example, maybe I pull out my scarf (it's Minnesota, remember). My grandma thinks it's a cute scarf, so she says, "oh for cute!"



Obviously it's a compliment (in this case), and the meaning is clear enough, but I'm wondering if (1) it's grammatically correct, and (if not), if there's a way to stretch the English language to make it not quite correct maybe, but almost fit in.

pronunciation - Letter 'Z' pronounced as 'Izzard' : how widespread and where?

I read at Which is the correct way to refer to the letter "Z" — "Zee" or "Zed"?
that the letter Z is pronounced :




'Izzard' (/ˈɪzərd/) in Scottish English.





as opposed to zed or zee.



Question: Is this really the case in the modern day or is it archaic? Do people really use this in Scotland or elsewhere?



I ask as I've never heard anyone use Izzard in my life (and I live not a million miles from Scotland). Regarding the history, the American Heritage® Dictionary says:




Word History: The curious and charming word izzard, meaning “the letter z,” is practically limited to certain fixed expressions in American vernacular English, such as from A to izzard, “from beginning to end,” and not to know A from izzard, “not to know even the most basic things.”




The English lexicographer Samuel Johnson mentions the word izzard as part of his attempt to explain the sound of the letter z in the grammar of English he placed at the beginning of his Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1755: Z begins no word originally English; it has the sound, as its name izzard ... expresses, of an s uttered with a closer compression of the palate.



In Johnson's time, a variant name for the letter z, uzzard, was also in use. Izzard and uzzard are related to zed, the usual name of the letter z in British English. In Scottish English, z was also once known as ezed, and this form gives us a clue to a possible origin of izzard.



// snip


Monday, March 19, 2018

grammatical number - Plural of an initialism that ends with the letter S











I was answering something on Super User and wrote OSes as part of my normal flow without really thinking about it. On a re-read I decided that it didn't look right, so I changed it to OSs, which still felt incorrect. I also considered OS's, but that didn't feel right either, so I thought I'd ask on here.



In this specific case, what is the written plural form for OS?
The intention is to mean multiple Operating Systems.



And, is there a general rule for the plural form of an initialism that ends with the letter S?


Answer



A search on Google for OSes returns results from several established websites such as infoworld.com, osnews.com and linux.com, which suggests OSes is the accepted form.


Sunday, March 18, 2018

punctuation - When should I use an em-dash, an en-dash, and a hyphen?



I generally know how to use a hyphen, but when should I use an en-dash (–) instead of an em-dash, or when should I use a hyphen (-) instead of an em-dash (—)?


Answer



An em-dash is typically used as a stand-in for a comma or parenthesis to separate out phrases—or even just a word—in a sentence for various reasons (e.g. a parenthetical; an ersatz-ellipsis). Examples where an em-dash should be used:





  • School is based on the three R’s—reading, writing, and ’rithmetic.

  • Against all odds, Pete—the unluckiest man alive—won the lottery.

  • I sense something; a presence I've not felt since—



An en-dash is used to connect values in a range or that are related. A good rule is to use it when you're expressing a "to" relationship. Examples where an en-dash should be used:




  • in years 1939–1945


  • pages 31–32 may be relevant

  • New York beat Los Angeles 98–95

  • When American English would use an em-dash – following British and Canadian conventions.



A hyphen is used to join words in a compound construction, or separate syllables of a word, like during a line break, or (self-evidently) a hyphenated name.




  • pro-American

  • cruelty-free eggs


  • em-dash

  • it's pronounced hos-pi-tal-it-tee

  • Olivia Newton-John



The minus sign is distinct from all three of the above.




  • 4 − 2 = 2.




If you want to use the correct dash or hyphen in comments, just use the appropriate HTML entity: for em-dash, for en-dash, and for the minus sign. The hyphen is, of course, directly on your keyboard.



Figure dash



The figure dash (‒) is so named because it is the same width as a digit, at least in fonts with digits of equal width. This is true of most fonts, not only monospaced fonts.



The figure dash is used within numbers (e.g. phone number 555‒0199), especially in columns for maintaining alignment. Its meaning is the same as a hyphen, as represented by the hyphen-minus glyph; by contrast, the en dash is more appropriately used to indicate a range of values; the minus sign also has a separate glyph.



The figure dash is often unavailable; in this case, one may use a hyphen-minus instead. In Unicode, the figure dash is U+2012 (decimal 8210). HTML authors must use the numeric forms or to type it unless the file is in Unicode; there is no equivalent character entity.



adjectives - Possessive of a word that is already possessive



If the cricket ground Lord's is a possessive, what if you want to describe something belonging to Lord's? Would you say:





I was very impressed by Lord's's customer services.




It doesn't look right, so what is the correct way of writing it?


Answer



I think you kind of answer your own question. If "Lord's" already is a possessive, then there's no need to turn it into a possessive even further. I would just say "Lord's customer services", much like I would say "McDonald's burgers" and "Ben & Jerry's ad slogan" and not "McDonald's's burgers" and "Ben & Jerry's's ad slogan".


Saturday, March 17, 2018

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



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



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


Answer




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


participles - Participial clause?



On ELL a user has asked how to parse the emphasized -ing form in this sentence from Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone:





Harry swung at it with the bat to stop it from breaking his nose, and sent it zigzagging away into the air.




I am puzzled how to answer.



Zigzagging could be taken as an adjectival participle modifying it; certainly if you delete zigzagging you're left with away into the air as the ordinary complement demanded by send: you send something somewhere.



But that isn't how the semantics work for me. Send here seems to me to be a causative and zigzag a non-finite verb, which could be paraphrased with an infinitive:





He sent it zigzagging away into the air = He caused it to zigzag away into the air.
He sent him riding away to London. = He caused him to ride away to London.
He sent him packing. = He caused him to pack [i.e., to hurry away].




Thus it zigzagging away seems to me to be a full clause. But I have not found any formal description of subordinate clauses employing the -ing form where the clause does not act as a nominal, and that is clearly not the case here: ordinary NP complements to sent are Direct Objects and Indirect Objects.



So how do Modern Grammars analyze this construction, by what tests do they establish this analysis, and what do they call the construction?


Answer



McCawley doesn't say much about it, as far as I can see, but it appears to be a variety of the complex of serial verb constructions around motion verbs and their inchoatives and causatives, like the various serial verb constructions mentioned in this freshman grammar exam question (#4, restricted to come and go):





  • Bill went and dug some clams. (go and + V)

  • He asked us to come eat the clams. (come + V)

  • He said “Come and get it!” (come and + V)

  • We’re going to go eat them. (go + V)

  • We'll go swimming afterwards. (go + V-ing)

  • We'll come strolling in late tonight. (come + V-ing)




But there are lots more verbs that cause motion, and motion has a number of verb-like properties, so this construction complex gets much broader in scope. E.g,




Harry swung at it with the bat
to stop it from breaking his nose,
and





  • went muttering curses out the door

  • came lurching out the door

  • brought her shuddering back to consciousness


  • plucked it screaming out of the air

  • sent it zigzagging away into the air

  • tossed it spinning down the stairs

  • dropped it unmoving into the cauldron



There are a number of possibilities here:
the initial verb part of the serial verb may be




  • an intransitive motion verb (go, come)


  • a transitive causative/inchoative of a motion verb (respectively: take, bring)

  • a transitive verb that entails some kind of induced motion (pluck, send, toss, drop, etc.)



while the gerund part normally describes some property of




  • the motion induced by the verb (lurching, zigzagging, spinning), or

  • the object or person caused to move (muttering, shuddering, screaming, unmoving)




In either case, it is the moving object that functions as subject of the gerund constituent and displays the property; one may give it several different kinds of PS, but I'd treat these more or less the same way I treat phrasal verbs, as a discontinuous construction with two parts that share the semantic load, subject to easy idiomatization and extension to many metaphors.


Friday, March 16, 2018

punctuation - Using “scare quotes” inside a quotation

I understand that scare quotes can be used when a word is being used in a specialized, unconventional, or disputable sense:




The census bureau encountered problems when trying to define a “normal” family.




I also understand that, when quoting a quote within a quote, the convention is to switch from double to single quotes1:




The teller reported, “The bank robber whispered, ‘Give me all your cash,’ just before brandishing his gun.”





My concern is:



Does the switch to single quotes still apply when the inner quote marks are not quoted material, but scare quotes?



As an example, suppose I read a newspaper article that says:




The most equitable way to solve this problem is to enact a “vice” tax.





I want to include this quote in a report I am writing. My gut tells me that the correct way to do this is:




In an editorial published on June 4, a New York Times columnist wrote, “The most equitable way to solve this problem is to enact a ‘vice’ tax.”




However, when I looked for confirmation, I couldn’t find any. I found many sources that mentioned the quote-within-a-quote rule (switch to single quotes for the inner quote), but all the examples I ran across used cases where the inner quote was either a quote or title, not a scare quote. None of the grammar blogs or punctuation guides addressed the embedded scare quote problem.




For example:




Use single quotation marks for quotations within quotations.




Example: He said, “Dan cried, ‘Do not treat me that way.’ ”
source






or:




The convention in American usage is to use double quotation marks (except for internal quotes) and to keep commas and periods inside final quote marks. The Chicago Manual gives this example of the normal usage:




“Admit it,” she said. “You haven’t read ‘The Simple Art of Murder.’ ”
source






and from the Purdue OWL:




Quotations within a Quotation



Use single quotation marks to enclose quotes within another quotation.




The reporter told me, "When I interviewed the quarterback, he said they simply 'played a better game.'"





Quotation Marks Beyond Quoting



Quotation marks may additionally be used to indicate words used ironically or with some reservation.




The great march of "progress" has left millions impoverished and hungry.






Incidentally, I'm asking because a colleague asked me to review a report. I pointed out that the scare quotes inside her quotation should be single, not double, as she wrote them:




In an editorial published on June 4, a New York Times columnist wrote, “The most equitable way to solve this problem is to enact a “vice” tax.”




When she published her final report, the quotes were still doubled. I tried to find just one example in an online grammar column that would back me up directly, but the closest I could find was the split guidance I've shared here.



Bottom line questions:




1) Am I right in assuming that the scare quotes should be converted to single quotes when embedded in a quotation, much like other quote marks are?



2) Can anyone provide an “authoritative” example where this specific issue is addressed explicitly?






1Unless following Fowler’s advice in BrE

grammaticality - Complex compound adjective (adverbial phrase + participle)

A relative of mine and I have hit a brick wall in trying to agree on the grammaticality and stylistic suitability of one his sentences:




However, it proved incapable of jeopardizing the under-socialism-fortified proletariat and nation.




I cautioned him that very complex compound adjectives are an ungainly 20th-century construct and tried to recast the dubitable phrase as:





... the proletariat and the nation, which were fortified under socialism.




He wouldn't hear of it, because his savvy readers would allegedly find a whiz-clause there too explicative. They're all too well aware of the attribute, yet he insists on including it because of the rest of his readers (:sigh: :rolleyes:). So, I tried with this:




... the proletariat and the nation, both fortified under socialism.





Although whiz-deletion1 doesn't call for a comma, I figured ", both" was necessary to secure the application of the attribute to both nouns, proletariat and nation.



All I got was a scoff in return. It still sounded too lecturing. Then we considered this:




... the proletariat and nation fortified under socialism.




He firmly holds that because the second definite article is omitted from the coordinated nouns, they're more congealed, so the attribute applies to both the proletariat and the nation. Well, I'm not so sure. Your thoughts on that?




Worst of all, after all the hubbub, he said he'd just go with his hyphenated version. But, disregarding the question of style, I'm only 99% sure2 that adverbial phrase + participle is a grammatically valid construction at all (though the (never hyphenated) adverb + participle and the (always hyphenated) noun + participle I'm 100% sure are valid). I̲s̲ i̲t̲?



(And, if it is, are all the hyphens needed? I know they are in established expressions such as dyed-in-the-wool and in constructions such as The state set a 55-mile-an-hour limit.)



|
|
|



1 John Lawler on whiz-deletion:




Interestingly, there is a codicil to Whiz-Deletion that applies when there is only one adjective left after deletion. The adjective has to be moved in front of the noun; it can't appear after it the way phrases can; conversely, phrases can't appear in front of the noun, but must follow it.




Bill is a man who is happy to see you.
Bill is a man happy to see you.
*Bill is a happy to see you man.




2 I've consulted The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, The Oxford Guide To English Usage, Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, and Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style, and found either nothing or an insufficient coverage.

What word means both "advantages and disadvantages"?

So I am writing an essay and I can't find the word I want to use. The sentence says:




When I travelled to England there were pros and cons.




The sentence doesn't sound right and if I change it to:





Travelling to England had it's pros and cons.




then it's a bit wordy and it doesn't clearly state that I was the one who travelled.



What word can I use instead of "pros and cons"?
I want the meaning to be something like this:




When I travelled to England there was some good stuff and some bad stuff.





Thank you!

Thursday, March 15, 2018

grammaticality - "has been" vs "have been"

I am answering an online English grammar test and encountered the following question




Where was Jack yesterday? —I don't know. He ________ seeing the doctor.




My answer is: might has been
Correct Answer is: might have been




Why not might has been? He is singular?

meaning - English Subject-auxiliary inversion

In normal declarative English sentences, let's call them 'canonical' sentences, the verb comes after the subject.




  • Bob is walking the Great Wall of China.


  • Bob likes elephants.



But in other types of construction and in certain other situations the auxiliary verb comes before the subject. One notable instance is in questions:




  • Is Bob walking the Great Wall of China?



Here we se the auxiliary verb BE occurring before the Subject. If there is no auxiliary verb in the normal declarative version of the sentence then we need to insert the auxiliary DO:





  • Does Bob like elephants?



My question here is twofold. Firstly:




  1. What are the different constructions or environments in which either we require subject-auxiliary inversion in modern English, or can optionally use it?*




Secondly, and more importantly:




  1. Is there any generalisaton we can make about these constructions. Does subject-auxiliary inversion have some kind of meaning in all of these, or a subset of these?



*Not including poetry, for obvious reasons.

pronouns - Is "you and I" the subject in this sentence?

I know that "you and I" should be used when it's the subject of a sentence, and "you and me" when it's a complement. But I'm not sure about the following phrase:




We are very good pals, you and I.




It would seem to me that "you and I" is a subject here (so I should use "I" instead of "me"). Is that correct?

grammar - How do I make a word possessive when there are words after it before the object?

Would I say: "It was the boy's beside her balloon."



Or



"It was the boy beside her's balloon."



I feel like it's the first one, but it sounds weird when I say it out loud.



Thanks!

verbs - “if our photographer was” or “is” or “were”?


"Although you are more than welcome to take photos today, it would be appreciated if our photographer was/is/were given the best opportunity to photograph the happy couple."





Which one is correct, please?

verbs - What's up with the -es/-eth inconsistency in "O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus"?



This hymn was written more than a century ago, back when more people were aware of how Early Modern English arranged its conjugations. But in the second verse, there appears to be an inconsistency between two otherwise identical instances of "watch" — tense, person, meter, and so on are all the same.





O the deep, deep love of Jesus,
Spread His praise from shore to shore!
How He loveth, ever loveth,
Changeth never, nevermore;
How He watches o’er His loved ones,
Died to call them all His own;
How for them He intercedeth,
Watcheth o’er them from the throne.




Mostly this is using -eth, including the last occurrence of "watch", as one would expect. But the one in the middle is really strange. It's not an accident either; the version with -eth corrected is an order of magnitude less common than the one I quoted. Is there some hidden meaning to this difference?


Answer



According to the Wikipedia article on "O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus," Samuel Trevor Francis wrote the lyrics to the hymn in 1875, which was subsequently set to the Welsh melody "Ebenezer" by Thomas John Williams. Google Books finds a 1926 edition of Francis's O the Deep, Deep Love of Jesus: And Other Sacred Poems (1926), but doesn't provide a preview or a snippet view of the contents of the volume, so we can't see how Francis himself worded the lyrics.



The earliest version of the hymn that I've been able to find is from Charles Alexander, Victorious Life Hymns (1919), which offers this version of the second verse of the lyrics:





O the deep, deep love of Jesus,



Spread His praise from shore to shore;



How He loveth, ever loveth,



Changeth never, never more;




How He watches o'er His loved ones,



Died to call them all His own;



How for them He intercedeth,



Watcheth o'er them from the throne.




Clearly, the conflict in this verse isn't merely watches versus watcheth three lines later, but watches versus loveth, loveth, changeth, intercedeth, and watcheth in the five lines surrounding it.




The remainder of the song verbeth not in the archaic style. Nevertheless, the first verse includes this specimen of third-person present singular usage:




Underneath me, all around me,



Is the current of Thy love;




and the third verse is rife with relevant instances:





O the deep, deep love of Jesus,



Love of ev'ry love the best:



'Tis an ocean vast of blessing,



'Tis a haven sweet of rest.




O the deep, deep love of Jesus,



'Tis a Heav'n of heav'ns to me;



And it lifts me up to glory,



For it lifts me up to Thee.




From these instances, it appears that Jesus in person loveth, changeth never, intercedeth, and watcheth, whereas the current of Jesus's deep, deep love is (not be) all around, and the deep, deep love itself is an ocean, is a haven, is a heaven, and lifts the singer up to glory (and to Jesus).




On this record, it seems clear that only Jesus in person jusitifieth and deserveth the regal archaiasm of an -eth verb ending; his deep love more pedestrianly merits and receives the plain third-person present form. But that being the case, it is almost impossible to see the phrase "How He watches" amidst the antient dignitie of loveth, changeth, &c., and not conclude that someone—either Francis himself or the publisher of the conjoined music and words—hath blown it. There is not a scintilla of difference in functional meaning between watches and watcheth as used in this hymn.



The more specific circumstances surrounding the occurrences of watches and watcheth here bolster this conclusion. Perhaps most significantly, both verbs are followed by o'er, so it can hardly be argued that watcheth was too difficult to enunciate in the first instance but not in the second.



As scored in Alexander's hymn book, watches sounds as two quarter notes (A–A or C–C or both), while watcheth sounds as either two quarter notes (F–F) or as a quarter note and an eighth-note triplet (D–C-D-E). Either way, I don't see ease of pronunciation as being relevant to the choice of watches in the first instance.



I do see a possibility that because watches appears on a line with no -eth verb close by (changeth is six words away in one direction, and intercedeth 16 words away in the other), a careless author or transcriber might not have noticed the switch in diction at that point. In contrast, it would take a very poor author or transcriber indeed to miss the fact that watcheth appears immediately after intercedeth: even if the sense of the -eth forms were half-foreign to your ears, you could hardly let "He intercedeth, watches o'er them" slide.



A Hathi Trust search yields a copy of S. Trevor Francis, Whence-Whither an Other Poems (1898), which contains the poem "Love of Jesus." This edition came out 23 years after Francis first published the poem but 27 years before he died. Unlike the three-stanza hymn cited above, the poem runs an heroic eight stanzas and attaches two additional verbs directly to Jesus:





Yet He calleth me "His own";




and




When the Royal, Kingly Bridegroom




Hath His stately spotless Bride;




So it begins to look as though the fault is not in Francis's posterity but in himself. In any event, a number of subsequent printings of the lyrics have changed the watches to watcheth, by way of regularizing the diction. In doing so, they have logic and consistency on their side. Those who persist in watches have more than a century of precedent on their side—and not much else.


single word requests - Antonym of copypasta



Is there any antonym for "copypasta", preferably in the context of computer programming?



I can't think of anything more concise than "written from scratch".



Neither Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary lists any antonyms, though the latter has a self-demonstrating entry of what copypasta is, with the top definition duplicated twice.


Answer




Original is the antonym of copypasta.



enter image description here


grammar - Are there other grammatical ways to say, "I'm reading a novel of Steinbeck's"?

I would like to ask why the following sentence is only possible according to grammatical rules:




I'm reading a novel of Steinbeck's




What's wrong with "I'm reading a novel of Steinbeck" or "I'm reading Steinbeck's novel"?

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

Order of participial adjective



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



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




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





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

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





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






Original example



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



What's the correct way to state this?






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

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




I'd use the latter because it is closer to





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



Answer



Way too many markers have been deleted from the sentence.



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



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




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



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




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



Notes:





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

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

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


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




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