parallelism - When Correlative Conjunctions are NOT parallel

Normally, the rule for correlative conjunctions is that the two elements being combined must be parallel in structure. But I believe there are cases this rule is broken, but I'm not sure why they're still considered correct.

Examples of correlative conjunctions are:

• not only...but also...


• neither...nor...


• either...nor...


• both...and...



• between...and...


• at once...and...


• just as...so...


• as...as...


• as many...as...


• so...that...

There are many more correlative conjunctions, but these will suffice.

Here's how the parallelism rule works:

1. He is NOT ONLY happy BUT ALSO tired. = correct because "happy" and "tired" are both adjectives and thus parallel




2. They are EITHER going to swim OR going to drown. = correct. The verb phrases are parallel.

But here are cases when the elements are NOT parallel, which is what confuses me. Why do these cases break the parallelism rule?

1. He is AS strong AS an ox. = correct, yet "strong" (adjective) is not parallel to "an ox" (noun). What gives?




2. I was SO happy THAT I could scream. = correct, yet "happy" (adj.) and "I could scream" are not parallel.




3. NOT ONLY did he cheat on this exam BUT he ALSO cheated on all exams. = correct, yet "did he cheat on this exam" seems inverted, using a verb-subject structure, rather than the subject-verb structure in the second half. So it's not perfectly parallel, yet I know the sentence is fine. How do you explain this?




4. Twice as many people inhabit China as inhabit India. = correct, yet "people inhabit China" doesn't seem parallel to "inhabit India." The "inhabit" carries over, so that's good. Maybe there is an implied "people" that also carries over to the second half? Not sure.

Would the following be considered correct?

A) Twice as many people inhabit China as people inhabit India.

B) Twice as many people inhabit China as people who inhabit India.

How do you explain these exceptions to the parallelism rule? Thanks!

orthography - Did Old English have diacritics?

I was learning English, which is my second language, when I came across the methinks word. I went to google to look up its meaning and usage, when to my surprise I saw this description:

Old English mē thyncth, from mē ‘to me’ + thyncth ‘it seems’ (from
thyncan ‘seem,’ related to, but distinct from, think).

Picture:

So mē thyncth was part of old English that have had diacritics? if so, where can I get more information about that?

Answer

The diacritic on "ē" (the horizontal line called a "macron") does not represent Old English spelling. It is part of a modern standardized system for writing Old English words. It's useful to have such a system because Old English encompasses a number of slightly distinct writing traditions; and even within a particular tradition Old English spelling was not completely standardized and did not mark certain important distinctions between sounds.

The Wikipedia article on "Old English" has a section on "Orthography" that may be a good introduction. It says

Modern editions of Old English manuscripts generally introduce some additional conventions. The modern forms of Latin letters are used, including ⟨g⟩ in place of the insular G, ⟨s⟩ for long S, and others which may differ considerably from the insular script, notably ⟨e⟩, ⟨f⟩ and ⟨r⟩. Macrons are used to indicate long vowels, where usually no distinction was made between long and short vowels in the originals. (In some older editions an acute accent mark was used for consistency with Old Norse conventions.) Additionally, modern editions often distinguish between velar and palatal ⟨c⟩ and ⟨g⟩ by placing dots above the palatals: ⟨ċ⟩, ⟨ġ⟩. The letter wynn ⟨ƿ⟩ is usually replaced with ⟨w⟩, but æsc, eth and thorn are normally retained (except when eth is replaced by thorn).

Unfortunately, I haven't studied Old English so I don't have any more scholarly references for Old English spelling.

To answer the question in the title, Old English manuscripts used various diacritics, as is common in general for medieval manuscripts. The letter "eth" mentioned in the excerpt is Ð ð, formed by adding a bar diacritic to the letter "D d". There were also various abbreviatory diacritics (covered in more depth in the Wikipedia article on "sigla"). Wikipedia says that in Old English

Macrons over vowels were originally used not to mark long vowels (as

in modern editions), but to indicate stress, or as abbreviations
for a following m or n.

(The macron-like character used to indicate "m" or "n" could be considered an alternative form of the "tilde" diacritic ˜, which seems to have arisen from a superscript "m" or "n".)

grammatical number - Why use the plural form for a single person?

Being a non-English native, I'm surprised when I read people who use a plural form when they're clearly talking about a single person.

Here are two excerpts from a software I used to work on, written by a former Irish co-worker:

... a supervisor must assign it to themselves and deal with it.

and:

This supervisor has no restaurants assigned to them.

I would have written the following sentences instead:

... a supervisor must assign it to himself and deal with it.

and:

This supervisor has no restaurants assigned to him.

Is the plural form correct English, and if so, is the plural preferred over the singular form?

Answer

Singular they is widely used as a gender-neutral pronoun to refer to a single person.

A reason for its use is that English has no dedicated singular personal pronoun of indeterminate gender.^[5] In some cases, its use can be explained by notional agreement because words like "everyone", though singular in form, are plural in meaning.^[6] Its use in formal English has increased in recent times with the trend toward gender-inclusive language,^[4] but it has been used by respected writers for centuries.^[7]

Though singular "they" has a long history of usage and is common in everyday English, its use has been criticized since the late nineteenth century, and acceptance varies.

Quotation marks and types of dialogue

I'm editing the autobiography of a German-American woman who grew up during Hitler's reign. There are several instances where she uses quotation marks in a way that I'm not sure is correct.

1.
Life has a way of taking unexpected turns, or as a German saying goes, "Der Mensch denkt, Gott lenkt."

Is it correct to use quotation marks around the saying in this instance? She's not actually speaking it. Should it be italicized?

2.
However, when I told them I was pregnant, I was out the door. "We cannot have a pregnant woman stand behind the counter and serve our clients. How would that look?" I was devastated.

Obviously, these quotes are paraphrased and not verbatim words in a direct quote, and they stand alone within the paragraph. The speaker is not identified. I'm thinking the best remedy is to rewrite these sentences and describe what was said instead of treating what was said as quotes.

Number disagreement between subject and verb in Shakespeare?

I guess this is a quote from Shakespeare's Macbeth:

Come what come may, Time and the hour runs through the roughest day.

I'm confused about the subject-verb agreement in both sentences.

1. AFAIK in the first sentence "what come may" (or "what may come") is the subject, and the first word "come" is the verb. But does the verb have to be singular if the subject is a clause?


2. In the second sentence the subject is of the form "A and B", but why is the verb singular instead of plural here?

Sorry if the question sounds silly; I'm not a native speaker of English.

grammaticality - Is it Standard American English to ever contract "did" as "-'d"?

Assuming that it is Standard American English to contract would as -'d, is it standard to contract did as -'d? For example:

• I would really like to have a glass of single malt scotch right now.
  → I'd really like to have a glass of single malt scotch right now.




• What did you do last night?
  → What'd you do last night?

My hypothesis is that the did → -'d contraction is perfectly acceptable when it follows a question word, otherwise it sounds awkward, or even bad. On the flip side, the would → -'d contraction is actually unacceptable when it follows a question word. In other words, the two are in complementary distribution, at least for the most part.

Note: my question was originally about the spoken Standard American English, but if there is any difference in acceptability between the spoken and written standard, I would be grateful to learn about it.

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

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

a cat can use their litter box.

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

grammar - Why some questions are written in this funny way?

There, I did it myself. Instead of asking "Why are some questions written in this funny way?", I produced what strikes me as bad English ever so often: Questions that are formed by starting out with "Why" (or other interrogative words), followed by what seems to be a normal subject-verb-object sentence. A few examples are quickly drawn from some other SE sites (missing question marks included), but this seems to be quite common all across the board:

• “Why we need SELinux?”


• “Why ATM and MPLS are at level 2.5”


• “Why Turn Collate Off”


• “Why BitTorrent uploads simultaneously?”



• “Why the letters in keyboards are arranged like this?”

I do have the impression that the actual article beneath such a question is often written in quite good English, so the writer is not necessarily a beginner of the language.

Therefore my question, mainly aimed at the native speakers of English: Is this considered to be good style? Or do you find it sloppy? What's your impression when you read such a construct?

Answer

My impression is that the phrase was written by a non-native speaker of English, who does not know how to construct questions. (How often that impression is accurate I don’t know.) All of the examples you offer are noun phrases. For example, “why we need SELinux” might serve on its own (sans question mark) as a headline, or as part of a complete sentence:

• Tell me why we need SELinux.


• Why we need SELinux is…

But the terms may not stand on their own. English questions use inversion of word order and auxiliary verbs; noun phrases involving question words do not:

1. *Why Paul went to the concert?


2. Why did Paul go to the concert?


3. Paul went to the concert.

The people writing these question titles are using (1) when they should be using (2), because it more closely mirrors the structure in the declarative version, (3).

Now, “Why turn ‘collate’ off?” is incidentally valid. It poses a rhetorical question using the bare form of the verb (in this case turn), asking essentially “why would you ever bother turning the ‘collate’ function off?”—why here is standing for why ever. Common examples:

• Why bother?


• Why wait?


• Why waste your time?



• Why not?

Was v were, subjunctive or not

I have tried researching this topic on grammarly and on this website ("Was" or "were" in subjunctive clauses), but still am unsure.

Which is correct?

His gaze turned up, as if there were an imaginary light bulb there.

Or

His gaze turned up, as if there was an imaginary light bulb there.

I say “were” because I think this is subjunctive, but my friend says it’s “was.”

Thanks

word choice - "He was telling me that he is going..." vs. "He told me that he is going..."

Is it right to say

He was telling me that he will go on a vacation next week.

while recounting your experience?

Even though "he told me that he is going..." seems more appropriate, I would still like to know if the above mentioned expression sounds okay or not.

The use of they and those

I know variations on this have been asked before but I am still left doubtful about the use of they and those in these sentences.

It can only be understood by they who entrust their lives to it.

The most important lessons we learn are those that we can least explain.

Clarity would be much appreciated.
Thanks
Richard

grammar - Plurality of numbers between -1 and 1

If I recall correctly, the Académie française states that, for French, quantities comprised within [-1,1] are singular, and anything else is plural. This means, for instance, that we should say (in French) 0.3722 apple, instead of 0.3722 apples.

I know the plurality for 1 and -1 in English, but what is the plurality of real numbers between them?

Answer

You could make the argument that English does not have singular and plural markers per se, but rather singular and "non-singular". (I'm not necessarily advocating this view, just throwing it out there.)

The evidence would be that the singular form is used to refer to one of something, while the plural form is used to refer to all other amounts. This includes everything between -1 and 1 (not including 1, of course).

• -25 volts


• -1 volts


• -0.25 volts



• 0 volts


• 0.1 volts


• 0.5 volts


• 0.999 volts


• 1.0000001 volts


• 1 volt

With that said, there are a few special cases that need to be addressed:

1. There is no apple on the table.


2. There are no apples on the table.


3. There is half of an apple on the table.

While (2) might be more common, (1) is certainly possible in certain situations. This looks like an exception to the rule; note that (1) is normally said in response to an assertion that an apple should be on the table, while (2) is said in any situation.

Now, (3) might look like an exception as well, but grammatically speaking, apple is still referring to one apple, where "half of an apple" = "half of one apple" (logically and syntactically).

grammatical number - Agreement in "[Singular Noun] Is/Are [Plural Noun]"?

1. My fish's native habitat is rice fields.




2. My fish's native habitat are rice fields.

Which one is correct? I'm pretty sure it's the first, since 'is' modifies 'habitat,' but it still sounds weird...

Answer

It may sound weird, but it is still correct. Singular nouns take singular verbs. In this case, the singular noun is habitat. Thus, is is the correct form of the verb to be in this case.

My fish's native habitat is rice fields.

To make it sound more natural, you could reverse the order thus:

Rice fields are my fish's native habitat.

grammar - Double possession dilemma: should I say “your” or “yours”?

What is the best way to say this?

Because of yours and the John Wichel Foundation’s grant we are able to continue our mission to serve all Texans with diabetes.

Should it be

Because of your and John Wichel Foundation's grant, we are able . . .
OR
Because of yours and the John Wichel Foundation's grant, we are able . . .

It's a double possessive with the word your. No matter how I write it, it doesn't sound right.

pronouns - In the sentence "It is she", which is the subject?

If she is the subject, what is then the function of it? If it is the subject, then shouldn't the sentence be It is her since she is a subject pronoun? Thanks!

grammar - If an independent clause stands on its own, is it still considered a clause?

There are several definitions related to clauses in my textbook that am a little confused about, and I would greatly appreciate some clarification.

Here are the definitions:

1. Clause. A group of words which contains a subject and a verb but is in itself not a complete sentence, but a part of a complex or compound sentence.




2. A complex sentence is a sentence which contains at least one dependent and one independent clause.

   
   
   

   
   

   While we were away, our house was robbed.

   
   




3. An independent clause is a main clause, one that is not subordinate.

In the example given in definition 2, we have a dependent clause ("While we were away") and an independent clause ("our house was robbed.") It seems to me that the independent clause can stand on its own as a sentence ("Our house was robbed.")

However, it looks like based on definition 1, this would not qualify as a clause, since it is itself a complete sentence and is not part of a complex or compound sentence.

Is it correct to say that when an independent clause stands on its own, it is not considered a clause? If so, is it considered anything besides "a sentence"?

Thanks!

superlative degree - Comparative of 'smart' where more than one adjective is involved

Related link: My answer to One answer to a Q. is suited to ELL, but the other answer is suited to EL&U on ELU Meta.

In the course of an argument, Rathony said the following:

I would answer, if you ask me, that ELU is closer to a little more
smart and sophisticated question forum and ELL is a little less
sophisticated question forum. The difference is not so big.--Rathony

I then corrected him:

'ELU is closer to a little more smart and sophisticated question forum
and ELL is a little less sophisticated question forum. The difference
is not so big.' Correct usage would be "ELU is a slightly smarter
(note correct comparative) and more sophisticated question forum, and
ELL is a slightly less sophisticated question forum. The difference is
not very big OR the difference is not so great." Even this could be
bettered by "ELU is a forum for slightly smarter and more
sophisticated questions" etc. You have some work to do on comparatives
and so forth before you offer advice to native speakers.--Me.

He replied:

A native would never be confused between more smart and smarter and
insist on using "is a slightly smarter and more sophisticated". That
proves you are not a native.--Rathony AND: At least I know how to use
the comparative when two adjectives are used at the same time. You
don't.--Rathony

I said:

Give me a reference that justifies your usage.--Me.

He said:

No. I don't want to help you. You find it yourself.--Rathony.

I've tried. I can't. So can someone find a reference that justifies his idea that the construction 'more smart' can be used instead of 'smarter' where more than one adjective is involved?

word order - "The missing ingredient in your recipe" or "The ingredient missing in your recipe"?

I'm currently creating a slogan for a company and I'm struggling to decide on how to formulate it.

I would really appreciate some feedback as to which option sounds more "natural" and is grammatically correct (sample sentence below):

Cinnamon : the missing ingredient in your recipe.

or

Cinnamon : the ingredient missing in your recipe.

grammatical number - work versus works

which of the sample sentences below sounds better, or are they both OK?

1) We can conduct electric equipment works and mechanical equipment works in your factories.

2) We can conduct electric equipment work and mechanical equipment work in your factories.

Thank you.

word choice - Weekend vs Weekends for multiple people?

In a phrase like "The meeting Friday has been canceled and I hope you all enjoy your weekend(s)" which is correct? Should weekend be singular since there is only one weekend being referred to or should it be plural since there are multiple weekend experiences occurring (one for each employee). If it's interchangeable is there a particular grammatical justification for this or is it just a unique aspect of the word 'weekend'?

grammar - Is "this object remains a valid inclusion in a discussion of similar objects" grammatically correct?

The wider context within which I am writing this phrase is:

What is certain, however, is that early twentieth-century piano rolls, while not themselves audio recordings, remain a valid inclusion in a discussion of recordings for their potential to provide insights into ...

Is this grammatically correct? A friend was proofreading my essay and claimed that using the word "inclusion" here was somehow distorting my intended meaning and that "valid element" or "valid aspect" would communicate the point far more clearly.

While I'm 100% not against using 'element' or 'aspect' here, I'm also not at all against using the word "inclusion" - it seems to make perfect sense, as I'm discussing the significance of whether or not piano rolls should be included in such an essay.

Thanks in advance for any tips!

word choice - Avoiding "existential it" while referring to a past event?

I know the use of "existential it" is frowned upon, but I'm not entirely sure how to rephrase the following sentence to remove it:

It is hard to tell what would have occurred if the battle had been lost.

Is something like this really all that bad? How can I rephrase this to remove that "it"?

Answer

That sentence is not using the "existential 'it'" that's frowned upon; it's just using an ordinary, unexceptionable feature of English grammar.

The "existential 'it'" that's frowned upon is the it that can be replaced by there; see e.g. http://www.odlt.org/ballast/existential_it.html, which gives the example of "It was nothing I could do" meaning "there was nothing I could do." But obviously your sentence cannot be changed to

*There is hard to tell what would have occurred if the battle had been lost.

verbs - Figuring the SVO of the sentence "I'm Tom."

I was under the impression that every sentence has a subject–verb–object (SVO) where S and V are compulsory and O is optional.

So basically I was wondering in the sentence "I'm Tom." is the subject "I" and the verb "am" ? But what about the "Tom" ? It simply can't be an object right?

Answer

Not every sentence is SVO. SVO refers to the general pattern of those primary constituents for English and a variety of other languages when discussing language typology. It's not a language requirement.

Intransitive verbs in English, for example, don't need an object. In fact, they can't take an object:

• He died, for example, doesn't have an object.


• *He died poison, is not grammatical.

be (the copula) is a strange verb in most languages. Some would analyse simple sentences such as I am Tom as stative passive, with Tom being the complement of I.

word choice - Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”?

I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?"

A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die).

So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)...

So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!!

tenses - Felt + present/ past (back shifting )

A few months back I met a celebrity and seeing his glamour I felt that I have/had no past or future.

Which is to be used, had or have ?

history - Why don't English nouns have grammatical gender?

English nouns — other than those with natural gender, e.g. people or animals — do not generally have grammatical gender, and so are referred to as 'it' rather than 'he' or 'she'.

However, modern English has its roots in Norman French and Anglo-Saxon (Old English), both of which used grammatical gender for their nouns. In addition, other modern languages related to these continue to use grammatical gender today.

So, how come English doesn't?

Answer

Wikipedia (citing A history of the English language by Richard M. Hogg and David Denison) suggests that the loss of gender in English was "due to a general decay of inflectional endings and declensional classes by the end of the 14th century" as evidenced by increasing use of the gender-neutral identifier þe (the or thee).

"Why" is, of course, a difficult question to answer here. It seems that whatever pressures had influence over the evolution of the English language, the net result was a loss of accents, inflections and declensions. The above sources indicate that grammatical gender is like another form of inflection or declension, so it gradually disappeared from the language at the same time.

usage - Two verbs used consecutively

Is it correct to say

Tsunami coupling in the code 'helps determine' human casualty

i.e., is use of multiple verbs consecutively correct?

Also, is it 'help determine' or 'helps determine'?

Answer

The two verbs reference different things: helps relates to 'Tsunami coupling' here, while determine relates to an abstract "one"; moreover, there's a to elided in the sentence as well. Read it as:

Tsunami coupling in the code helps (one) (to) determine human casuality.

The verbs there are not actually adjacent. Even if they were, that would hardly matter since they are unrelated.

The sentence is grammatically correct.

meta: If you still find the structure a little complicated, you may want to ask the question on ell.stackexchange.com

email - How to wish someone "Happy New Year" in a professional, formal and friendly way

English is my second language. I still struggle with it especially when I have to write a formal email.

I need to send an email to several of my business associates in reply to theirs. It contains some technical explanation related to our project, after which I would like to wish them Happy New Year. What is a professional, formal and friendly way to say this?

Answer

How about

Dear X,

Regarding the explanation of our project bla bla...

And finally,
Wish you and your family a

very Happy New Year.

Looking forward to working with you next year.

Regards,

or

Dear X,

Wish you and your family a
very Happy New Year.

Regarding the project matter for discussion bla bla

Regards,

Either of these should be fine.
The reference to "family" or "loved ones" makes it less formal - but is still professional.

emphasis - Is "It is these two issues that we need to pay attention to." a correct sentence?

I hear many native speakers do say sentences that do not strictly follow the subject-verb agreement grammar rules. (This is off-topic, but do they do it without realizing it?)

But in writing, this shouldn't be the case. So I'm wondering how to phrase the sentence in the title. I cannot specify the exact reason, but I can sense that there is a difference in how the two sentences sound:

1. We need to pay attention to these two issues.



2. It is these two issues that we need to pay attention to.

For me, the latter seems to emphasize the issues after mentioning the issues beforehand, whereas the former just sounds weaker.

According to the subject-verb agreement, the latter should be written in other form. But how?

Thanks.

grammar - What's the correct verb matching for a 'who' referring to the subject of a previous independent clause?

I was proofreading today and came to a weird situation. Maybe I've stared at it too long and I just need to rest my brain. Here was the sentence:

"You can rest assured that the question is resolved by a member of our Legal Team, who always try to solve any issues quickly and concisely."

'Legal Team' is the name of the team and they wanted it capitalized. Whatever.

For the use case here, would you say 'who always try' or 'who always tries'?

The who is referring to the member, since the 'Legal Team' is the subject of the preposition. I mentioned that it should be 'who always tries', but my co-worker says it's 'try.' I can't really explain to him why I feel like it's tries in an English manner, I just know something's up with it.

I would assume it's because 'who' can be singular or plural that leads to the confusion, and the recent use of the word 'team' in 'Legal Team' might mislead folks to think the who is referring to the 'Legal Team' rather than the single member doing the solving. In that case, it might be better to rewrite it to:

"You can rest assured that the question is resolved by a member of our Legal Team, who will try to solve any issues quickly and concisely."

since the anonymous single member would probably not be eligible for something as broad as 'who always tries.'

I think I'm thinking too much on this. Any ideas?

collective nouns - Can singular verbs be used with a plural possessive?

Is this correct?:

The group of students does their work well.

The group, the subject, I consider singular. When it comes to the possessive, though, I feel like it would be wrong to refer to a group of people as "it." Would it be correct to use "their?"

Isn't there some sort of rule against referring to a group of individual people as it?

And what about this sentence:

The family returns to their house. The collective noun, family, is singular, so would it be "its" or "their?"

@Peter Shor - Thank you, but in the situation where the sentence cannot be paraphrased in another way and it must be written formally, which would be used? (this was a question on an English grammar assessment). In other words, if the possessive was the only thing that could be altered, which is more correct?

pronouns - "Whoever" Vs. "Whomever"

On the subject of "whoever" and "whomever", I was reading this but I am still confused: http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp

What is the correct use of whoever/whomever in the following sentence?

I like your copy, congratulations, whoever is writing it.

Whoever? Whomever?

Is there a difference between US and UK English?

Answer

The answer is that it has to be whoever, because the relative pronoun takes the case of the function it serves in the subordinate clause. That whole clause is “whoever is writing it”, where whoever is the subject of the clause, just as is is its verb.

Swap in he-vs-him on things like this to see which one works right: you would never say **him is writing it*, so it cannot be whomever.

No, this is not different in any standard form of English, although some hypercorrectionists are wont to get it wrong and wrongly stick whomever in there where it has no business being.

prepositions - "...four others, one of whom responded." Is “whom” correct here? Can I use "who" instead?

I want to shorten this:

I sent emails to four others. One person responded.

Does the following sentence correctly use whom to achieve my goal?

I sent emails to four others, one of whom responded.

Can I use who instead of whom here?

grammar - Is it correct to say “I myself”?

I thought it was incorrect to say I myself as in:

I myself don’t like this idea.

However, last night I was watching the second Harry Potter movie, and one of the characters said:

In case you ever need to defend yourselves as I myself have done on countless occasions.

I think there might be a difference between the two, but I wonder whether the first one is correct or even whether the second might be wrong.

Answer

Myself is a reflexive pronoun. It’s called that because one of its uses is to reflect the action of a verb back onto the subject, as in ‘I’ve hurt myself’. Yourselves is used in the same way in the sentence you quote from ‘Harry Potter’.

Reflexive pronouns are also used for emphasis, and that is how myself is being used in ‘I myself don't like this idea’ (although that would probably occur as ‘I don't like this idea myself’). That is also how it is being used in the second part of the ‘Harry Potter’ quotation.

grammatical number - should a list of tokens be called a "token list" or a "tokens list"

I ask because a list of tasks would usually be called a "task list". However a list or previous winners of a competition seems to be called a "winners list" rather than a "winner list".
Thanks.

grammar - Possible positions for the word currently

I was discussing the question of correct word placement in english with a coworker but since we both aren't native speakers we did not come to a conclusion.

Here is an example: Given the sentence

We have no open positions available.

which of the following placements of the word currently are valid?

Is there a simple rule which explains this?

1. Currently we have no open positions available.


2. We currently have no open positions available.


3. We have currently no open positions available.


4. We have no open positions currently available.


5. We have no open positions available, currently.

Answer

They are all correct, though I'd add a few commas here and there. The rule that dictates where adverbs should go is subtle. Adverbs go just before the word or phrase that the adverb is modifying. Essentially 1 - 3 and 5 mean the same thing. Number 5 is least natural because the modifier is at the end, but you've made it into an adverbial phrase.

At this time, we have no open positions available.

Really, there are no job openings. End of story.

Number 4 is a little different. 'Currently' is specifically modifying 'available'.

We have no open positions, that are at this time, available.

There might be job openings, but for whatever reason, they aren't being filled right now.

capitalization - What words are not capitalized in titles?

For instance:

The Story of a Boy who Likes Pancakes and is Hungry <- (completely random made-up title)

In this example "of, "a", "who", "and", and "is" are all not capitalized. I'm fairly sure this is correct but I'm not 100% positive about "who". In any case, is there some kind of list of what words are not capitalized in titles, or how do you know when not to capitalize specific words?

a word for questioning the validity

suppose that someone at top echelon of an institution delivers a statement. I doubt whether the statement is a fact or not. Do I say "I question it" or anything else? what is the short laconic phrase or word for it?

if I say "I question it", the speaker might think I am doubting his authority rather than the statement he made. what is a better way of doing it? I don't want to use the word question to avoid ambiguity.

also, I am questioning his statement in an affirmative tone, assuming that he is wrong or might be wrong.

american english - When will "Present Perfect vs. Past Tense" cases be affected by culture?

Regarding actions taken in the past, besides the differences those two tenses have semantically, my teacher shared that it could be a British vs American English case.

When talking about past action, British prefers present perfect because they take into account that the effect from their past action still happens until now. As for American, they prefer to state the action only. It happened in the past, so past tense it is.

I have had dinner. [British]

vs.

I had dinner. [American]

I hope to hear it from the native speakers, both British and American. What do you think about this? Is it true?

If it is, I don't think it can apply to all cases of past actions. There have to be cases when both style agree to use the same tenses. Could you please help me define the situation when this kind of difference applies and when doesn't?

Answer

I think, in formal usage, you will find that American and British are basically identical. We each use both of those constructions in the appropriate situation. Obviously, there is a semantic difference between these two constructions and neither dialect exclusively uses one or the other.

I am not certain, but I think what you are referring to is the fact that American English speakers can sometimes use simple past in places where one normally uses present perfect. So, as a US English speaker, I would correctly say:

(1) I've never gone to a tennis match before, but I am going to one today.

But, sometimes I say:

(2) I never went to a tennis match before, but I am going to one today.

I would not say that this second example is standard US English — in any formal situation I would use the present perfect. But, I suspect it is common in speech and I do it quite often.

This could be the very beginning of a semantic shift in the present perfect construction in English. Perhaps (2) will be preferred in several hundred years. (Such things are not unheard of; German now uses the present perfect form to indicate simple past in speech.)

If a non-native speaker asked me about this, I would never recommend to use the construction in (2), because (1) is right in every situation and never sounds strange or formal.

personal pronouns - in spite of him/his

Jane told Marcos that in spite of (him/his) being small, he would definitely be a great asset to the team because of his athletic abilities.

In the above sentence, which of him/his is correct and why ?

pronouns - Why do we say "of mine/of his" instead of "of me/of him"?

He's a friend of mine.
That's a car of his.

Why do we use the possessive when the meaning would be the same while not using it (e.g. a friend of me and a car of him)? I thought maybe it is short for That's a car of his [cars], but I have no way of making sure; it sounds a little odd that way to me.

Answer

They're examples of the double genitive/possessive, which is perfectly valid and has been around in English for centuries. The of already denotes "possession", but we do this again when we use mine/his instead of me/him.

The fact that we don't say John is a friend of me/him is really just idiomatic for those particular forms. But that "idiomatic principle" isn't universally observed - people often say, for example, He's a friend of John. Though they also say a friend of John's - both forms are valid there.

Here's an NGram showing how friend of her has gradually given way to friend of hers over the past couple of centuries, as the "reach" of the idiomatic mine/his has been extended.

punctuation - Can 'or' have a comma before it if it starts a dependent clause?

For example, is

All I had to do was step out of my comfort zone, or in this case, be pushed out of it.

or

All I had to do was step out of my comfort zone or in this case, be pushed out of it.

preferable? I think I know which one to use, but I would like to know why I would use it.

pronouns - "Angela was reading to Frank and I" vs. "...to Frank and me." Which is correct?

I stated the following:

Angela was reading to Frank and I.

Someone corrected me, stating

"Frank and me"

Which is right?

grammaticality - "A friend of Susan" vs. "a friend of Susan's"

I'm currently having hot debates with a friend of mine about which one is more natural and more grammatically correct:

• A friend of Susan


• A friend of Susan's

I vote for the first, but I don't have anything to prove I'm right.

Answer

A friend of Susan’s is a double genitive, which has been a feature of English grammar for centuries, and it is the normal alternative to one of Susan’s friends. Just as most people would say a friend of mine, rather than a friend of me, so a friend of Susan’s, rather than a friend of Susan, would be the natural choice in most contexts.

articles - When Should I use 'the' with months, seasons?

Should I say:

There are four seasons of (the) year?

Today we will talk about names of (the) months.

Answer

Those two sentences would be more likely to occur as

There are four seasons in the year.

and

Today we're going to talk about the names of the months.

Year and month are preceded by the because both are definite. In other contexts they might not be.

English idiom or proverb equivalent for "if everybody is doing it, I will also do it"

Can somebody please help me by giving an English idiom or proverb equivalent for:

If everybody is doing it, I will also do it.

punctuation - Do "You know..." Questions need question marks

I'm not quite sure if the type of questions I'm asking about count as indirect questions, so I apologize if that's what I should have put in the title.
Do you need a question mark when you're phrasing something as a question, but it isn't a question? Particularly, questions when, if spoken, would have no upward inflection in your voice at the end. They can either be "you know... right?" or "you do know...?" or even have both. There are three particular types I can think of, so I'll give examples with the three forms of asking I just mentioned. Sorry if this whole jumble of text makes no sense. Anyway, here are the examples.

1. A question that's really an opinion: Someone says something stupid, so you say, "You know you sound like an idiot, right?"


2. A question that's stating the obvious: Someone wants to leave, so you say, "You do know there's a door right there?"



3. A question you know the answer to: Someone is sitting in your chair, and they know it's your chair. They can clearly see there's another chair right next to yours, so you say, "You do know there's another chair right here, right?"

In all of these cases, I either expect no answer, and/or I know the answer. In any (or all) of these situations, should the sentences not end with question marks? Like I said, if you spoke them aloud, you wouldn't have any upward inflection in your voice at the end.

Thanks, and I'm sorry if the format of this post is weird. It's my first time using this website.

EDIT: Ooh, sorry. Just remembered another; I knew I was forgetting something. It's when you know they don't know, basically; you're informing them of something. "You know, that's the fifth time that's happened today?" You're not really asking them if they knew. You're telling them.

grammaticality - Contraction for 'are' with nouns

Is this correct?

the candys 're in the box, the
womens're at the car

I know 'you're', 'we're', 'they're' are valid usages, but can it be used for nouns?

Answer

Is this correct?

the candys 're in the box

It's not usually considered correct but it is sometimes encountered.

the womens're at the car

That's wrong for other reasons.

I know 'you're', 'we're', 'they're' are valid usages, but can it be used for nouns?

No, not usually.

grammatical number - Is "bicep curl" wrong?

My Autocorrect is telling me to change it to "biceps curl". Also, the Wikipedia entry is Biceps curl.

But Googling, the phrase "bicep curl" seems pretty common. Ngram does suggest though that "biceps curl" is thrice as common in books.

Is "bicep curl" wrong and if so, why?

american english - Past Perfect and Past Simple in AmE

I've recently been told that Past Perfect and Past Simple tenses are interchangeable in AmE. I know that it is possible to use the Past Simple tense instead of the Present Perfect one in AmE but have never faced the use of the Past Simple tense instead of the Past Perfect one.

I've been provided with the following examples:

I have already typed 10 pages of my report (Present Perfect, typical for BrE)

I already typed 10 pages of my report (Past Simple, typical for AmE)

I had typed ten pages of my report by the time he returned. (Past Perfect, typical for BrE)

I typed ten pages of my report by the time he returned (Past Simple, typical for Ame).

Are these uses correct?

Answer

As an American English speaker, all four examples seem correct.

The past perfect often seems to be used in American English to avoid confusion about the relationship between two past events. Where such confusion is impossible, the simple past is often used.

"I had typed ten pages when he returned." indicates typing before returning.

"I typed ten pages when he returned." implies that returning is simultaneous or even before the typing.

In your examples, "by the time" serves this temporal ordering purpose, so the choice of verb tense is unnecessary.

Proper punctuation and quotation marks when 2 separate quotations

“It doesn’t have to be a huge event to make a difference, Jones said. “Any kind of activity-related event that can include a fundraising component can be directed toward charity.”

adverbs - Difference between "partly" and "partially"

What is the difference between partly and partially? An example of usage for each word would be great.

Answer

Partially is mostly used in contexts involving non-tangible description of things.

Example:

Your views are partially correct.

Whereeas partly is preferred for tangible description.

Example:

The construction is partly built on stone.

Moreover, 'partially' is more abstract and concrete w.r.t usage than that of 'partly'.

Try to think of it this way:

Specific and concretely describing

'half of the liquid' partly goes more with this.

Vague and non specific description

'Some of the liquid' partially is more apt here.

american english - Pronunciation Rule for "nt" in the Middle of Words

Is there a "rule" or pattern for the pronunciation of "nt" in the middle of words, followed by a vowel (or "er" sound)?

Here's what I have so far:

1) "t" is often omitted in words like "wanted," "mental," and "international" when "nt" is followed by a vowel or an "er" sound.

2) If the syllable following the "nt" is stressed, the "t" is pronounced: "integrity," "intoxicated," and "intact"

3) In words with "int," the "t" is sometimes obligatory, such as in "interrogation" and "interpretation," BUT it is not obligatory in others like "interception." The only pattern I see so far is that when the root word has a stressed syllable following the "nt," this carries over into the longer forms of the word. For example, "inTERRogate" is pronounced with a "t" and "interrogation" is also pronounced with a "t" (even though the syllable following the "nt" is no longer stressed).

4) In words like "attention," the "ti" is pronounced as /ʃ/ ("sh").

Can anyone think of additional examples or rules? Are there any examples which would contradict my reasoning so far?

hyphenation - When to use a hyphen?

As a non-native speaker, i wonder whether there are any guidelines concerning the usage of hyphens.

Would you write

Task-planning for robots ...

or rather

Task planning for robots ...

word choice - When to use "we" and "us" — specific SAT example

I am confused about the usage of the words 'we' and 'us'. I am using a Princeton Review 11 SAT tests 2011 edition, practice test 7, section 6, number 29 (just in case anyone actually had that book).

This question was a "find the incorrect word or phrase in the following section" question. For those of you who don't know, this kind of question gives you a sentence. Four different phrases or words are underlined in that sentence and labeled A, B, C, and D respectively. The objective is to find the phrase that is incorrectly used. The particular question I need help with says:

As finalists, Mark and I were both shocked by the decision; it seemed to us that the winner of the contest was far less talented than we.

A: both shocked
B: it seemed
C: far less
D: we
E: No error

So of course, everything seemed right till I got to that last word. My thinking was to use 'us' instead of 'we'. However, the answer in the back of the book says the answer is:

E. There is no error in the sentence as written. The we in (D) may sound strange, but the subject pronoun is correct here.

Can someone please explain this to me? Why am I wrong in saying that the word us should have been used instead?

Answer

This is one of those messy situations the exam writers should know better than to dump you into.

Very rigorous judges have long held that constructions of the type "X is better than Y" (substitute your own comparative for 'better') should be parsed as elliptical reductions of "X is better than Y is", and therefore require Y to be realized in the nominative case, if that's distinct from the objective (which is only the case with the pronouns "I", "he", "she", "we" and "they". That's the "rule" which the exam requires you to follow.

Unhappily for those rigorous judges, the "rule" is not, and never has been, followed in the language-as-she-is-actually-spoken. In ordinary speech virtually everybody has virtually always said "She's better than me", "He's better than her, "I'm better than him", "We're better than them", and "They're better than us". That's the "rule" recognized by most descriptive linguists; and many people who offer advice on how to say stuff promote that rule.

So there's a fundamental disagreement between two schools of prescriptive grammarians: which "rule" should you follow?

This will probably sort itself out on the "me/him/her/us/them" side by the time you retire. But right now you're stuck in the middle.

The "I/he/she/we/they" rule is a bad one. But you're applying for admission to a discourse community which very largely observes it; so choke down your annoyance and follow their rules until you have enough seniority to follow your own rules.

Just wait for them to die and you'll be fine.

grammar - Can an independent clause have an implied (or null) subject?

I'm trying to determine whether a clause with an implied subject can be considered independent - specifically in the case of compound sentences.

For example: "I was tired, but went to the party anyway."

To my thinking, the second clause is an independent clause because the reiterated "I" is implied, but I can't find much to back this up. Thoughts?

singular they - What is a proper gender-neutral form of himself or herself

I am thinking "themself" is a very old deprecated way of saying this. What would be more proper?

An example would be:

One does not simply build Rome themself.

It just seems awkward with "themself."

Answer

Singular they is a usage hallowed by time, and, since reflexive pronouns are inflected on both the pronoun root and the -self/-selves reflexive suffix (e.g, my[sg]-self[sg] vs our[pl]-selves[pl]), the correct reflexive for singular they is themself.

Dictionaries, by the way, are not reliable sources for grammar, just as grammars are not reliable sources for lexical meaning.

Too many commas?

Is it just me, or are there too many commas in this sentence? If so, how would you revise it?

If you are working with an outside vendor or organization requiring the firm logo, please forward the link to our logo usage page, which exists on our external website.

prepositions - Grammar of "with" in "We had no idea WITH what his purpose was"

"I have no idea 'WITH' something". Is it correct to use with as a proposition here?
A line in a high school text book I saw says "We had no idea WITH what his purpose was"

grammar - Do you use "there is" or "there are" before a list?

When I use "there are:" (with a colon) to introduce a list starting with a singular item, should I use "there is" or "there are"?

According to grammar rules, I should use "there is" if the following item is singular, but in this case the colon introduces a plural group.

For example:

In my room there [is/are]: a bed, 2 chairs, a table, 2 carpets and a wardrobe.

Omitting articles in nouns - prepositions; after; to; before; from

Why is the indefinite article omitted here?

Could it be the definite article, but omitted? Like in the following case in an instruction:

Grasp drumstick. Place knife between thigh and body; cut through skin
to joint. Separate thigh and drumstick at joint.

All those omittions would normally have the definite article, but this doesn't seem plausible in my case.

Why is there no article here, too?

I've noticed that this happens only with the following prepositons:

before; after; from; to || day after day; from person to person; from teacher to student

My questions are: Why are the articles omitted in all those examples? Does it have something to do with comparisons? Is there any rule for this usage?

punctuation - How to use hyphens appropriately when listing multiple hyphenated terms?

If multiple hyphenated terms share the same latter half, and I wish to list them without repeating that latter half, how should the hyphens be placed?

For example:

I will be investigating control issues in ground-based, water-based, and air-based robots.

If I do not want to repeat based, could I write:

I will be investigating control issues in ground-, water-, and air-based robots.

Is it correct to just leave a hyphen dangling after ground and water?

If not, how should it be written? I know the original sentence doesn't sound too bad, but I really just want to know the punctuation rule (or the convention in American English if there is no rule).

word usage - Is an infant child long or tall?

I was describing my 8 week old child to someone recently and struggled to pick the correct word for her height/length. "Tall" doesn't feel quite right for something whose natural orientation is horizontal.

Tall doesn't seem right because they can't stand or sit yet.

Answer

At least in the United States, it is common for medical people
to speak of the
length of an infant rather than the height.
For example, see the data for length vs. age
from the United States Center for Disease Control.

Since parents are often shown growth charts from similar sources

(referring to the infant's length rather than height),
this should be a familiar use of words for most parents.
It is possible that you might have to explain yourself when speaking with childless people, however.

learning - "a" or "an" for words that don't start with vowels but sound like they're starting with a vowel

Is it correct to say or write an student or an store?

Answer

Always use an for words which sound like they start with a vowel, and always use a for words which sound like they start with a consonant. The rules for h are more complex, and it can be ok to use either.

The usage of the indefinite article preceding h are discussed here. In particular, look at nohat's response.

As for student and store, they should always be preceded with a and never with an, because they both start with the consonant /s/ when spoken.

Correct:

A student, a store

Incorrect:

An student, an store

Why do nouns and verbs which are stressed differently all exhibit the same variation?

I recently stumbled upon an interesting quirk regarding words that are both nouns and verbs. They seem to all follow the same stress pattern. Here are a few examples:

NOUNS

• I have a really long address.


• There is a huge contrast between winter and spring.


• Not a single object is blue.


• I'm not very good at creating produce.

VERBS

• Make sure you address him properly.


• I try to contrast the two twins in my head.


• He will object to any change you propose.


• Produce the paper right this instant!

Why do the nouns have stresses on the first syllable and the verbs have stresses on the last syllable? Is there a good reason for this, or is it just coincidence?

These are just the examples I thought of - I'm sure there are more. There are also some "noun/verb"s that have the same stress:

That was a huge surprise! Next time I'll surprise you!

But I've yet to find a counterexample - one where the noun has an ending stress and the verb has a starting stress.

How can I omit adverbs to impart a strong feeling?

I'm practicing replacing adverbs with strong verbs. I read about few strategies that help replace adverbs. (E.g. this). I understand that a lot of it depends on the context. Adverbs can be removed, replaced with strong verbs, or left as is.

Let's say, I want to replace the following adverbs with strong verbs. I tried to use online thesaurus but it is not designed for looking up synonyms for adverb + verb combinations.

• hopelessly grabbed


• intensely watched


• intensely looked



• abruptly stopped


• slowly walked


• slowly rotated


• slowly let go


• quickly turned


• quickly closed


• quickly raised


• quickly covered


• firmly secured


• gently pressed



• tightly pressed


• slightly displaced


• rhythmically moved

My approach so far was to take a verb (e.g press) and look up synonyms for it. In this specific case, I can see right away the word "squeeze". I can confirm that this is the word I need by looking up its definition.

squeeze - firmly press (something soft or yielding), typically with one's fingers.

Bingo! I can replace "tightly pressed" with "squeezed". Or "He tightly pressed his lips together." with "He squeezed his lips together."

However, this approach doesn't work well all the time (Actually, it doesn't work most of the time). E.g. I can't find anything for "gently pressed". Also, it is a time consuming process. I understand now why they say: "you are being lazy when you use adverbs" :)

I guess, I'm looking for "adverbs replacement dictionary". Does such a thing exist? Or a good guideline on omitting adverbs.

I have the same questions for the adverbs that describe adjectives:

• perfectly symmetrical


• strikingly similar


• barely visible

Thanks.

Answer

Here are a few substitutions for the three examples given:

1. barely visible

---

The paper trail that he left was barely visible.

I think the above sentence is fine. But, if we wanted to substitute another word for "barely visible" we could say something like:

The paper trail that he left was indiscernible/imperceptible.

2. Strikingly similar

---

It depends on what we're describing here. If it's something such as resemblance between two brothers we could their similarity was uncanny or had a striking resemblance. Depending on the context, it might also make sense to say one echoes (Their political ideology had haunting echoes with the totalitarian...) the other or is congruent with something else. If the items in question are a perfect match, you could say identical or equivalent.

3. Perfectly symmetrical

---

This usage makes sense in some cases, and doesn't seem unnecessarily verbose to me. For example, an ellipses may be symmetrical along the y-axis, whereas a circle would be perfectly symmetrical (about its origin). Describing this outside of math I might say "perfectly symmetrical" to emphasize that it doesn't have any limitations in symmetry, but of course without the limitation, it would imply that and I would only say "The shape is symmetrical."

I suppose it could also be used to emphasize the detail of symmetry in a complex object, such as:

The snowflake was perfectly symmetrical under 1000x magnification,
from the patterns on each of its 16 edges, to the...[more detail, etc.]

grammar - What's correct here?

1) "Today the number of referrals passed are 24"

2) "Today the number of
referrals passed is 24"

Please help. Using 'IS' or 'ARE' which is correct?

orthography - Hyphens after the prefixes “non-” and “anti-” in mathematics

Is there a convention when to attach the prefixes non- and anti- to mathematical terms using a hyphen and when without?

One uses non-zero but also noncommutative.

Likewise for anti-. I no longer know which is correct – anti-isomorphism or antiisomorphism, anti-isometry or antiisometry.

Answer

As with most issues involving English spelling, there is no right or wrong here, only preferences that vary substantially by region, by publisher, and by writer, so much so that is easy, maybe even trivial, to find living counterexamples of any posited general rule here.

But in general, British publishers tend to be more tolerant of the hyphen than American publishers tend to be. Many American publishers forbid the hyphen except when the word following is capitalized, as in anti-American or anti-Semite, or when you would form two vowels in collision, as in anti-immigration. (You never seem to see antiïmmigration, though; it almost looks like someone has smudged the page in this font.)

Otherwise American publishers tend to prefer versions like nonnative, nonnaturalized, nonzero, antilogarithm, antiperiodic, antisocial, antitrust. However, with individual writers not forced to conform to any particular style guide, usage varies.

politeness - Why doesn't the English language have distinct words to use when talking to elders?

In many of the languages that I've studied there are separate distinctions in the words to use when talking to elders and when talking to someone of your age or younger.

For e.g. in Hindi, if I wanted to ask you to do something, I would say:

To an elder:

kya Aap ye karoge ?

To someone my age or younger :

kya Tu ye karega ?

If I try to translate this to English, it merely comes to "Will you do it?". There is no consideration for elders or so I think. The closest I can think is when I try to say it comically, like that Indian guy from any of the sitcoms (think Apu from The Simpsons), " I respectfully ask you to do it ". So why is it so ??

---

_{Note: The original title of the question was "Why is the English language so rude?"}

grammatical number - "Person with a trauma" or "person with trauma"

In academic writing, I frequently run across texts where the determiner is dropped when a person is described as having a medical condition or having suffered an injury. Moreover, a singular noun is sometimes used instead of a plural one. Here are some examples.

• "Twenty percent of the nurses suffered back injury"


• "We identified [...] residents [...] who had been diagnosed with neck injury."



• "patients who had suffered minor closed head injury"

Is this standard usage in English? To me, a non-native speaker, it seems off and should be rewritten:

• "Twenty percent of the nurses suffered a back injury"


• "We identified [...] residents [...] who had been diagnosed with a neck injury"


• "patients who had suffered minor closed head injuries"

Answer

I suspect the lack of determiner reflects the fact that the injury or trauma in question is both countable and not countable. A man shot in the arm might have a broken arm, a bruised arm, a lacerated arm, and a punctured arm. You could say these are all injuries to the arm. But you could also describe the entire affair as injury or an injury to the arm. Omitting the determiner means not having to choose whether the injur[y is|ies are] countable, or put another way, avoids the need to quantify.

orthography - Apostrophes in contractions: shan't, sha'n't or sha'nt?

I came across the word sha'n't when reading Winnie the Pooh the other day and it cast me into a Thoughtful Mood concerning the Appropriate Spelling of this word.

This word is a contraction of "shall not", with the ll and the o removed. Where, then, do the apostrophes belong?

Here are the three options that I see:

• shan't: this is consistent with other -n't words and seems to be what is typically used. But what about the ll?




• sha'n't: clearly, the Best Literature uses this form. This would seem a logical form to have it in, for are there not two places where letters have been omitted?




• sha'nt: based upon the prevailing wisdom of my primary school^†, the first position in which letters are omitted is where the apostrophe, of which there should be only one, should go. However, it doesn't feel right in this case. Also concerning the matter of having only one apostrophe, perhaps that was intended as one per word. Or perhaps it's just nonsense, additionally considering such words as fo'c'sle.

One article I found on this matter was the Wiktionary article on sha'n't:

This came briefly into use at the end of the eighteenth century. It is not an older form of the contraction, though, as shan't predates it in print by about a century. (Source: World Wide Words [1])

It then proceeds to call sha'n't a "nonstandard spelling of shan't". The Wiktionary article I consider myself quite at liberty to discard, for A. A. Milne was using sha'n't in the 1920s, a decade which I would not generally consider to be at the end of the eighteenth century. In fact, it seems to me they're blatantly misquoting the article cited, which speaks of it occurring in the nineteenth century plus a few years either side of it.

So then: which are appropriate? What are the general rules concerning where the apostrophes should go in contractions? Why isn't English consistent? Why isn't Winnie the Pooh mandatory reading for all English speakers? (Discard the last two questions if you wish.)

---

_{^† I am not generally inclined to give all that they say credence, naturally, for they are the same schools that teach the Victorian cursive letter forms and that two spaces should exist between sentences; that aught else is a travesty on the English language and that you probably won't get your pen license if you don't do it these ways—not that I ever did get mine.}

Answer

An apostrophe generally indicates an omission, but in this case I would favour shan't over sha'n't for readability and consistency.

Sha'nt looks wrong, and I've never heard that their should only be a single apostrophe at the first omission.

---

Looking for a "general rule", an article called That Cute Li'l Ol' Apostrophe that claims:

We never use more than one apostrophe to a word.

While the general rule is to use the apostrophe in place of the last missing letter, such as in "shall not -> shan't", if we need to choose between missing letters that we'd normally pronounce and those that are silent, use the apostrophe to denote the missing sounds.

Another claims the following:

Well. at first glance, it appears to me that our way of ‘making’ contractions is to 1) lop off the last half of the first word and 2) smash it together with the “not”, contracting the “o” with an apostrophe. See for yourself…

shan’t= shall (minus the “-ll”) + not (minus the “o”) = sha n’t

Which is then moved together (sha->n’t) to spell: shan’t. Personally, I believe that this contraction (judging by the way we use the word, and say it) is an ‘evolved creature’ from the two contractions “shouldn’t” and “can’t”; as opposed to its parentage being shall and not. It just makes more sense. [Shouldn’t + can’t= shan’t]

---

The OED lists both shan't and sha'n't as colloquial contractions of shall not, but not sha'nt. Shan't appears in 139 quotations, sha'n't appears in 25, and sha'nt is in only five.

Project Gutenberg's out-of-copyright books are usually older and don't necessarily reflect contemporary use, but searching their August 2003 CD of 600 ebooks: there are 589 results in 103 books for for shan't, 122 results in 29 books for sha'n't, and only three results in two books for sha'nt.

Another common contraction, won't, comes from woll not (an archaic version of will not). It also has two chunks of letters omitted. Should this be wo'n't or wo'nt? Motivated Grammar writes:

Did the contractions won’t and shan’t spring into English fully formed, like Athena from Zeus’s noggin? No, interestingly. Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary (printed in 1855), has wo’n't, as do some (modern) editions of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and The Ohio Educational Monthly in an article from 1868. Likewise, sha’n't was commonplace in the old days, plastered across the pages of the dreadful Victorian novels that I had to read in AP English as a lesson as to what happens to those who show an interest in reading. Books like Evelina; or, The history of a young lady’s entrance into the world (why did every single book in those days have to have a subtitle?)

Now the interesting thing is that won’t and shan’t live side-by-side with wo’n't and sha’n't in these old books. Some quick results on Google Books between 1600 and 1800: 777 won’ts, 57 wo’n'ts; 216 shan’ts, 73 sha’n'ts. Between 1600 and 1700: 48 won’ts, no wo’n'ts; 1 each of shan’t and sha’n't. So it seems it was never the case that the multiple-apostrophe form was more common. For some reason or another, English writers have always preferred a single apostrophe over strict application of “put apostrophes wherever a letter’s missing”. (Michael Quinion guesses that the double-apostrophe form was a later edition, suggested by logic-minded grammarians, that died out because it was a pain to write and looked weird.)

Quinion pointed out shan't is actually older than sha'n't and summarised:

The abbreviation, as you say, strictly demands the extra apostrophe, and it was probably the influence of logically minded eighteenth-century grammarians who persuaded many people to put the extra one in to start with — but whenever did logic ultimately matter in language?

---

So: the rules aren't really clear, but shan't is the most common, sha'n't is somewhat old fashioned, and sha'nt is extremely rare.

Why isn't English consistent?

Because it's evolved from a big mish-mash of several other languages over some 1,500 years.

Why isn't Winnie the Pooh mandatory reading for all English speakers?

Because nothing is mandatory reading for all English speakers. If Winnie the Pooh is mandatory reading, what else should be mandatory? Where do you stop? The only mandatory reading for English speakers should be the English language.

What is the correct pronunciation of the word “ma’am”?

Back in the day, the word ma’am (when addressing the Queen) was always pronounced “marm”. British TV shows from before the 80s confirm this.

In the movie The Queen, we are told that the correct pronunciation for ma’am is “ma’am” as in “ham”, and not “ma’am” as in “farm”. Some people seem to think this has always been the case. But it has not.

Is this pronunciation a modern development?
Is it a preference of the current sovereign?

Or have we been pronouncing ma’am wrongly throughout the centuries?

Answer

This is an interesting question! I can’t find any documentation specifically on the issue, so I don’t have a conclusive answer, but here anyway is a lot of relevant information, and a bit of further speculation.

The OED lists various pronunciations:

Brit. /mam/, /mɑːm/, U.S. /mæm/, /mɑm/; (unstressed) Brit. /məm/, U.S. /əm/, /mˌ/.

It also sheds some light on the recent historical usage:

The γ, δ, and ε forms [respectively mem, mim; mum, mom; and ’m] represent pronunciations formerly common in British regional usage and in the speech of domestic staff and others of similar status; such forms and pronunciations are also well attested in U.S. regional use, especially in yes ma’am (see yessum adv.) and no ma’am, and as the second element in school-marm n. Compare marm n.

Buckingham Palace protocol (c1990) directed that ‘the Queen should be addressed as “Ma’am” (to rhyme with jam).’

It also includes, later:

In 1936, R. W. Chapman ( S.P.E. Tract ii. 241) observed that ‘Except to royal persons, the contraction (whether mahm or măm) seems to be going out.’

This is all informative, but also a bit confusing. The main thing that’s clear is that the variety of pronunciations goes back quite a long way.

The second thing is that in modern BrE, the usage of ma’am is so restricted that it’s very hard to disentangle “what people now use” and “what Buckingham Palace asks for”. It’s a prescriptivist’s dream!

The third is that the OED itself seems a bit confused: the very pronunciation that the Palace asks for, /mæm/, is one which the OED lists only as U.S. usage.

The big question this leaves unresolved is: is it only recently that the Palace has asked for “jam”, or was this already officially preferred in the past?

Another factor which might be involved is how in many words, the vowel /a/ (of farm) is partly shifting to /æ/ (of ham) in prestige BrE accents, and the vowel of jam/*ham* in these accents has changed. In eg the early 20th century, in upper-class British accents, the vowel in ham, jam etc. was more raised and fronted than today, somewhat closer to hem. Conversely, words like glass, class were uniformly pronounced with the long ah vowel, /a/. In many lower-class accents, ham was much like today, with /æ/, and grass, etc. were also pronounced with this vowel.

Since then, the stigma of perceived lower-class and regional accents has decreased, whereas a stigma of being ‘too posh’ has become more widespread; so the raising/fronting of ham is now very rare, and the pronunciation of grass with the ham vowel /æ/ is somewhat more common among RP speakers.

Given that this shift involves many class issues, and the alternation of /a/ and /æ/, I suspect it may have influenced the pronunciation of ma’am somewhat. I’m pretty sure that the shift in the vowel of ham is relevant, given the older spellings of ma’am as mem, mim listed in the OED. The relevance of the change in grass is much more speculative.

word choice - "And" or "with" when comparing

If one were to try and compare mixed food with food and a side which would you use? For example, what is the difference between "Green Salad with Dressing" and "Green Salad and Dressing" and which one would you use to imply the dressing was on the side?

Answer

Depending on the type of salad and the competence/preferences of whoever prepared it, the dressing might already be mixed or not. In the case of a "green salad", for example, I think it would be straightforward incompetence to serve this mixed. But I don't think it's meaningful to distinguish between with and and in this context. Neither word implies anything about how it would actually be served.

If you really didn't want them mixed, you'd be safest actually specifying that, for example:

Salad with a dressing served separately

articles before variables with names

Is an article needed before a variable with a name, like, variable Z, in a text?
If you give a variable a name, it becones like a man, say, named John - and I am yet to see 'the man John'. But I often see 'the radius r', 'a distance d'. Is it correct?

Differences between Verb + to be + adjectives and Verb + adjective

If you have a more illustrative title, feel free to change it. I searched but I couldn't find one.

This may be an easy and trivial question; if so, I am sorry.

What are the differences between these two sentences?

These two guys seem to be inseparable.

These two guys seem inseparable.

I can intuitively say that the latter one is grammatically wrong. Could you please explain?

EDIT: What I think is John Lawler's and FumbleFingers' answers are worth to read. The reason why I noted that someone who wants to learn the answer of this question, accidentally misses FumbleFingers' answer.

Answer

Your intuition is incorrect. They are both grammatical. And they are identical in meaning. The only difference between these two sentences is how many syllables they have.

The cluster to be, consisting of the infinitive complementizer to, plus the predicate adjective auxiliary infinitive be, is frequently deleted after the predicate seem (or appear) before a predicate adjective, like inseparable (meaning 'very close friends'). There is no specific rule saying when to perform this deletion; it's a matter of individual choice, like many other rules in English.

The reason why to be can be deleted here is that it has no meaning, and serves merely to mark the complement clause as an infinitive (required after seem) and the predicate of the complement clause as a predicate adjective (required before inseparable). So it's dispensable.

There are lots of syntactic rules (which means "processes", btw, and not rules for "Correctness" -- think of them as grammatical apps in your brain) in English that have the effect of shortening, moving, or deleting such frequently-occurring but semantically null chunks, and otherwise make speech faster. And supposedly easier.

Easier for the speaker, anyway. They don't always make things easier for the understander, or the learner, though. Frequently you have to put all that stuff back into the sentence to make it clear.

This rule (or app) is To-be-Deletion; a similar one for a different situation is Whiz Deletion.

Use of article in front of product names

In English, a definite article is not typically used in front of company names, except if you want to refer to some particular building (e.g. I went to the McDonald's around the corner).

However, does the same thing hold for product names? For example, which of the following sentences would work better?

1. Logitech's new S30 is an improved version of the S29.


2. Logitech's new S30 is an improved version of S29.

The former sounds much better to me, but that may be because we throw around a lot of definite articles in my native language :)

grammatical number - Plural noun or singular noun + possessive

When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. (source)

I wonder why it is not "a white men's country". We often speak of men's clothes and men's room. Consider:

This is the only large dogs' shelter in the area.
This is the only large dog's shelter in the area.

Which one sounds more natural or idiomatic?