grammaticality - Is this statement, where the same pronoun refers to two entities, grammatically correct?

I had this conversation with a friend earlier:

Friend (to a group): If you don't like [this show], there's something wrong with you.
Me (to friend): Or you're just a little more mature than you and me.

In my statement, you switches from the other members of the group (or maybe people in a general sense) to the person I am talking to. Is this okay from a syntactical perspective?

I can't think of any other examples where the same pronoun switches people without using a noun in between. Is there something in this statement that makes it obvious the pronouns have switched what they're referencing from a pure grammar perspective?

Edit:

To clarify, what I was trying to say in my response is "We both like this show, but that's probably because we're both immature. The other people in this group might not like this show because they're more mature than us, not because there's something wrong with them."

Answer

To clarify, what I was trying to say in my response is "We both like this show, but that's probably because we're both immature."

TL;DR: What you are trying to say is (referring to your friend):

Or you and I are just a little less mature than the others.

Let's analyze your sentence in different cases, and explain why it's wrong.

Or you're just a little more mature than you and me.

• The first you is the second person plural.
  In that case, the phrase "you are just a little more mature" would mean that all the people present except yourself are a little more mature, including your friend.
  Then you say "than you and me". If that you is again the second person plural, then you are saying that all the other people are a little more mature than all the people, excluding yourself, and including your friend; if it is the first second person plural, then you are saying that all present people except yourself , but including your friend (the one to which you are speaking), are a little more mature than you and your friend. In both the cases, there is somebody that is a little more mature than himself/herself.





• The first you is the second person singular.
  In that case, the phrase "you are just a little more mature" is referring to your friend (the one to whom you are speaking).
  Then you say "than you and me". If that you is the second person singular then you are saying that your friend is a little more mature than you and himself; if that you is the second person plural, then you are saying that your friend is a little more mature than all people, excluding yourself and him. Again there is somebody who is a little more mature than himself/herself.

Your sentence is not ambiguous; it is simply wrong.

word choice - Using "because", "as", or "since" when explaining the reason or relevance of something in an adverbial clause?

I have several units of information that I want to put into one, or two well-formed sentences:

• Our product previously only supported Type-X adapters (which are widely used).



• A few weeks ago the company producing Type-X adapters released information stating they will stop producing and distributing Type-X adapters.


• We added support for Type-Y and Type-Z adapters to our product.

if I remember correctly, "because" is the most widely used conjunction to express A is the reason for B, but it is also possible to use as or since in some cases - I'm not a 100% sure when I can use which.

In the sentences I want to build, it's important to note that Type-X adapters are being discontinued is not the direct or singular reason for we now support Type-Y and Type-Z - We started to support those because we noticed more customers switching to them, it's meant to "future-proof" our product - but it is relevant to explaining how our product is fit for the future.

My instict says that using because here would be wrong, because it's not a direct cause-effect relation. Using 'since' feels right to me, so I arrive at this:

All models of [product name] build 2014 or later now fully support Type-Y and Type-Z adapters in addition to Type-X. This makes [product name] fit for the future, since [company name] recently announced they will discontinue their Type-X series.

Is this well-formed? Is since the correct conjuntion to use here? What are the rules for when to use because, since, and as?

Answer

Your use of the conjunction "since" in this case is helpful to the reader. What may be less clear is that you're telling her that type Y and Z adapters will be an adequate replacement for type X. Perhaps being more direct about that point will make the language seem better formed.

etymology - What is the origin of the phrase "forty winks," meaning a short nap?

Inspired by the question How long is a 'wink'?, I did some work on the origin of the phrase forty winks. Though the OP at the wink question mentions the phrase, it does not ask about its origin. So I thought I'd ask the question here and post what I've found. I was able to find an antedating not mentioned by any of the usual phrase-dictionary suspects. The most accurate information I found elsewhere was from a post by Ken G in a discussion of the phrase at Wordwizard. Any other insights welcome.

Answer

William Kitchiner M.D. (1775–1827) was
an optician, inventor of telescopes,
amateur musician and exceptional cook.
His name was a household word during
the 19th century, and his Cook’s
Oracle was a bestseller in England
and America.

^Wikipedia

The phrase forty winks, meaning a short nap, can be traced back to Dr. Kitchiner's 1821 self-help guide, The Art of Invigorating and Prolonging Life. The phrase is mentioned in a November 1821 issue of the British Literary Chronicle, in a review of Kitchiner's book:

Sleep is a subject on which our author
acknowledges his feelings are
tremblingly alive; he is fond of a
'forty-winks' nap in an horizontal
posture,' as the best preparative for

any extraordinary exertion, either of
body or mind.

Here is a clip from an 1822 copy of Kitchiner's book:

The use of quotes around a forty winks nap seems to indicate Kitchiner might have borrowed the phrase from elsewhere, but I can't find it in any form earlier than his use of it. Also, Kitchiner carefully footnotes other phrases and passages from different authors throughout his book.

mathematics - Should I use hyphens with prefixes like "sub" and "semi"?

Some English texts, use the prefix sub put before a given proper word with "-" between them, for example sub-zero, while in the Mathematical contexts there is no such that "-", for example subgroup or subfield. The same story could be seen for semi. Which way for showing that is right or is better.

Answer

Whichever way is standard for a given word. As a general rule, the hyphen is more likely to be used in situations where you're expected to read "sub-" as a separate unit, and it gets lost when the entire compound word gets common enough to be perceived as an entity in and of itself.

As such, there can be migration from one to the other over time. For example, I'm pretty sure people are more likely to prefer "email" to "e-mail" than they were 10 or 15 years ago.

word choice - Why are you "reading" a particular subject at university?

I've always wondered why the verb "read" is used to basically mean "study" when describing somebody's university course. They might say:

I'm reading History at university.

And it might be said of them:

He's reading History at university.

Why "reading"? Traditionally, university has been about more than just reading; in the past perhaps even more so than now, a lot of it was about face-to-face tutoring. How did "reading" become synonymous here with "studying"? Also, why does it always seem to be used in the present tense? People don't tend to say "I read History at university 10 years ago"; once they've got the degree, they're more likely to say "I studied History at university 10 years ago".

This usage of the verb "read" may be peculiarly British; it is certainly widespread here in Britain; not sure about elsewhere.

Answer

It’s a British expression, now used quite generally of university study, that used to be especially common at Oxford and Cambridge. I suspect that it reflects the way in which education was traditionally organized at those universities: a series of set-piece lectures, not necessarily compulsory, and a great deal of independent reading that was regularly discussed with a tutor, either individually or in small seminars. However important the lectures were (or in some cases perhaps weren’t), the bulk of a serious student’s time and energy went into reading, digesting what was read, and writing based on that reading, especially in subjects like history, literature, and philosophy. In this setting reading history (say) would be a natural pars pro toto.

grammar - Is this kind of conditional sentence grammatically correct?

Is this kind of conditional sentence grammatically correct?

If x weren't y, I couldn't -insert verb- z but I can -insert verb- z, therefore x is y.

As requested, here is an example for complete sentence:

If I weren't rich, I couldn't afford this house but I can afford this house; therefore, I am rich.

I have one more question: Is the italic part of example sentence necessary?

Answer

It is grammatically correct, except that you probably need a full stop before but. At the very least you need a semicolon there. Was there anything specific that you thought might be ungrammatical about your sentence? The italicised part is not necessary (but it is perfectly fine).

It is not, however, correct in formal logic.

If it weren't raining, there wouldn't be a puddle. But there is a puddle; therefore it is raining.

In formal logic, that conclusion is invalid, because one cannot draw any conclusions based on the consequence; only from the antecedent can one draw conclusions, and only if it is true (then the consequent must also be true). Purely as an illustration: if this example were in the real world, there could be a puddle but without any raining (it could be a garden hose).

However, there is in real language a very strong implication that antecedent and consequence correlate. So your implication is perfectly fine in a normal context (outside formal logic).

In general, a statement can be syntactically correct but logically incorrect, or even nonsense. Consider Chomsky's famous sentence:

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. [syntactically perfect, but nonsense]

*Furiously sleep ideas green colorless. [syntactically flawed, and equally nonsensical]

verbs - Difference between 'debase' and 'degrade'

What does debase mean? Is there any difference between the words debase and degrade?

Collins Dictionary says this about debase:

To debase something means to reduce its value or quality. [formal] Politicians have debased the meaning of the word 'freedom'. [VERB noun] 'He said parliament and the process of democracy had been debased. [VERB noun]

and this about degrade:

Something that degrades someone causes people to have less respect for them. ...the notion that pornography degrades women. [VERB noun] When I asked him if he had ever taken bribes he said he wouldn't degrade himself like that. [VERB pronoun-reflexive]

So, according to these definitions, we degrade someone and we debase something. Is that correct?

grammar - Which pronoun best completes the sentence?

Which pronoun best completes the sentence? Every woman received ____ prize. Is it her or their? Please explain

grammaticality - "You're missing the posts only available to members" — should there be a "the" in there?

Consider this sentence:

You're missing posts only available to members.

I think it should actually be

You're missing the posts available only to members

or at least

You're missing the posts only available to members

The second sounds the best to me, but friends say the first one sounds best.
This is going to go on a website for the people to see. I do not know how to justify it, but I think there should be a the before posts. Does taking it out make it okay? If so, can someone please explain?

Answer

Although the modifier "only available to members" makes "posts" more specific and thus would seem to require the definite Article, it still hasn't made the Noun completely specific.

You can say "posts" is halfway from being general to being specific.

This is often confusing. Consider this other "middle" example. This is correct:

Ex. I like people who have initiative. (not all people, but still
general)

In your example, not adding an article is suitable because the Noun "posts" is specific but still general.

The alternative you're thinking of should be something like:

Ex. I want to read THE posts that WERE only available to members.

adjectives - How would we classify the phrase "worn out?"

How would we classify the phrase "worn out?" I know it can belong to the verb figure of speech, but here I'm interested in the usage where it seems to function as an adjective.

He put on his worn out shoes.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused as to whether I should include a hyphen as well.
I'm guessing that there is some kind of classification for this. I know we have compound nouns, is there a compound adjective or a phrasal adjective?

vocabulary - Name of place where there are many buildings?

In some countries, in a closed area, more than one building (mostly apartment buildings) is constructed, and that place is given a name. Then buildings are named like A, B, C.

How would I call that area? I would say "building area", though am not sure about that.

Answer

If the apartments are dwellings, I would call the whole area "a condo" or "condominium" (some definitions include non-residential use, though.)

• condo - "short for condominium"




• condominium - "a building or complex of buildings containing a number of individually owned apartments or houses." Google

  
  
  

  "a building or complex in which units of property, such as apartments, are owned by individuals and common parts of the property, such as the grounds and building structure, are owned jointly by the unit owners." TFD

For a complete review on the subject see: Condominium - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Cosmopolitan, a condominium in Singapore

grammatical number - Should “two weeks vacation” be written “two weeks’ vacation” with a possessive apostrophe?

I’ve always understood that the phrase two weeks usually turns into two weeks’ when used as a modifier as in

1. I’m giving my two weeks’ notice.


2. I get two weeks’ vacation. (“two weeks’ holiday” for Brits)

with an apostrophe on the word weeks’, indicating that the vacation “belongs” to the weeks.

One way to explain this is the phrase “two weeks of vacation” being contracted to “two weeks’ vacation” – the vacation is “of” the weeks; that is, it is possessed by them.

But I’ve seen a lot of people omit the apostrophe in casual writing, and thinking about it, it seems plausible that the noun vacation would be plainly modified by the adjectival phrase two weeks.

But on the other hand, shouldn’t adjectival phrases be hypenated, namely two-weeks vacation? Yet that seems wrong, too: the hyphenate should be singular, two-week vacation (like two-tone shoes) because preceding adjectives are not declined for number.

Why is the singular of “week” used in “two-week business trip”? touches on this (and references a good Wikipedia page on noun adjuncts) but doesn’t explain why the plural must be possessive in this case.

Explanation on when the possessive should be used instead of an attributive noun suggests that two weeks might be adverbial rather than adjectival, and thus resists being used attributively. But that still doesn’t quite explain this particular muddle of pluralization, possession, and attribution.

Given all this, why should “two weeks vacation” be written “two weeks’ vacation” with a possessive apostrophe?

Answer

I've always taken the omission here to be or the phrase "worth of". As such, what one means when one says "two weeks' holiday" is actually "two weeks' worth of holiday" and likewise with, for example, notice and imprisonment. The worth in this case belongs to the time, just as the worth belongs to the money when one says "three quid's worth of [insert appropriate noun]".

One can actually then extend this to phrase like "We'll be finished in two weeks' time" which is equivalent to "We'll be finished two weeks from now" but here is like an abbreviation of "We'll be finished in two weeks' worth of time." In all cases, there is some redundancy -- one could simply say "We'll be finished in two weeks." -- but the uses are idiomatic.

Historically speaking, I doubt whether the phrase "worth of" actually ever appeared in using this form of possessive but it may be a helpful way to think about the phrase.

The best explanation to approximate this theory can be found in the Chicago Manual of Style section 7.24. Though not freely available online, you can find it mentioned here where it's claimed the form is inherited from the old genitive case:

Q. Which is correct? (a) He has 15 years’ experience designing
software, or (b) He has 15 years experience designing software. I’ve
seen it written both ways. I believe “years” needs an apostrophe. If
he has 15 years of experience, that would translate to “15 years’
experience.” Right? Please help.

A. You are absolutely right. Analogous to possessives, and formed like
them, are certain expressions based on the old genitive case. As your
question implies, the genitive here implies of. For some examples, see

paragraph 7.24 in CMOS 16.

This line features on the Wikipedia page for genitive case:

Modern English typically does not morphologically mark nouns for a genitive case in order to indicate a genitive construction; instead, it uses either the 's clitic or a preposition (usually of).

So in this argument the possessive/clitic actually stands in for the phrase "of".

This is backed up by one particular line on (unfortunately again) the English possessive Wikipedia page:

The paraphrase with of is often un-idiomatic or ambiguous in these
cases.

I should also add that Alex Chaffee's comment in reply to another answer on this question is useful in pointing to the Wikipedia page on the noun adjunct which cites Fowler's Modern English Usage.

For reference, the following sources mention a possessive apostrophe for this form of sentence as the correct use but do not provide any historical background or justification as to this usage:

...

UPDATE

I have just seen another answer providing some examples as possible objections to this usage. In each example, the phrase in question is preceded by an indefinite article. But this would not make sense if one thinks about the phrase I have suggested above.

For example "Take a two-week holiday" is correct; "Take a two-weeks' holiday is not." But that's because one would never say "Take a two-weeks' worth of holiday." Omit the indefinite article and suddenly, intuitively, all seems well: "Take two weeks' holiday."

grammar - Pronoun question

I have a pronoun question, though I am not sure what exact category this question falls into. I'm wondering about what is the best pronoun to use in the following situation:

If the "me" in question is a female first-person narrator, is it best to write:

Unlike me, who always swore I’d never get married before the age of thirty,...

or:

Unlike me, who always swore she'd never get married until the age of thirty,...

The second sounds better to me for some reason.
Thanks for any input!

grammatical number - In the sentence 'This means everyone should have their turn to say something.' , why is the noun not used in plural?

I am preparing for an exam, and came across the sentence below.

'This means everyone should have their turn to say something'

And I wondered why this sentence has no grammatical errors.
Isn't the noun 'turn' countable? hence should be used in the plural form or should have the indefinitive article 'a'?

For me 'everyone should have a turn to say something' sounds correct.

Thanks in advance!

Subject-verb agreement with plural nouns

I am confused about numbers. Which one is correct?

Goals is what makes me feel alive.

or

Goals are what makes me feel alive.

And another example I am confused about:

Another factor is his enemies...

or

Another factor are his enemies...

Answer

In the first statement, the subject is clearly plural. This demands a plural verb: are.

The second statement is a bit confusing, because the subject is not very clear, partly because the sentence is not complete, so it is difficult to see the entire picture, but also because there is an understood "that" missing.

It is tempting to take enemies as the subject, but that is incorrect. The subject is "factor".

Another factor is [that] his enemies were gathering around him.

This is much clearer than:

Another factor are his enemies were gathering around him.

questions - Can I say "Do you have a facebook"?

Can I say "Do you have a facebook" to ask if someone has "a Facebook account"? I know it is not grammatically correct. I just wanted to know if people say that or not.

Answer

People do say it, but that doesn't make it right or that you should repeat it. People will probably understand what you mean, but it sounds wrong to me.

Ask instead:

• "Do you have a Facebook account?"


• "Are you on Facebook?"


• "Do you use Facebook?"

And note Facebook should be capitalised.

Finally, the website Facebook was named after the face book or facebook, a university directory of names and photos. The original question could possibly be misinterpreted to refer to these.

grammaticality - Is it bad practice to say "a husband and his wife" because of redundancy?

Phrasing like "a husband and his wife" or "a daughter and her father" always irked me, for being a bit redundant. Surely, it is enough to say "man and his wife" (or in the case of same-sex marriages "woman and her wife"), as saying "husband" already includes a relationship with, and existence of, a "wife".

Is it bad practice (or grammatically ill-advised) to say "a husband and his wife"?

Also, is it any better to say "a husband and a wife"? How does "a pet and its owner" fare?

---

Some examples:

The film ABC features a husband and his wife, on a spiritual journey to master the English language.

A daughter and her father appeared on my doorstep, asking for donations to Wikipedia.

american english - Differences between "how to do something....." and "how do I do something..."

"how to...." is correct ? or Impolite？
I'm not really make sure What's the difference between the two.

Answer

As someone already mentioned, "how to do" can only be a part of a statement. For example,

"I don't know how to do it."

So if you intend to ask a person how something should be done, you should say,

"How do I do it?" and not "How to do it?"

This isn't impolite but if you want to be more polite, try

"Could you please tell me how to do it?"

grammar - How can I structure this sentence correctly?

A friend of mine announced her pregnancy via email. I wanted to tell her how pleased I was to hear she was going to have a baby, as this was something she'd wanted for a long time.

I was about to say "I've never been happier to hear someone's pregnant", but then realised that of course I had been even happier when my own wife found she was pregnant. I wanted to imply that that was the only time I had been happier to hear such an announcement.

I wrestled with putting it succinctly for a few moments before writing "you're the person I've been second happiest to hear is pregnant ever".

I shuddered as I sent it, as I could see it was poor English. However, I was in a rush and knew she would understand what I meant.

I hope you can see what I was aiming for: I didn't want to mention my wife explicitly, and I wanted to use "second-most" in some way.

Even with hindsight, I struggle to put this into a single brief sentence. What should I have written?

Answer

To rephrase without losing any of the meaning and disregarding the pragmatics of the questioner’s sentiment, I might say:

Of all the times that hearing news of a pregnancy has made me happy, yours ranks second.

But I think this formulation casts more light on the awkwardness of the sentiment than the questioner would have wanted.

I agree with the other answerers that although your intentions are kind, this is going to be an uncomfortable thing to hear, no matter how unawkwardly you phrase it.

grammar - On the verb form in the first clause of constructions using "and" to connect action and consequence

Consider the following:

You do this one more time and I'll slap you.

What form is "do"? I'd like to say it is the bare infinitive (see below), but I'm led to believe that it is the present indicative because of how I would express the same idea in the 3rd person singular, though this is probably much less common:

He does this one more time and I'll slap him.

If it is indeed the present indicative, then I'm confused over how to parse the following sentence, which uses the dynamic "be" (behavioral):

You be rude one more time and I'll slap you.

Let alone how it might be expressed in the 3rd person singular:

?He be rude one more time and I'll slap him.

?He is rude one more time and I'll slap him.

So what's wrong with this analysis? Is the verb really the bare infinitive and I'm misguided in thinking "He does this one more time and ..." is acceptable? Or is this construction simply not possible outside the 2nd person?

Answer

Yes, your analysis is getting close. :)

You're touching on many of the essential issues. Some of those issues have come up before, but usually they come up individually (and often they are given bad answers).

Let me comment on this:

• You do this one more time and I'll slap you.

That example seems to have the form of a clause-coordination where an imperative clause is the first element in that coordination, and that type of coordination is commonly interpreted as a conditional (2002 CGEL, pages 937-9). (Though, it could perhaps be reasonable to also consider your example as coordinating two declarative clauses.)

That kind of coordination involves an asymmetrical "AND" coordination (2002 CGEL, page 1301). That is: 'X and Y' implicates 'if X then Y'. Examples:

• [28.i] I express the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty.




• [28.ii] Come over here and you'll be able to see better.




• [28.iii] Do that again and you'll be fired.

And here are two more examples, where the first element is not an imperative clause (2002 CGEL, page 1301):

• I only have to express the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty.




• I suggest you come over here and then you'll be able to see better.

Also, be aware that imperatives can also have 3rd person subjects, and also 3rd person vocatives (2002 CGEL, pages 927-8):

• [8.ii] Kim, you be umpire please. -- [vocative "Kim", and subject "you"]




• [9.i.a] Somebody at the front, write your name on the board. -- [vocative]




• [9.i.a] Somebody at the front write your name on the board. -- [subject]

There's also the older related post: https://english.stackexchange.com/a/137100/57102

And of course, imperatives can have an overt 2nd person subject (2002 CGEL, pages 925-6):

• [5.i] You be wicket-keeper and I'll bowl.




• [6.i] (Just) you watch where you put your feet.




• [6.ii] You mind your own business.

Now let's get back to your example that seems to be in the form of a clause-coordination where an imperative clause is the first element in that coordination: "You do this one more time and I'll slap you". Here's a related excerpt from CGEL, pages 937-8:

9.5 Imperatives interpreted as conditionals

When an imperative is the first element in a clause-coordination, it is commonly interpreted as a conditional:

[39]

• i. Ask him about his business deals and he quickly changes the subject.




• ii. Do that again and you'll regret it.




• iii. Persuade her to agree and I'll be forever in your debt.




• iv. Don't make him the centre of attention and he gets in a huff.

Thus we understand "if you ask him about his business deals he quickly changes the subject", and so on. The examples illustrate the prototypical case, where the second clause is declarative and overtly linked to the imperative by and. The conditional interpretation derives from the implicative of consequence that is commonly conveyed by and -- compare I'll offer him a 10% discount and he's bound to take it. The first clause is usually positive, but it is just possible for it to be negative, as in [iv]; the form of the negative shows clearly that it is indeed the imperative construction that we are dealing with here.

Also, notice their example that uses two declaratives in the clause-coordination: I'll offer him a 10% discount and he's bound to take it. There's also example [28.i] I express the slightest reservation and he accuses me of disloyalty.

This info might be enough for you to complete your own analysis, to figure out what is going on in your examples. If you have any questions, feel to ask and I'll try to update this post accordingly.

Note that the 2002 CGEL is the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL).

meaning - I dislike his/him being blunt

What is the difference between the two sentences below?

Are they both grammatically correct?

1. I dislike his being blunt.


2. I dislike him being blunt.

When can a subjective relative pronoun and the verb "be" not be omitted in a sentence?

There have always been recommendations which are made to athletes.

I know "which are" can be omitted in the above sentence. Also, I learned that a subjective relative pronoun and the verb "be" cannot be omitted in some cases. Can you explain when they cannot be omitted?

Can a subjective relative pronoun and the verb “be” be omitted in the sentence below?

I have two sons who are doctors.

Answer

I can't give a complete answer. I have read that not all linguists accept the concept of "whiz-deletion". In "There have always been recommendations made to athletes", it is not obvious that "made to athletes" is derived from a relative clause "which are made to athletes"; an alternative interpretation is that "made to athletes" is a participial phrase that can by itself serve as a modifier.

You cannot replace "I have two sons who are doctors" with "I have two sons doctors."

verb agreement - "Number of attempts per question is unlimited" or "are limited"?

I want to know whether the following construct is correct:

Number of Attempts per Question is unlimited.

I want to know if it should be are in place of is in the above sentence.

I have read somewhere that the article before number (whether the or a) governs the form of the verb. However, here there is no article before Number.

commas - Proper punctuation of “John’s last words were ‘———’ ”

When attributing a quote to someone, you put a comma before the quote:

John said, "———"

But is the comma still used in the following sentence?

John's last words were, "———."

Or should there be something else instead? A colon maybe?

Answer

Many publishers still seem to use commas before quotations, as in your first example, but Larry Trask argued persuasively against doing so:

A sentence containing a quotation is punctuated exactly like any other
sentence apart from the addition of the quotation marks. You should
not insert additional punctuation marks into the sentence merely to

warn the reader that a quotation is coming up: that's what the
quotation marks are for. Hence the first two of the following are bad
style, and the third one is wrong:

*President Nixon declared, "I am not a crook."

*President Nixon declared: "I am not a crook."

*President Nixon declared:- "I am not a crook."

The comma and the colon in the first two are completely pointless,
while the startling
arsenal of punctuation in the third is grotesque. (Remember, a colon
can never be followed by a hyphen or a dash.) Here is the sentence
with proper punctuation: President Nixon declared "I am not a crook."
Adding more dots and squiggles to this perfectly clear sentence would
do absolutely nothing to improve it. No punctuation mark should be
used if it is not necessary.

‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ largely endorses this approach, describing the comma before a quotation as an ‘older convention’.

There is even less of a need for a comma in your second example.

grammaticality - "You and me against the world" vs "You and I against the world"

I have heard the first sentence in a song and there are also other songs that go something like "Me against the world" and "Me against the music". Shouldn't it be "You and I against..." since the phrase "You and I" is the subject? Or is it not?

grammatical number - Shouldn’t we use "lots of" with plural nouns and "a lot of" with singular ones?

Is it correct to say "there are a lot of aspects" like here (see the first comment) or here?

Shouldn't be "lots of" used instead? I was sure that the correct form is "lots of" for the plural form.

meaning - What does an apostrophe before a word mean?

I am reading The Rifters Trilogy by Peter Watts and wonder, what does it mean, when the author sometimes uses words with an apostrophe before them? As I have figured, that is some sort of way of making the word special, but what way exactly?

For reference: the text is available online for free, I am talking about the third book in the trilogy, the "Behemoth". If you search the page, you can easily find occurences of 'skin, 'lawbreaker, 'scaphe and maybe several others.

UPDATE

As per the request, here are three use cases:

Clarke turns her head sideways for a better view; the muscles in her neck tighten against the added drag. Erickson's flesh, exposed through the tear in his diveskin, is fish-belly white. It looks like gashed, bleeding plastic. His capped eyes look even deader than the flesh beneath his 'skin. He gibbers. His vocoder cobbles nonsense syllables together as best it can.
...

A comm panel decorates the bulkhead within easy reach. He taps it. "Ambient channel. Grace. How are you coming with those 'skins?"

-

He dragged her to safety, to an evacuation 'scaphe hovering uncertainly over a station already emptied of personnel.

-

But her friends had set their sights a lot higher than Achilles Desjardins; they were out to liberate every 'lawbreaker on the planet.
...

Sudbury's senior 'lawbreakers had worked between floors twenty and twenty-four. It had been lucky that Desjardins had managed to raise the alarm before they'd been hit.

Answer

Apostrophes are used to indicate dropped letters in a word. We are mostly familiar with them in contractions like don't and isn't but they can be used in other places too.

Once upon a time they were used to indicate shortening of words by omitting their initial part. It was once common to write phone (a shortening of telephone) as 'phone. Another common use was 'bus (short for omnibus). Both, of course, can now be used as words in their own right.

In your passage the author is attempting to convey that 'skins and 'scaphe are short forms of longer words. 'skin is probably short for diveskin. 'scaphe might well be short for bathyscaphe, but without knowing the work I can't say for sure.

meaning - How to interpret this kind of sentence?

I have a question related to an example sentence below. I always have slight doubt in interpreting sentences which have this kind of clauses being connected.

Consider this sentence:

The book covers the fundamental building blocks of digital design across several levels of abstraction, from CMOS gates to hardware design languages.

Here, to which part of the first clause in the sentence is the second clause — "from CMOS gates to hardware design languages" — related?
I mean whether CMOS gates and hardware design languages are

• fundamental building blocks of digital design, or


• several levels of abstraction.

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.

grammaticality - Inversion in "Only when the virus introduces its nucleic acid into a cell does disease occur"

Given this sentence,

Disease occurs only when the virus introduces its nucleic acid into a cell.

Is the following inversion grammatical?

→ Only when the virus introduces its nucleic acid into a cell does disease occur.

Especially the "does disease occur" part.

I think that "occurs disease " is right. Can you explain a rule about this kind of sentence?

Definite/indefinite articles in front of trade names that are used as attributive adjectives

Every time I have to refer to some products, I am not sure what article (if any) has to be used. For example, there is a company called Contigo, which makes termo cups. In order to refer to those cups, some writer said:

Contigo cups are....

As far as I understood, in case of other products, I would say Tupperware cups, Nivea creams, Cannon cameras, etc. But what about the singular? A Tupperware cup? A Nivea cream?

However, I have noticed, that some companies add the article the before the name that is used to refer to their products. Say there is the trademark Hello which stands for a computer program, and in order present it to the reader, they say the Hello toolbar is this and that Why the article the is used in front of the noun phrase? If I am offered to use the product of Hello, should I say I installed Hello toolbar or Installed a Hello toolbar? I got absolutely confused and cannot understand how/when/why the definite article the is used before the trade names.

Answer

One thing this depends upon is whether the products in question are singular or plural.

For example, if you own just one tupperware cup, you might ask a member of your family to hand you 'the tupperware cup'. But if you have many you might say 'please hand me a tupperware cup'.

Presumably there is only one 'Hello toolbar'. Therefore it would make no sense to talk about 'a Hello toolbar' since there is only one. It would be 'the Hello Toolbar'.

prepositions - Cause for vs cause of

I read this sentence somewhere today, but I think that the of would fit better here than for, don't you think?

The cause for the original problem will be analysed in the normal maintenance hours.

I find myself sometimes thinking when I should use for and of and I cannot reach a conclusion. A few guidelines on this subject will be appreciated.

Answer

This ngram would suggest that cause for is not as frequently used as "cause of". "Cause for" seems to mean "a valid reason for", as in "cause for alarm". "Cause of" implies a causal relationship, as in "this is the cause of that".

I personally can't think of many contexts where "cause for" would be appropriate other that "cause for alarm" and phrases similar to it. As Daniel says, similar phrases are "cause for concern", "cause for panic", etc

Which object is modified by the infinitive in this sentence?

The sentence is like this:

Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial
support they need in order to thrive.

I'm not sure about the to thrive. Does this sentence mean:

(1) To make the major cities thrive, governments need to support them financially.

Or

(2) To make the governments themselves thrive, governments need to support major cities financially.

In other word, which one is modified by to thrive? Is it Governments or cities and why? Does anyone have ideas about this?

Answer

From a purely syntactical analysis, it could be both.

The only thing that can tell us which is the better fit is semantics. In the example you give, even semantics do not make it clear:

• Major cities are likely to thrive if they receive the necessary financial support;


• Governments who spend the right amount of money on (making) the major cities (thrive) are more likely to be popular governments and thus be reelected—which I would say is a pretty good definition for ‘thrive’ as applied to a government.

I would consider it more likely that the cities are what’s being talked about, but the other option cannot be ruled out without more context.

If the major cities receiving financial support were to be swapped with something else, this interpretation could swing the other way:

Governments must ensure that their core constituents feel they get the political support they need in order to thrive.

In this case, it is almost unambiguously the government that is thriving (to me, at least), since political support is rarely something an individual person needs in order to thrive.

If you want to avoid ambiguity entirely, I would simply phrase the sentence in a different way altogether, for example:

In order to ensure that major cities thrive, governments must ensure that they receive the financial support they need.

(This is of course also a bit ambiguous technically, since ‘they’ can still refer back to the governments, rather than the cities—but that would make for a very odd sentence with a lot of semantic jumps. There is at least far less risk of ambiguity in this version.)

word choice - Usage of "Which" and "What"

1. Which is your most favourite subject in school ?


2. What is your most favourite subject in school ?

Which one is acceptable? If both are acceptable, do they have any difference in meaning?

Answer

In short, when the interrogative pronoun which is used, it is asking about something among a group of things.

Note: which can also be used as a determiner.

grammatical number - Is there any difference between "tuxedo" and "avocado" with regard to their plural form?

An English exam is slowly coming closer and closer, so I'm trying to revise...

I'm holding an English learning book right now, and the very first chapter is dedicated to regular and irregular plural forms of nouns. One exercise wants me to cross out words that are not fitting; for example, from "cows", "tables", "bags", "news", the last noun ("news") goes away, because it only has plural form; and from "play", "family", "dictionary", "university", "play" goes away, because its plural is "plays" and not "plaies".

So now I'm stuck with "potato", "avocado", "tomato", "tuxedo". As far as I'm aware, the plural forms of these nouns are: "potatoes", "avocados", "tomatoes", "tuxedos". So we can say there are two groups with two words per each group: "potatoes" and "tomatoes" vs "avocados" and "tuxedos". Yet the book authors want me to cross "tuxedo" out. How is "tuxedo" any different than "avocado"? To me, these two words are exactly the same, since, in both cases, the plural form is constructed by adding "-s" and not "-es".

What am I failing to grasp?

Edit: As per the request from the comments:

tux•e•do

n.[countable], pl. -dos.

from WordReference.com definition of tuxedo

av•o•ca•do

n.[countable], pl. -dos.

from WordReference.com definition of avocado

to•ma•to

n.[countable], pl. -toes.

from WordReference.com definition of tomato

po•ta•to

n., pl. -toes.

from WordReference.com definition of potato

grammaticality - Is there some rule against ending a sentence with the contraction "it's"?

I heard this lyric in a song the other day and it just sounded so wrong that I assumed it must be incorrect grammar, but I can't find any specific prohibition that applies.

That's what it's.

That rolls off your tongue with the grace of a moose in a tutu, but I can't figure out why.

There is clearly no problem with ending other sentences with a contraction. These sound fine.

I thought I could, but I can't.
Stop touching that, it will fall off if you don't.
You say that the sky is green, but it isn't.

Also, it sounds just fine if you remove the contraction:

That's what it is.

So what's up with this construction? Should it be avoided?

Answer

This is covered in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), as it turns out, in Chapter 18, “Inflection Morphology and Related Matters”, section 6, “Phonological reduction and liaison”.

The form ’s, representing either has or is, along with ’m (am), ’re (are), ’ve (have), ’ll (will), and ’d (had or would) are called clitics, and they are a variant of what are known as weak forms of words, which are pronunciations of words like a, have, from, you, etc. (about fifty in total) with a reduced vowel, such as schwa.

In the discussion of weak and strong forms, CGEL points out that there are certain grammatical contexts that require strong forms, and one of those contexts is something called stranding, where the object of a phrase is preposed (moved before the phrase). These are examples they give of stranding requiring strong forms:

a. Who did you give it [to __ ]?
b. We’ll help you if we [can __].
c. They want me to resign, but I don’t intend [to __].

In each of these cases, the word in the brackets has a weak form, but it cannot be used in this context because its object has been stranded. Of course, in written English, there is no difference between weak and strong forms—it’s only a spoken difference—but clitics are distinguished in written English, and the restriction on weak forms also extends to clitics. (There are additional restrictions on clitics, but they are not relevant to this discussion).

So, thus we can say that the second is in the sentence It is what it [is __] cannot be reduced to either a weak form or to a clitic because of the restriction to strong forms in cases of syntactic stranding.

grammar - Staff "are" or staff "is"

Which is correct in the following example?

"The following staff are/is (?) absent today:

John Doe
Jane Doe
Bob Doe"

verbs - Which one is correct: "are (the) buses" vs "is (the) buses"?

This was a question from a test given to our students. The question was "What do you think the best form of transportation is for your city" Most of the students answer in this manner:

"I think the best form of transportation in my city is/are buses."

Which one is correct, "is buses" or "are buses"? Should there also be a definite article "the" before "buses"?

Answer

The verb should be is. There is no doubt about that, since the subject of the sentence The best form of transportation is singular.

However I do not consider the sentence idiomatic (perhaps because a singular subject and a plural object sounds awkward).

I would say:

The best form of transport in the city is (by) bus. The by is optional.

There are multiple examples on the site of choice of verb where the subject number differs from the object number - for example here

subjects - Is " ... and was wondering ..." correct?

Since I'm a native Spanish speaker I tend to suppress the subject a lot when speaking, since most of the time it's tacit for us.

So, many times I find myself writing things like "but I'm not sure, and was wondering", which sounds good to me, but then I realize that, in this case, was doesn't have a corresponding subject, at least not an immediate one.

Can the subject (I) from the first part of the sentence be considered as the subject of the remaining statement ("was wondering")? I guess not, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Answer

Yes, you can apply the subject of the sentence to multiple predicates, e.g.:

I found a seat, curled up, and began to read my book.

I think so, but I'm not sure, and was wondering that myself.

How to ask about ordinal place of an offspring?

Here is the question: I want to know what is the ordinal place of someone in her family. For example, I'd say:

I'm the second child of my parents.
and afterwards, I'd like to ask something along these lines:

What nth child are you? 

(So that I'm expecting something like first, second, third, etc. child as answer). Just wondering how the question should be asked.

Subject-Verb Agreement with "years" (measurement?) as subject?

Subject-Verb Agreement, wondering which is correct in the following?

Our years of grammar experience have / has taught us...

Assuming "have" is correct. And that phrase "of grammar experience" doesn't determine. But I'm confused now after having read that plural "years" is thought to be singular because "years" is a measurement, I believe was the argument, here:

Measurements
Generally a number, fraction, or quantity of things is considered singular if considered as a mass (ten gallons is enough) and plural if considered as separate units (ten dishfuls were slowly doled out). Sums of money, time, distances, and other similar measurements are often singular (Only years of dedication earns a climber the right to stand on such a peak).

I realize there are somewhat similar questions already on your site but I can't find one that solves completely. There are many opinions but not many final words. Thanks

Answer

The choice of verb number depends on whether the sense is taken from years as one extent of time or as many individual years. For the first consider this description of an Italian city:

Ironically therefore, the years of neglect is also the very
reason why Sulmona is now one of Italy’s best-kept secrets, a rare and
precious treasure of history, culture and tradition in a world where
so much has changed for the worst.

Here, the sense of years is that of an era. Contrast this with this passage from Report of the Government of Madras on the Indian Pearl Fisheries in the Gulf of Mannar by James Hornell:

In the case of the other pars [islets] of the group the years of neglect are 1888 to 1890, 1892, 1893, 1898, 1900 and 1901, eight years in all.

In this case, the years are individually considered, so the word has a plural sense and thus takes a plural verb.

grammar - When are relative pronouns omitted in a sentence?

"For someone used to the tiny creatures we get in England it was something of a shock."

I think, in this sentence, relative pronouns before some words have been omitted. I know rules of omitting relative pronouns, but in this case I have failed to understand before which words relative pronouns can be placed to understand the sentence perfectly, which has been stated above. Please, explain the rules of omitting relative pronouns with the help of the sentence stated above, so that I can be able to understand this type of sentences easily. You can also use other sentences to explain this fact clearly.

Thanks to everyone.

Answer

There are four factors which decide whether a relative pronoun (or the word that) can be omitted or not:

1. Is it a defining relative clause?


2. Does the main verb in the relative clause have a separate Subject?



3. Is the relative pronoun the first word in the relative phrase? (or is it preceded by another word, for example a preposition)


4. Is the word who, which or that?

If the answer to the questions above is yes then the relative pronoun can be omitted. There are lots of duff websites around which might tell you that you can only omit these words if they represent the Object of the relative clause. This is hogwash. You can omit the pronoun as long as it is not the Subject of the matrix verb in the relative clause. The pronoun can, for example, be omitted if it is the Object of a preposition or Subject of another clause embedded within the relative clause.

Here are some examples to illustrate each point. An asterisk, *, denotes an ungrammatical example.

We cannot usually drop a pronoun from a non-defining relative clause:

• The agent I met up with wants you to phone him. (defining)


• *Your father, I met up with yesterday, wants you to call him. (non-defining)

We cannot drop the relative pronoun if the main verb in the relative clause does not have a separate Subject:

• I don't like the elephant you bit. (matrix verb in r-clause has a Subject, you)


• I don't like the elephant you said bit you. (matrix verb in r-clause has a Subject, you)



• *I don't like the elephant bit you. (verb in r-clause has no Subject)

Notice that in the second example the missing pronoun represents the Subject of the verb bit.

If the pronoun is embedded within another phrase, for example a preposition phrase, then it cannot be omitted:

• That's the circus I work in.


• That's the circus in which I work



• *That's the circus in I work.

We can drop the pronouns who, which and the word that, but we cannot drop the pronoun whose:

• That's the table I bought.


• That's the girl I like.


• That's the girl whose table I like.


• *That's the girl table I like.

The Original Poster's example

"For someone used to the tiny creatures we get in England it was something of a shock."

The word someone here has been post-modified by an adjective phrase. Some people argue that this is the result of removing who is from a relative clause. If you have a defining relative clause which uses the verb BE, you can often drop the relative pronoun and the verb BE. Whether it is now a kind of relative clause, or just an adjective phrase, or participle phrase modifying the noun is up for debate. Here are some more examples:

• The man [who was] going into the chip shop was an undercover agent.


• The elephant [who was] interested in the buns was rather plump.

Here's an example where you can't:

• The people who were blond preferred detective fiction.


• *The people blond preferred detective fiction.

We often cannot do this if what's left of the clause is only one adjective.

The sentence has a real relative clause modifying the phrase tiny creatures:

• ... creatures [which] we get in England

This is a defining relative clause, and the verb get has its own Subject, the word we. There are no other words preceding which. We can therefore happily drop the relative pronoun.

We could rewrite the sentence like this to show where potential words have been omitted:

For someone who was used to the tiny creatures that we get in England it was something of a shock.

Note:

Many grammars use the terms restrictive/non-restrictive or integrated/supplementary to describe what I've called defining and non-defining relative clauses.

grammar - use of "to" after "helping one"

What is correct:

helping one to accomplish the dreams?

OR

helping one accomplish the dreams?

The question I have is about the use of to in the first sentence?

vowels - Using 'an' before a consonant

Depending on the word, using an before a consonant is not right.

What about in this phrase, "David has just gotten an SX250". To me, it does sound a lot better than "David has just gotten a SX250".

I saw a similar phrase in a book the other day, and it did not sound/look right at all!

Don't know if I'm going crazy or what..

Can the word 'proficient' only be applied to humans?

Is the term 'a proficient system' correct English? Or can the adjective proficient only be used to describe humans?

---

At least one dictionary (NOAD) defines the word in a way that makes it seem more appropriate for people than for systems:

proficient (adj.) competent or skilled in doing or using something : I was proficient at my job | she felt reasonably proficient in Italian.

---

I can find the expression "proficient system" on the Internet, yet it seems to be mostly used in a technical context, like in these examples:

Note: ELK-IP232 Serial to Ethernet Bridgemay be required to connect the Proficient System to network.

We incorporate all these essential diagrams to make trusted and highly efficient products while creating solid and proficient system architectures.

The DT RGC180 Capture Cradle is truly a proficient system that will protect your investment and enable you to expand the scope of your digitization program.

Concatenand molecules of lambda DNA were formed even in a recombination dificient system (Int-Red-Rec-) in the late stage of phage growth. No significant difference was observed in the formation of concatemers between recombination deficient and proficient systems.

Are these bad usages of the adjective proficient? Or can a system be proficient as easily as a human can?

subjects - Can a sentence have multiple predicates?

I was doing an exercise from my grammar book where one has to identify the subject and the predicate when I stumbled across the following sentence.

A barking sound the shepherd hears.

Now I know that 'the shepherd' is the subject but I am not able to identify predicate. My book says that the predicate is 'A barking sound... hears'.
But I am not entirely convinced of the above answer because I think that the predicate is supposed to a phrase.

My guess is that both 'A barking sound' and 'hears' are the predicates of the given sentence.

Does anyone know whether or not a sentence can have multiple predicates.

Answer

Your sentence has inverted word order where the noun phrase serving as the direct object comes first, then the subject, and finally the verb.

In normal order, your sentence reads:

The shepherd hears a barking sound.

hears a barking sound is still the full predicate; it is merely split by the inversion.

A sentence may easily have a compound predicate:

I bought a bag of carrots but left it at the store.

bought a bag of carrots and left it at the store form a compound predicate joined by a coordinating conjunction.

But that's not really what you're asking.

syntactic analysis - but learning that is dictated by their genetic programming, learning as thoroughly stereotyped as the most instinctive of behavioral responses

Ethologists are convinced that many animals survive through

learning—but learning that is dictated by their genetic programming,
learning as thoroughly stereotyped as the most instinctive of
behavioral responses.

This seems very convoluted structure to me. can anyone explain what is the relation between two parts of sentence before comma and after comma in the part "but learning that is dictated by their genetic programming, learning as thoroughly stereotyped as the most instinctive of behavioral responses". This part starting with the word "learning" before comma and after comma as well, what is their relation here?

Answer

"verb - but verb" is a common expression with scientific and technical writing (and also sometimes in literary criticism). It's a way for an author to create a more precise definition of a common word.

Everything that follows "- but learning" is restricting the normal definition of "learning" to the more precise, technical definition that the author wants to use. In this case, the author provides two parts to that definition ("dictated by genetic programming" and "thoroughly stereotyped..."). The comma you ask about just separates those two parts.

"learning - but learning ..." is a shorter way to say "learning: however, learning only in the narrow sense of ..."

grammar - Is the sentence "What to do?" very old fashioned idiomatic English, or is it simply ungrammatical?

On a foreign-language-learning forum there is a question that's given the English translation "What to do?"

My impression is that that's an example of very old fashioned English. Maybe something I'd expect in Shakespeare or at least a snooty upper class character in an old black-and-white movie.

Or am I mistaken and it's just a simple bad translation into an ungrammatical sentence lacking a main verb?

References:

At Mari-Lou's suggestion, here are some of the comments against. There are also comments for, which I'm not listing. You can scan through the thread if interested:

• Not at all common without a subject. More common: What am I doing?


• It may be heard in the UK, but it is not common. In context, it would probably be understood. But from a native speaker, it would sound archaic and peculiar.


• Native speakers in the US never say this!


• I have never heard anyone say What to do? in English


• "What to do?" Makes no sense as an English sentence.


• This is not a widely accepted way to express oneself in English.



• In English " To do what? or Do what! would be normal but not "What to do?" as a question is not correct in my opinion.


• I don't agree with Duolingo's translation on this one. In Spanish you can ask "Que hacer?", but in English "What to do?" is not a grammatically correct question.


• "What to do?" sounds like a mistake a Spanish-speaking person would make at an early stage of learning English.


• I certainly recognise what you say, but it doesn't sound like English as I speak it.


• Does any english speaker actually say "what to do?" I definitely don't

grammar - photo caption ... me or I?

In a photo caption, if we use the elliptical 'My kids and me', would 'me' be correct, or would 'I' be correct? It seems as though it could go both ways.

[This is a picture of] 'My kids and me' or 'Me and the kids'.

Or,

'My kids and I' [are in this picture]

Which is the correct choice -- 'me' or 'I' in these elliptical constructions?

Thank you

capitalization - To Capitalize Hell or Not?

To use COMPLETELY PROPER English, I've been told that Hell should be capitalized when referring to a location. For example: Go to Hell!

However, does one capitalize it when it's used as part of a phrase instead of a location? For example: I sure as Hell won't go! or I sure as hell won't go!

Any help in this matter is appreciated. Thank you.

grammar - There's three things: is it correct?

I found this phrase:

So what is it about habits that makes something like biting your
fingernails so hard to stop, while making something like running a
couple half marathons per week possible? There’s three things to know
about why habits develop whether you want them to or not.

Is that correct (in formal English/grammar)? Should not we write There are three things ... instead?

Answer

The combination of there's with a plural noun is common in informal English. This is particularly the case in spoken language, in which there's rolls off the tongue more easily than there are.

The usage should be avoided in formal English, however. And note that is not permissible to use the uncontracted form:

*There is three things to know about ... .

Here is an extract from the Cambridge Dictionary's page on There is, there's and there are:

In speaking and in some informal writing, we use there’s even when it
refers to more than one. This use could be considered incorrect in
formal writing or in an examination:

• There’s three other people who are still to come.





• There’s lots of cars in the car park.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/there-is-there-s-and-there-are

grammar - "Folder names" vs "folders' names"

Let's say, we are talking about folders in a computer. What is a correct way to refer to the names of multiple folders?

ex:
- Folder names are incorrect.
or
- Folders' names are incorrect.

What’s the subject?

What’s the subject for the verb suppose?

Now, yer mum an’ dad were as good a witch an’ wizard as I ever knew. Head boy an’ girl at Hogwarts in their day! Suppose the myst’ry is why You-Know-Who never tried to get ‘em on his side before. . . probably knew they were too close ter Dumbledore ter want anythin’ ter do with the Dark Side.

Answer

The subject of "suppose" is "I". It's been elided from the sentence. This is quite common in informal speaking and even in writing. "Hope this helps" = "I hope this helps".

usage - industrial-grade - meaning

The future of PHP looks very bright. Leading platform vendors such as IBM, Oracle,
MySQL, Intel, and, most recently, Red Hat have all endorsed it. The new Collaboration
Project initiated by Zend Technologies rallies many leading companies and community
members around new open source initiatives aimed at taking PHP to the next
level by creating an industrial-grade, de facto standard PHP web application development
and deployment environment. The Project’s first two open initiatives are:

What does this word mean?

Answer

Industrial-grade is a term used to denote larger size, toughness and resilience. An example: a bulldozer is an industrial-grade form of a shovel.

In your example, the term is used more abstractly to imply a more robust PHP system, better than all existing PHP systems; rougher; tougher ... but the language here is just overblown sales talk without any real substance.

articles - Omission of "the" in "elected him president" and "made captain"

Why is there no the before president and captain?

They elected him president.

She was made captain of the team.

Answer

The ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ (LSGSWE) explains it thus:

When a predicative noun phrase names a unique role or job, either a
zero article or the is used.

The is not normally found after words like elected (and re-elected) which show that someone has been appointed to an office. The LSGSWE’s own example is ‘Lukman was re-elected OPEC President in June.’ In other cases, however, it’s optional. The LSGSWE’s second example is: ‘Simon Burns is the chairman of the appeal board.’ That could equally well appear as ‘Simon Burns is chairman . . .’

grammatical number - Is a music band a singular or a collective entity, grammatically speaking?

Duplicate:
Is the usage of “are” correct when referring to a team/group/band?

What is correct to say?

Korn* is a great band

OR

Korn* are a great band.

(* You can replace your favourite band's name here)

Of course everybody there is no doubt about the following sentences:

The Beatles are a great band

Led Zeppelin is a great band

But with certain kinds of names, the situation becomes difficult.

Metallica are a great band

OR

Metallica is a great band

Is there any consensus on this matter?

possessives - User’s Guide vs Users’ Guide

I’ve been looking over what has been posted regarding the use of ’s.

I used to be a Technical Writer (years ago). The title of one of our training documents was Users’ Guide. Once, a coworker said every time he saw that title he expected users to start coming.

Never made any sense to me, but I have to admit that the majority of us didn't understand the use of s’ in place of ’s. What is the difference?

how to read forward slash?

How to read: 20%/30% of adults go to the festivals? 20 percent breaks on 30 percent of adults go to the festivals?

pronunciation - Why do we say "archenemy" differently from "archangel" and "architecture"?

Like other words that start with "arch-", archenemy is partly derived from arkhi or arkhos from the Greek (Wikipedia), meaning chief. But why is it said differently, using a "ch" sound, from archipelago and archaeology, which use a "k" sound?

The "ch" in archenemy is pronounced similar to that in archbishop and archdiocese, even though they're followed by consonants in the latter, but a vowel the former.

What made it break from the rules?

Answer

I am not a native speaker, but I see a major difference between arch- in archenemy or in archaeology and even another one to archipelago, which would explain the different pronunciations.

In the first case it is used as a prefix. Enemy is still a word by itself, as bishop or diocese are. The arch- prefix is used to emphasize the relevance / importance / significance of this special enemy / diocese / bishop.
Here arch- derives from the Greek archi- or arkhi- (main, chief) as you mentioned before.

This is also correct for archipelago (archi meaning main), but here it is a word that can only be used as a whole. Pelago has no meaning in English. Archipelago derives from Italian (where it comes from Greek), so one cannot compare it with archbishop etc. It has not been combined from already English words.

In archaeology arch- is no prefix. Instead archaeo- could be counted as one. The word derives from the Greek words archaios (old, archaic) and logos (science).

The difference becomes clearly visible when translating to German:

Archbishop - Erzbischof

Archenemy - Erzfeind

Archdiocese - Erzdiözese

Archipelago - Archipel

Archaeology - Archäologie

As a prefix to the given words Erz- has the same meaning as arch- and like archipelago the German word Archipel derives from the Italian word. Archaeology and Archäologie are just the same.

grammatical number - "List of items" is correct. Is "items list" correct?

Actually, my question is a bit broader.

AFAIK, the latter is generally incorrect: "item" is adjective so it should be singular.

However there are some well-known exceptions like "sales manager".

Could anyone explain the rule here: when is plural form acceptable?

Update: looks like here is an answer. Any comments are welcome, however.

Answer

One thing about plurals generally, is that we can sometimes think of them as a single unit.

For example, when we speak of "sports", are we speaking of "the several different activities, each of which is a sport", or are we speaking of "the single activity of engaging in sporting activities"?

The truth of the matter is that you can just as reasonable consider it either way; as a single concept that contains a plurality, or a plurality of concepts.

For the most part this is angels-on-pins stuff, but some plurals get referred to in a close-to-singular way often enough that people tend to think of them more as singular than as plural. And so sales isn't thought of as a collection of activities each of which is a sale, but as the name of an activity that businesses engage in. Sports is thought of as a thing*. Academic subjects are often referred to in the plural (mathematics, economics) but again each thought of as a thing.

And so when people go to use these words as an adjunct, they are thinking of them as singular, and while even always-plural words like trousers and scissors can become singular in trouser press and scissor blade, these words may remain in their plural form in sales manager, sports centre and mathematics textbook.

After all, when we speak and write we generally do not apply the rules rules of grammar in a fully concious way, but automatically. If we're thinking of a plural term as being singular, then we will use that plural term as if it is singular, even if the result does not fit logically with its actual plurality.

*There's some variance of use with sports with sport appearing in some cases as the name for the general activity and some papers having sport sections where some have sports sections, but that at least some usages favour the plural form here suffices to make it fit the pattern.

Is there any logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' in traditional grammar?

To an earlier question "What's the difference between a gerund and a participle?", there is a consensus among the answers there, and I quote the most upvoted answer:

A gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a participle is a form of verb used as an adjective (or as a verb in conjunction with an auxiliary verb).

The bracketed portion is not stated in the other answers, and here I'd like to focus on the claim that 'gerund', unlike 'participle', is used as a noun. Hence the bracket.

The most upvoted answer there cites a wiki on 'gerund', which in a relevant section says:

An -ing form is termed gerund when it behaves as a verb within a clause (so that it may be modified by an adverb or have an object); but the resulting clause as a whole (sometimes consisting of only one word, the gerund itself) functions as a noun within the larger sentence.

For example, consider the sentence "Eating this cake is easy." Here, the gerund is the verb eating, which takes an object this cake. The entire clause eating this cake is then used as a noun, which in this case serves as the subject of the larger sentence.

(Boldface mine.)

In the wiki, 'noun' should be replaced with 'noun phrase' because it's not a noun but an NP that "serves as the subject of the larger sentence".

With this correction in mind, here's my analysis of the wiki example:

(1) [Eating this cake] is easy. [Eating = noun??]

Here, it's not Eating itself but the entire verb phrase Eating this cake that is used as an NP.

(2) The man [eating this cake] is my brother. [eating = adjective??]

Similarly, in (2), it's not eating itself but the entire verb phrase eating this cake that is used as an adjective phrase (AdjP).

Note here that the verb phrase eating this cake can be said to be used not as an adjective but as an AdjP because an adjective normally cannot post-modify a noun but an AdjP can.

*The man hungry is my brother.

The man [hungry for cake] is my brother.

All in all, eating in (1) is not used as a noun, just as eating in (2) is not used as an adjective. If anything, eating in (1) and (2) is a verb used as nothing other than a verb.

This becomes even clearer when you compare it to similar infinitival constructions:

(3) It is easy [to eat this cake] . [(to) eat = noun??]

(4) The man has the ability [to eat the entire cake]. [(to) eat = adjective??]

Even in traditional grammar you don't distinguish '(to) eat' in (3) from '(to) eat' in (4) by assigning different terminology, which makes the practice of distinguishing 'gerund' from 'present participle' all the more illogical.

Therefore, it's a gross mistake to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' simply because:

a gerund is a form of a verb used as a noun, whereas a (present) participle is a form of verb used as an adjective

QUESTION

Since this distinction doesn't work, is there any other logic behind continuing to distinguish 'gerund' from 'present participle' especially at a word level even in traditional grammar, if traditional grammar is to remain anything logical?

If there is no such logic, which I doubt there is, why does traditional grammar still use the 'gerund'/'present participle' dichotomy for the very same form 'V-ing'?

EDIT

For those who argue that the cited question/answer isn't a good enough source to represent 'traditional grammar', here's an excerpt from a grammar book called Common Core Grammar: High School Edition (2015) that says in part:

Students must not make the mistake of thinking that every "verb + ing" is a participle. A "verb + ing" is a participle only when used as an adjective; it is a Gerund when used as a noun: that is, as the subject of a verb, object of a verb, etc.

Apparently, the book is written by an English teacher in America for American high school students.

Also, The Practical English Usage by Swan says:

When -ing forms are used as verbs or adjectives, they are often called 'present participles'...When they are used more like nouns, they are often called 'gerunds'.

So there's no denying that many, if not all, grammars based on 'traditional grammar' or 'school grammar' make this illogical distinction between 'gerund' and 'present participle'.