adjectives - "Boys bicycle" vs. "boy's bicycle"

When describing, for example, a bicycle for boys as "a boys bicycle", should it be "boy's" or "boys"? The phrase is not implying ownership but the type of bicycle, in the same way as one for either sex might be described as unisex.

word choice - "Hot cakes" or "flapjacks" in 1890s American South?

Which term is more likely to have been used by my main character, a young man from a wealthy Macon, Georgia family, in 1893?

conjunctions - Use of "and" in a list followed by "as well"

Do you need an and after wife in this sentence?

The husband, wife, mother as well as the sister are coming.

grammar - have worked vs had worked

I have worked here for five years.
I had worked here for five years.
I worked here for five years.

Which one is gramatically correct.
Does the first sentence mean that he worked here and is still working?

And the 2nd and 3rd indicate something happened in past. And when to use these. Is there any difference between these two?

grammar - What is this wordy and complicated sentence structure?

This sentence is ridiculously complicated. What made it so?

Until last week, I would have said that your best hope for being more than a bodiless brain in a chemical stew was the fact that no scientist was yet capable of sustaining a viable brain in a jar.

Source

I kind of know what it means ...

"If you want to be more than a highly-developed brain in a jar, then your hope is dashed because it's not even possible to sustain life in a jar in the first place... at least that's what I would have said... until last week."

Am I right?

verb agreement - "The number of students are larger" vs. "The number of students is larger"

What is the correct verb to use, is it is or are?

A) The number of students are larger than before.
B) The number of students is larger than before.

phrasing - "That will have to" vs "Which will have to"

I am not really sure if this sentence is translated correctly into English :

Access keys have been researched and the implementation will be done in a future sprint, that will have something to do with GUI.

1. Is the use of the word "that" in this sentence correct?


2. Can I, or should I, exchange "that" for "which"?

Answer

Access keys have been researched, the implementation will be done in a future sprint which will have something to do with GUI

I would also think about swapping "have something to do with" for "pertain to"

Combining past and present tense

I get a bit confused when you can and can't combine the present and past tense. For example, look at the following sentence:

When the plane landed, I looked out the window because I wanted to see what Norway looks like.

Should it say, "Norway looks like" or "Norway looked like?" I ask because when I looked out the window, I didn't want to see what Norway looked like twenty years ago.

Any opinions?

word choice - "Expectations from" vs "Expectations for"

I have good expectations from traveling.

I have good expectations for traveling.

Which one is correct? From this post, it seems that "expectations for" is correct because we are talking about an "anticipated result in store with the future." However, "expectations from" sounds natural to me too.

Answer

This is all about past and future tense.

I have good expectations from traveling.

From infers that the speaker is drawing from experiences of travelling in the past on which they base their ideas (expectations) of a future journey.

I have good expectations for traveling.

The speaker has ideas for a future journey. There is no allusion of where they construct their expectations from.

syntax - Nominal and Adjectival

1. The fact that you are here is an indication of your good intentions

My analysis of the clause in bold is Noun-clause/Adjectival/Post-nominal modifier.

However, my teacher's answer is slightly different. He said that the clause in bold is Noun-clause/Nominal/Post-nominal modifier

2. The dress that Melissa is wearing was designed in Paris.

However, in the sentence above, my teacher said that the clause in bold is Noun-clause/Adjectival/Post-nominal modifier

My questions are:
What is the difference between the Noun-clause in the first sentence and the second sentence?
Both of them modify the preceding noun, so what makes the first one "Nominal"?

'were + past tense verb' v. 'are + past tense verb'

Which is correct?

a. The Justice Secretary said prosecutors were allowed to join the event.

b. The Justice Secretary said prosecutors are allowed to join the event.

Given that this news was posted on 11am of that day, while the event was from 9am to 2pm.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/474633/prosecutors-allowed-to-join-million-people-march-de-lima

So when is it proper to use 'are + past tense verb' and 'were + past tense verb'?

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

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

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

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

word choice - How exactly does one determine when to use I or Me?

I got into a good argument with myself when a Lecturer asked:

"Who said that?"

and I replied

"I."

Actually, I didn't just want to stop there, but I felt there was no need to continue and that it was correct. However some argued that "Me" was the correct reply.

Since the reply was not a sentence, it was difficult for me to conclude whether I should refer to an objective Me or a subjective I.

So in short, I want to know whether there is any other clear parameters that defines when to use which and how?

Answer

Either works fine in this case, although me is better. The person who responds with I is actually saying I did but holding back the did. The person who responds with me is simply using the customary emphatic form.

But yes, certainly I is for subject forms and me for object forms. There are just a few situations where what appears to be an object form (but isn’t), are called for, such as “Me, I wouldn’t say it works that way.”

Note that French works the same way in this regard, whereas Spanish does not.

american english - A/an hypothesis?

Is it a or an hypothesis? I am not a native speaker (and not very language talented) so I would appreciate any explanation/rules.

figures of speech - Of the difference between zeugma and syllepsis

I am confused about what is the relative meaning of zeugma compared to syllepsis, both in its current meaning and possibly in former understandings of these words.

The New Oxford American Dictionary has:

zeugma
a figure of speech in which a word applies to two others in different senses (e.g., John and his license expired last week) or to two others of which it semantically suits only one (e.g., with weeping eyes and hearts).

---

syllepsis
a figure of speech in which a word is applied to two others in different senses (e.g., caught the train and a bad cold) or to two others of which it grammatically suits only one (e.g., neither they nor it is working).

According to this, there is some overlap, though zeugma is more about semantics and syllepsis about grammar. Online sources on this issue conflict, with some insisting one the difference (“not to be confused with zeugma”) and others stating that the two have merged.

Can someone offer a clear view of the differences, present or past, between these terms?

Answer

The OED, in the definition of syllepsis reports that is also another term for zeugma.

The Collin English Dictionary reports that syllepsis means "(in grammar or rhetoric) the use of a single sentence construction in which a verb, adjective, etc is made to cover two syntactical functions, as the verb form have in "she and they have promised to come."
Also the CED reports that syllepsis is another word for zeugma (as second meaning).

grammar - How to punctuate a quote of a question?

It is suggested my question is a duplicate of How to punctuate an embedded quoted question within a declarative sentence?. It is not, that answer does not address the problem of a quote within a quote, it only addresses the problem of a quote within prose. So, for example, it uses double quotation marks around the quote instead of single, and doesn't address whether I have a comma after the singly-quoted quotation or not. My original question follows. Note that the character Jack is speaking and part of his speech is to quote a question asked earlier by his daughter.

A character is speaking to another character, and quotes a question of the other character then goes on about that question.

"No," Jack said, "You asked me, 'Can I go out with Jenna?', and I said yes, but you didn't tell me Bobby would be there, and I've told you, you cannot go anywhere with Bobby!"

Am I punctuating 'Can I go out with Jenna?' correctly?

Answer

The rules are well established for sentences that start or end with the quote. See the answer to the question “How to punctuate an embedded quoted question within a declarative sentence?”. That answer refers to section 3.7.7 of Modern Language Association Handbook, 6th edition.

In short, when sentences end with a quote, use interpunction as follows:

You informed me, “I would like to go out with Jenna.” I was not surprised.

You yelled out, “I love Jenna!” Everyone could hear it.

You asked me, “Can I go out with Jenna?” I considered the question.

And when sentences start with a quote, a final period at the end of the quote becomes a comma, but a final question mark or exclamation point is left unchanged.

“I would like to go out with Jenna,” you informed me. I was not surprised.

“I love Jenna!” you yelled out. Everyone could hear it.

“Can I go out with Jenna?” you asked me. I considered the question.

When the interpunction is not part of the quote, British and American style differ: in American usage, interpunction following the closing quote mark is moved inside the quote marks. (This example is copied from the answer by Jay mentioned and linked above.)

British: Today we learned the words “apple”, “pear”, “orange”, and “grape”.

American: Today we learned the words “apple,” “pear,” “orange,” and “grape.”

I prefer the British usage, as it is more logical, but I appreciate the æsthetic appeal of the American style, in most cases.

---

For quotes nested inside quotes, alternate between single and double quote marks. Double quote marks are usually used for the outermost quote.

Yes, you are punctuating correctly:

“No,” Jack said, “You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’ I said yes.”

---

The specific issue in this question is that there are multiple independent clauses, separated with commas followed by “and” or “but”, with one of the non-final clauses having a quote at the end.

The punctuation of the clause itself is not in dispute. Single quote marks are used because the clause itself is part of an outer quote.

You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’

In British usage, yes, you are punctuating correctly. It is perfectly natural to add the next clause as follows:

You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’, and I said yes.

In American usage, a punctuation mark after a closing quote mark is moved inside the quote marks, even when that doesn’t make sense semantically. If you follow this rule to the extreme, you would have to write:

*You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?,’ and I said yes.

I prefer the British style in any case, but in this case more than usually. The American style may have an æsthetic appeal in most cases, but in this case it looks ugly. It looks so ugly, that I suspect even American editors would consider this wrong. But what would be the alternative in American usage? I suppose that one could drop the comma. The result is not as ugly.

You asked me, ‘Can I go out with Jenna?’ and I said yes.

verbs - When to use present perfect and when present perfect continuous?

In my English book it says ''I have done'' is used when an action is ended, but where there are consequences in the future. For example: 'There has been an accident, and as a result the street is blocked'.

I understand how to use it, but I am puzzled about the difference with the present perfect continuous' For example: 'It has been raining (and now the street is wet)'. Why could we not use the present perfect?

Why can't we say ''It has rained''? When should we use the present perfect and when the present perfect continuous?

orthography - "The species/species'/species's survival..."

Ok, I am really confused regarding apostrophe with the s and the end of the word. I have looked through multiple sites only to see multiple viewpoints. And, on tests they test it differently. So, can anyone help me with the following problem:

The only evidence of the species survival before its rediscovery at the end of the century was an unconfirmed recording.

Would it be species' or species's ?

---

There is a lot of advice on the internet about how to use possessive S with names such as the following:

Per APA Style, the answer is that the possessive of a singular name is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, even when the name ends in s (see p. 96 in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual). Therefore, in the example above, the correct usage would be “Adams’s (2013) work.” Although this presentation may look awkward to some writers, the rule for forming the possessive does not change just because the name ends in s.

However, it is important to note the following exception to this rule: You should use an apostrophe only with the singular form of names ending in unpronounced s (see p. 97 in the Publication Manual). Therefore, if you were writing a paper about the philosopher Descartes, to form the possessive with his name, you would need to just add an apostrophe (e.g., Descartes’ theory).

To help illustrate these guidelines, let’s look at a few more examples of properly formatted possessives:

Sigmund Freud’s method

Jesus’s disciples

Charles Dickens’s novels

Socrates’s life

François Rabelais’ writings (note that Rabelais ends with an unpronounced s)

However, the word species in the sentence above is not a name. The case with species does not seem to be a normal case like dog's or dogs' or even on a par with bus's or buses'. It's difficult to put ones finger on why, though.

Answer

The online Chicago Manual of Style (both 16th and 17th editions) states:

When the singular form of a noun ending in s is the same as the plural (i.e., the plural is uninflected), the possessives of both are formed by the addition of an apostrophe only. If ambiguity threatens, use of to avoid the possessive.

And gives the following examples:

politics’ true meaning
economics’ forerunners
this species’ first record (or, better, the first record of this species)

This is section 7.19 of the 16th edition and 7.20 of the 17th edition (2017).

Obviously this differs to my comments saying that the CMOS says species's, which I took on faith from a third party website.

However, in speaking, despite remarks by others, I'm not sure I would rule out saying the species's survival (with the extra syllable) just to clarify that I'm talking about the possessive form of the word. This is my opinion only.

Inversion in affirmative sentences with a complex subject

I just wrote to somebody almost these exact words:

"I cannot remember when was the last time I felt like this before"

and then it hit me I made a boo-boo as the sentence is affirmative, so I should have gone with

"I cannot remember when the last time I felt like this before was"

Or not? The 2nd sentence sounds awkward, and I vaguely remember somebody explaining that in such cases inversion might be retained...

Answer

The embedded question in

"I cannot remember when was the last time I felt like this before"

if realized as an independent declarative clause, might be, for instance,

"The last time I felt like this before was June."  

or, better,

"June was the last time I felt like this before."

The latter is better because English dislikes having long complicated constituents followed by simple short ones -- there are several extraposition-like mechanisms to avoid them. The reason the subject sounds better at the end of the embedded question in your example is this tendency of complex constituents to come toward the end of constructions.

The general rule that you get subject-verb inversion only in independent questions, not in embedded questions, is not violated here, because the movement of the original subject to the end in your example has nothing to do with the clause being a question. It happens also in non-questions, as I've just noted.

grammar - "Does anyone recommend a place to go in New York?"

"Does anyone recommend a place to go in New York?"

can "a place to go" be a variable?

"Does anyone have a recommendation for a place to go in New York?" sounds better, but is the above sentence grammatically legal?

grammatical number - Pluralizing abbreviations where the noun is not the last word

For abbreviations - both acronyms and initialisms - where the last word in the abbreviation is the noun, I'm accustomed to adding an 's' with no apostrophe (e.g. ATMs), as described in the answer to this question: What is the correct way to pluralize an acronym?

But how do you pluralize abbreviations where the noun is not the last word? E.g. 'Point of Presence' (POP)

I can see how 'POPs' could read 'Point of Presences', when the intention is 'Points of Presence.'

Answer

Virtually always, the s follows the full abbreviation even when a word other than the last one is the proper plural. Paul Brians in Common Errors in English Usage cites

POWs, RPMs, WMDs

This style is also recommended in the AP Style Guide, so it is what you will see in most newspapers. But not all.

The other option is to discard the s altogether, as in this news story from the Cleveland-area News-Herald:

Byrd had five home runs and 19 RBI in 34 games.

This is certainly not a typo. Many commentators prefer this, but it is simply that, a preference. As a former editor at ESPN, I had this discussion many times with writers and other editors, many insisting that there is only one right way to do it. Clearly, that is not true. If you prefer the s, use it, but only after the entire abbreviation. Nobody, but nobody, uses RsBI.

Using “would” with the present tense in conditional clauses

I have met such sentence in my tutorial text:

"Today my brother has announced that he is going to enter the university next year. I wondered if he had thought it over properly. He would be able to pass all the exams providing he studies at full speed, wouldn't he?"

I wonder if we can use "would" with present tense in the conditional clause. I feel that it may have something with subjunctive uncertainty, but I'm not sure. All grammar rules I've found prescribe to use "will" instead of "would" in this example, as it is 1st conditional. Can you tell me, please, if such usage is ok and how can it be explained grammatically?

Another example I've met on this forum while trying to browse the answer to my question (It was a part of the answer to a related question, but it didn't clarify the usage rules):

"If you are a mathematician, and understand the conjugal relationship between real and imaginary numbers, you would see that the subjunctive is the imaginary conjugate of the real world.

The a/an/the article issue in different contextes

I would be happy to get some confirmation whether I understand the use of the articles correctly in my sentences:

1. Case:

   
   
   
   
   
   • sentence: I heard you've got a beautiful house.
   
   
   • context: I haven't seen the house yet.
   
   



2. Case:

   
   
   
   
   
   • sentence: You've got beautiful house. (no article at all)
   
   
   
   • context: I am now inside the house in question.
   
   



3. Case:

   
   
   
   
   
   • sentence: I heard you have sold the beautiful house.
   
   
   • context: I've seen the house and the receiver of this sentence is the owner.
   
   

I am pretty sure about 1 and 3 but what about Case 2? Can I omit the article when I talk about a specific thing which is just in front of me?

Answer

I heard you've got a beautiful house.

This says that your house belongs to the set of houses that are beautiful. It is one of the members of that set, therefore indefinite article.

You've got a beautiful house.

This also says that your house belongs to the set of house that are beautiful.

The fact that you are standing in it at the time, rather than reporting what you heard, does not change what you are saying about the house. You are still saying that it is one of the set of houses that are beautiful, and thus "a beautiful house".

grammatical number - Fish Irregular Plural Forms

Several species of fish have names that are both singular and plural form. These include cod, flounder, salmon, and trout, they are used to describe one fish or ten. Does this stem from fish being both singular and plural? Was the irregular plural form passed along to the species of fish?

word choice - "... that had stopped half an hour ago" VS " ... that had stopped half an hour before/earlier"

This is a sentence I read:

The engines that had stopped half an hour ago were in action again.

In my opinion, ago in the above sentence is used incorrectly. It should be replaced by before or earlier:

The engines that had stopped half an hour before were in action again.
The engines that had stopped half an hour earlier were in action again.

I think ago can only used in the past tense rather than past perfect tense.
Here is a correct sentence, making the correct use of ago as follows:

The engines that stopped half an hour ago are in action again.

Is this thinking correct?

word choice - Should "forty-year" in this context be hyphenated?

Mr. Willow’s more than forty-year experience in the industry persuaded me to apply.

Or is the following a better way of saying it?

Mr. Willow's more than forty years of experience in the industry persuaded me to apply.

Are they both correct, or should the hyphen in the first example be removed?

word choice - "Him/Her" vs "Himself/Herself"

As a unit admin I’m often typing award certificates. The last line of the award citation usually goes something like this:

Private Joan Smith actions reflect great credit upon herself, the 120th Jumping Jacks Company, the 13th fighter Battalion and the United States Army.

It was recently pointed out to me that this is correct:

Private Joan Smith actions reflect great credit upon her, the 120th Jumping Jacks Company, the 13th fighter Battalion and the United States Army.

The first way is what I’m used to seeing and it looks right to me, but has always sounded awkward when reciting it. When I say the other way out loud it sounds better, but both seem to work. Which is correct?

Answer

Her is correct here, and not herself:

Private Joan Smith's actions reflect great credit upon her, the 120th Jumping Jacks Company, the 13th fighter Battalion and the United States Army.

Use a reflexive pronoun where the subject of the verb is also the object.

In this case, the subject is Private Joan Smith's actions, and they are reflecting credit on to Private Joan Smith. Thus the subject of reflects is not the object (great credit) nor even the indirect object (Joan Smith), and the pronoun should not be reflexive.

grammar - Flipping Sentences and Verb Agreement

Is the following sentence grammatically correct in regards subject-verb agreement?

One of the main facets of the soul is the feelings humans treasure
above all: love and compassion.

The sentence seems to retain its meaning when flipped around, revealing that "the feelings" might be the true subject, and indicating that the verb form "is" could be incorrect. For example:

The feelings humans treasure above all -- love and compassion -- are one of the main facets of the soul.

Answer

Yes. What you are referring to is called subject-complement agreement. When you have a subject and complement that differ in number, the conjugation of the verb is determined by the number of the subject, not the complement.

Example 1:

• One of the things is feelings. ("One" - singular subject; "is" - third-person singular)


• Feelings are one of the things. ("Feelings" - plural subject; "are" - third-person plural)

Example 2:

• The States are the Union.


• The Union is the States.

Example 3:

• John and Jack are the first team to arrive.


• The first team to arrive is John and Jack.

grammar - "It would be better if you drink/drank all the water"

Which one of the following is grammatically correct?

It would be better if you drink all the water.

It would be better if you drank all the water.

The question is, obviously, about the use of the past tense.

punctuation - Should I use a comma before "and" or "or"?

Is using a comma then an "and" or an "or" after it proper punctuation?
Example:

• I fell over, and hurt my knee.


• Should I go, or not?

Answer

Whether it is correct to use a comma before a coordinating conjunction ("and", "but", "or", "nor", "for", "yet", "so") depends on the situation. There are three primary uses of conjunctions:

1. When a coordinating conjunction is used to connect two independent clauses, a comma is always used. Examples:

   
   
   
   
   
   • I hit my brother with a stick, and he cried.
   
   
   
   • The rain stopped, and the sun came out again.
   
   
   • Should I eat dinner, or should I play a game?
   
   



2. When a coordinating conjunction is used to connect a dependent clause, a comma is never used. This includes both of your given examples. Other examples:

   
   
   
   
   
   • The boy ran to his room and cried.
   
   
   • Frank is a healthy and active child.
   
   
   • Should I eat dinner or play a game?
   
   




3. When a coordinating conjunction is used to connect three or more items or clauses, a comma is optional (though I personally prefer to use one). Examples:

   
   
   
   
   
   • I bought cheese, crackers, and drinks at the store.
   
   
   • Should I eat dinner, play a game, or go to the store?
   
   

capitalization - Is it proper to capitalize "its" in a title?

For instance, say a book is titled "Genesis and Its Interpretations". Is it correct to capitalize "its" in the title?

uncountable nouns - Mixing countability; how to correctly say "there is plenty of rice, earthquakes and typhoons"?

In this question I wrote the following sentence, knowing full well that it has problems.

Where I live right now there is plenty of rice, earthquakes and typhoons.

Both earthquake and typhoon are countable nouns, while rice in this context is probably considered uncountable.

I could split this up into two sentences, or separate the rice from the other two within the sentence, for example: Where I live right now there are plenty of earthquakes and typhoons to go along with the rice although I'm sure someone else could find a more graceful way to do it.

There are some possibly helpful recommendations in this answer but I'm not sure how to apply them here.

But here I am asking if there is a way that I can keep the three nouns as close together as possible.

Answer

The OP asks: “But here I am asking if there is a way that I can keep the three nouns as close together as possible”

One sentence.

Earthquakes and typhoons are as plentiful as rice where I live.

tenses - how many conditional sentence types are possible?

I wonder how many conditional sentence types are possible. Basically, there are four main and two mixed types. By mixing tenses, it could be up to nine of them. Are the rest viable?

I came across the following examples in Full Spate Pre-Profficiency Primer:

• After you have just sold alcohol to a young guy. If he is if under eighteen, you should not have sold him the alcohol.




• If he promised to bring the drinks, he will.




• If you will take a seat, the doctor will see you shortly. (Likely, the former will demonstrates politeness only.)




• I would be grateful if you would tell me a little about your friends. (The same politeness, but would instead.)




• If he will keep eating all those biscuits, he can not expect to stay as slim as he used to be.

I would be grateful if someone could shed more light on the topic.

Answer

Last time I counted them, I found two hundred and seventy-seven English conditionals. There are of course others.

See this answer for details.

         I: If he will jump, you will not have to.
        II: If he will jump, he can win.
       III: If he will jump, he may win.
        IV: If he will jump, you must follow.
         V: If he will jump, you dare not follow.

        VI: If he will jump, you need not follow.

       VII: If he would escape, let him find help.
      VIII: If he would escape, he will find help.
        IX: If he would escape, he shall find help.
         X: If he would escape, he should find help.
        XI: If he would escape, he would find help.
       XII: If he would escape, he must find help.
      XIII: If he would escape, he can find help.
       XIV: If he would escape, he could find help.

        XV: If he would escape, he dare not find help.
       XVI: If he would escape, he need not find help.

      XVII: If he escapes, catch him.
     XVIII: If he escapes, you can catch him.
       XIX: If he escapes, you catch him.
        XX: If he escapes, you could catch him.
       XXI: If he escapes, you may catch him.
      XXII: If he escapes, you might catch him.
     XXIII: If he escapes, you must catch him.

      XXIV: If he escapes, you shall catch him.
       XXV: If he escapes, you should catch him.
      XXVI: If he escapes, you will catch him.
     XXVII: If he escapes, you would catch him.

    XXVIII: If he does escape, catch him.
      XXIX: If he does escape, you can catch him.
       XXX: If he does escape, you catch him.
      XXXI: If he does escape, you could catch him.
     XXXII: If he does escape, you may catch him.

    XXXIII: If he does escape, you might catch him.
     XXXIV: If he does escape, you must catch him.
      XXXV: If he does escape, you shall catch him.
     XXXVI: If he does escape, you should catch him.
    XXXVII: If he does escape, you will catch him.
   XXXVIII: If he does escape, you would catch him.

     XXXIX: If he should escape, catch him.
        XL: If he should escape, you can catch him.
       XLI: If he should escape, you catch him.

      XLII: If he should escape, you could catch him.
     XLIII: If he should escape, you may catch him.
      XLIV: If he should escape, you might catch him.
       XLV: If he should escape, you must catch him.
      XLVI: If he should escape, you shall catch him.
     XLVII: If he should escape, you should catch him.
    XLVIII: If he should escape, you will catch him.
      XLIX: If he should escape, you would catch him.

         L: If he escape, catch him.

        LI: If he escape, you can catch him.
       LII: If he escape, you catch him.
      LIII: If he escape, you could catch him.
       LIV: If he escape, you may catch him.
        LV: If he escape, you might catch him.
       LVI: If he escape, you must catch him.
      LVII: If he escape, you shall catch him.
     LVIII: If he escape, you should catch him.
       LIX: If he escape, you will catch him.
        LX: If he escape, you would catch him.


       LXI: If he dare escape, catch him.
      LXII: If he dare escape, you can catch him.
     LXIII: If he dare escape, you catch him.
      LXIV: If he dare escape, you could catch him.
       LXV: If he dare escape, you may catch him.
      LXVI: If he dare escape, you might catch him.
     LXVII: If he dare escape, you must catch him.
    LXVIII: If he dare escape, you shall catch him.
      LXIX: If he dare escape, you should catch him.

       LXX: If he dare escape, you will catch him.
      LXXI: If he dare escape, you would catch him.

     LXXII: Should he escape, catch him.
    LXXIII: Should he escape, you can catch him.
     LXXIV: Should he escape, you catch him.
      LXXV: Should he escape, you could catch him.
     LXXVI: Should he escape, you may catch him.
    LXXVII: Should he escape, you might catch him.
   LXXVIII: Should he escape, you must catch him.

     LXXIX: Should he escape, you shall catch him.
      LXXX: Should he escape, you should catch him.
     LXXXI: Should he escape, you will catch him.
    LXXXII: Should he escape, you would catch him.

   LXXXIII: Dare he escape, catch him.
    LXXXIV: Dare he escape, you can catch him.
     LXXXV: Dare he escape, you catch him.
    LXXXVI: Dare he escape, you could catch him.
   LXXXVII: Dare he escape, you may catch him.

  LXXXVIII: Dare he escape, you might catch him.
    LXXXIX: Dare he escape, you must catch him.
        XC: Dare he escape, you shall catch him.
       XCI: Dare he escape, you should catch him.
      XCII: Dare he escape, you will catch him.
     XCIII: Dare he escape, you would catch him.

      XCIV: If he has escaped, follow him.
       XCV: If he has escaped, he could fall.
      XCVI: If he has escaped, he dare not fail.

     XCVII: If he has escaped, he has fallen.
    XCVIII: If he has escaped, he may have fallen.
      XCIX: If he has escaped, he might fall.
         C: If he has escaped, he might have fallen.
        CI: If he has escaped, he must have fallen.
       CII: If he has escaped, he need not know.
      CIII: If he has escaped, he will have fallen.
       CIV: If he has escaped, he would fall.
        CV: If he has escaped, you can follow.
       CVI: If he has escaped, you could follow.

      CVII: If he has escaped, you may follow.
     CVIII: If he has escaped, you might follow.
       CIX: If he has escaped, you must follow.
        CX: If he has escaped, you shall follow.
       CXI: If he has escaped, you should follow.
      CXII: If he has escaped, you will follow.
     CXIII: If he has escaped, you would follow.

      CXIV: If he escaped, he fell.
       CXV: If he escaped, follow him.

      CXVI: If he escaped, he could fall.
     CXVII: If he escaped, he durst not fall.
    CXVIII: If he escaped, he has fallen.
      CXIX: If he escaped, he may have fallen.
       CXX: If he escaped, he might fall.
      CXXI: If he escaped, he might have fallen.
     CXXII: If he escaped, he must have fallen.
    CXXIII: If he escaped, he need not fall.
     CXXIV: If he escaped, he will have fallen.
      CXXV: If he escaped, he would have fallen.

     CXXVI: If he escaped, he would fall.
    CXXVII: If he escaped, you can follow.
   CXXVIII: If he escaped, you could follow.
     CXXIX: If he escaped, you may follow.
      CXXX: If he escaped, you might follow.
     CXXXI: If he escaped, you must follow.
    CXXXII: If he escaped, you shall follow.
   CXXXIII: If he escaped, you should follow.
    CXXXIV: If he escaped, you will follow.
     CXXXV: If he escaped, you would follow.


    CXXXVI: If he did escape, he fell.
   CXXXVII: If he did escape, follow him.
  CXXXVIII: If he did escape, he could fall.
    CXXXIX: If he did escape, he durst not fall.
       CXL: If he did escape, he has fallen.
      CXLI: If he did escape, he may have fallen.
     CXLII: If he did escape, he might fall.
    CXLIII: If he did escape, he might have fallen.
     CXLIV: If he did escape, he must have fallen.

      CXLV: If he did escape, he need not fall.
     CXLVI: If he did escape, he will have fallen.
    CXLVII: If he did escape, he would have fallen.
   CXLVIII: If he did escape, he would fall.
     CXLIX: If he did escape, you can follow.
        CL: If he did escape, you could follow.
       CLI: If he did escape, you may follow.
      CLII: If he did escape, you might follow.
     CLIII: If he did escape, you must follow.
      CLIV: If he did escape, you shall follow.

       CLV: If he did escape, you should follow.
      CLVI: If he did escape, you will follow.
     CLVII: If he did escape, you would follow.

    CLVIII: Did he escape, he fell.
      CLIX: Did he escape, follow him.
       CLX: Did he escape, he could fall.
      CLXI: Did he escape, he durst not fall.
     CLXII: Did he escape, he has fallen.
    CLXIII: Did he escape, he may have fallen.

     CLXIV: Did he escape, he might fall.
      CLXV: Did he escape, he might have fallen.
     CLXVI: Did he escape, he must have fallen.
    CLXVII: Did he escape, he need not fall.
   CLXVIII: Did he escape, he will have fallen.
     CLXIX: Did he escape, he would have fallen.
      CLXX: Did he escape, he would fall.
     CLXXI: Did he escape, you can follow.
    CLXXII: Did he escape, you could follow.
   CLXXIII: Did he escape, you may follow.

    CLXXIV: Did he escape, you might follow.
     CLXXV: Did he escape, you must follow.
    CLXXVI: Did he escape, you shall follow.
   CLXXVII: Did he escape, you should follow.
  CLXXVIII: Did he escape, you will follow.
    CLXXIX: Did he escape, you would follow.

     CLXXX: If he durst escape, he fell.
    CLXXXI: If he durst escape, follow him.
   CLXXXII: If he durst escape, he could fall.

  CLXXXIII: If he durst escape, he durst not fall.
   CLXXXIV: If he durst escape, he has fallen.
    CLXXXV: If he durst escape, he may have fallen.
   CLXXXVI: If he durst escape, he might fall.
  CLXXXVII: If he durst escape, he might have fallen.
 CLXXXVIII: If he durst escape, he must have fallen.
   CLXXXIX: If he durst escape, he need not fall.
       CXC: If he durst escape, he will have fallen.
      CXCI: If he durst escape, he would have fallen.
     CXCII: If he durst escape, he would fall.

    CXCIII: If he durst escape, you can follow.
     CXCIV: If he durst escape, you could follow.
      CXCV: If he durst escape, you may follow.
     CXCVI: If he durst escape, you might follow.
    CXCVII: If he durst escape, you must follow.
   CXCVIII: If he durst escape, you shall follow.
     CXCIX: If he durst escape, you should follow.
        CC: If he durst escape, you will follow.
       CCI: If he durst escape, you would follow.


      CCII: Durst he escape, he fell.
     CCIII: Durst he escape, follow him.
      CCIV: Durst he escape, he could fall.
       CCV: Durst he escape, he durst not fall.
      CCVI: Durst he escape, he has fallen.
     CCVII: Durst he escape, he may have fallen.
    CCVIII: Durst he escape, he might fall.
      CCIX: Durst he escape, he might have fallen.
       CCX: Durst he escape, he must have fallen.
      CCXI: Durst he escape, he need not fall.

     CCXII: Durst he escape, he will have fallen.
    CCXIII: Durst he escape, he would have fallen.
     CCXIV: Durst he escape, he would fall.
      CCXV: Durst he escape, you can follow.
     CCXVI: Durst he escape, you could follow.
    CCXVII: Durst he escape, you may follow.
   CCXVIII: Durst he escape, you might follow.
     CCXIX: Durst he escape, you must follow.
      CCXX: Durst he escape, you shall follow.
     CCXXI: Durst he escape, you should follow.

    CCXXII: Durst he escape, you will follow.
   CCXXIII: Durst he escape, you would follow.

    CCXXIV: If he had escaped, he could have known.
     CCXXV: If he had escaped, he might have known.
    CCXXVI: If he had escaped, he should have known.
   CCXXVII: If he had escaped, he would have known.

  CCXXVIII: Had he escaped, he could have known.
    CCXXIX: Had he escaped, he might have known.

     CCXXX: Had he escaped, he should have known.
    CCXXXI: Had he escaped, he would have known.

   CCXXXII: If he were to escape, he could fall.
  CCXXXIII: If he were to escape, he dare not fall.
   CCXXXIV: If he were to escape, he might fall.
    CCXXXV: If he were to escape, he must not fall.
   CCXXXVI: If he were to escape, he would fall.

  CCXXXVII: Were he to escape, he could fall.

 CCXXXVIII: Were he to escape, he dare not fall.
   CCXXXIX: Were he to escape, he might fall.
      CCXL: Were he to escape, he must not fall.
     CCXLI: Were he to escape, he would fall.

    CCXLII: If he can jump, he can escape.
   CCXLIII: If he can jump, he will escape.
    CCXLIV: If he can jump, he shall escape.
     CCXLV: If he can jump, he should escape.
    CCXLVI: If he can jump, he may escape.

   CCXLVII: If he can jump, he might escape.
  CCXLVIII: If he can jump, he must escape.

    CCXLIX: If he could jump, he escaped.
       CCL: If he could jump, he did escape.
      CCLI: If he could jump, he could escape.
     CCLII: If he could jump, he would escape.
    CCLIII: If he could jump, he might escape.
     CCLIV: If he could jump, he will have escaped.
      CCLV: If he could jump, he may have escaped.

     CCLVI: If he could jump, he must have escaped.
    CCLVII: If he could jump, he should have escaped.

   CCLVIII: If he might jump, he could escape.
     CCLIX: If he might jump, he would escape.
      CCLX: If he might jump, he might escape.

     CCLXI: If he will have jumped, he will have perished.
    CCLXII: If he might have jumped, you would have stopped him.
   CCLXIII: If he would have jumped, you would have had to catch him.

    CCLXIV: If he could have jumped, he would have done so.
     CCLXV: If he should have jumped, you would have had to catch him.

    CCLXVI: Might he have jumped, he would have stopped him.
   CCLXVII: Could he have jumped, he would have done so.
  CCLXVIII: Should he have jumped, you would have had to catch him.

    CCLXIX: But cut the wrong wire and he regrets it the rest of his life.
     CCLXX: But cut the wrong wire and he need not live to regret it.
    CCLXXI: But cut the wrong wire and he dare not live to regret it.

   CCLXXII: But cut the wrong wire and he will regret it the rest of his life.
  CCLXXIII: But cut the wrong wire and he would regret it the rest of his life.
   CCLXXIV: But cut the wrong wire and he shall regret it the rest of his life.
    CCLXXV: But cut the wrong wire and he should regret it the rest of his life.
   CCLXXVI: But cut the wrong wire and he may regret it the rest of his life.
  CCLXXVII: But cut the wrong wire and he might regret it the rest of his life.

punctuation - Commas in sentences with "when"

Is the comma necessary in the sentence below?

When a printing is finished, printer sends events to server.

Answer

All punctuation rules depend on your style (or preference) and the manual that you (or your editor) use.

If you have an introductory phrase, clause, or words that come before the main clause, you are supposed to use the comma. The following rule from Purdue University Online Writing Lab seems to confirm this.

2. Use commas after introductory a) clauses, b) phrases, or c) words that come before the main clause.

a. Common starter words for introductory clauses that should be

followed by a comma include after, although, as, because, if, since,
when, while.

While I was eating, the cat scratched at the door.

Because her alarm clock was broken, she was late for class.

However, don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast).

As explained above, you should not place the comma when the clause order is reversed.

Printer sends events to server when a printing is finished.

etymology - Difference between "help + [infinitive]" with and without "to"

Englishgrammar.org has an article discussing cases where an infinitive does not use the word "to." One case is with many causative verbs like "make" and "let."

I want the water to run

*I want the water run

I make the water run.

*I make the water to run.

It is also the case with "perception" verbs.

I see the water run.

I hear the water run.

The site describes "help" as a special case that can be followed by an infinitive either with or without "to."

She helps me stand.

She helps me to stand.

My question, essentially, is why "help" is a special case that can either ellipse the "to" or not, and what the semantic implications of that choice are?

My hunch is that since one category of other verbs that do not require a "to" infinitive are causative, the choice of whether or not to include "to" has a semantic bearing on whether the subject in the sentence is perceived as a causal agent.

So in the example, "she helps me [to] stand," we would infer from the inclusion of "to" that the subject (she) is less of a causal agent than when "to" is excluded.

It seems possible that there are no broadly applicable implications from the inclusion or exclusion of "to" in an infinitive following "help," that perhaps it is an aberration by way of etymology or coincidence, but I've been unable to find sources that analyze the case beyond identifying it as an outlier.

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 . . .’

Inversion after "than"/"as"

I'd like to know (1) which of the following is the most natural and (2) whether any of the following is unnatural or ungrammatical:

(A) My system is no more expensive than yours would be.

(B) My system is no more expensive than would be yours.

(C) My system is no more expensive than would yours be.

Edit: I'm adding three more examples with "as". The same question as above.

(D) My system is expensive, as yours would be.

(E) My system is expensive, as would be yours.

(F) My system is expensive, as would yours be.

Answer

(A) My system is no more expensive than yours would be.

(B) My system is no more expensive than would be yours.

(C) My system is no more expensive than would yours be.

Version #A is a sorta default kinda version. Version #B might be preferable when the speaker wants to put a contrastive subject in end position. Version #C is ungrammatical: ". . . the subject follows the sequence would be: it cannot invert with would alone, . . ." (CGEL, page 1107).

Inversion in the comparative clause can occur under certain conditions. This topic is discussed in the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), page 1107.

word choice - How do you decide which phrase to use when asking people to repeat what they said?

There are many different ways to ask people to repeat what they have just said. For example:

• Huh?



• What?


• Sorry?


• Pardon?


• What's that?


• Say that again, please


• I beg your pardon?

I've ordered them according to my understanding of their level of formality. I'd classify interjection "huh?" as the least formal and phrase "I beg your pardon" as the most formal.

Apart from the formality that you decide to imply, are there any other factors involved when you choose which one of these phrases you will use?

Answer

A more accurate order of formality (least to most) would be:

• Huh?


• What?


• What's that?


• Come again?


• Say that again, please



• Sorry?


• Excuse me?


• Pardon?


• I beg your pardon?

There are of course many more variations on these. A few of these are a lot more common than offers, in particular pardon and sorry which may be used in anything from casual to formal speech. Huh? or even what? are often considered quite rude unless you are speaking casually to a peer/acquaintance.

As mentioned in comments, several of these phrases are more commonly used ironically than directly/literally, most notably "Excuse me?" or "I beg your pardon?" - either is used to express disbelief or indignity.

meaning - Two imperative clauses joined by coordinating conjunction taken as a conditional

I would be inclined to parse the sentence "Nobody move and nobody get hurt" as two commands:

1. Nobody move.


2. Nobody get hurt.

In other words, this is equivalent to "Nobody move or get hurt" (for nitpickers: assume conjunctive/inclusive or). As long as I'm only reading and not in a bank with armed gunmen, in which case I would probably ignore any possible grammatical issues.

This answer suggests that this is equivalent to "Nobody move and nobody gets hurt", which in turn is equivalent to "If nobody moves, nobody will get hurt".

Other sentences with a similar construction that come to mind are "Nobody move and nobody say a word" or "Nobody move and nobody shoot anyone" (vs. "Nobody move and nobody shoots anyone").

Admittedly all these sentences have a very strong contextual inference. In the last example, "Nobody move and nobody shoots anyone" clearly means "if nobody moves, nobody will shoot anyone", while "Nobody move and nobody shoot anyone" should be directed to the ones holding the guns: "Don't move and don't shoot anyone". "Nobody move and nobody shoot anyone" directed at people not able to shoot anyone and having guns pointed at, clearly doesn't mean the latter, however, is it a grammatically correct replacement of "Nobody move and nobody shoots anyone"?

In summary, my question is: can "Nobody move and nobody get hurt" be grammatically taken to mean "If nobody moves then nobody gets hurt" instead of "Nobody move or get hurt". Why or why not?

grammatical number - Jury was divided or Jury were divided?

What is correct?
The jury was divided or The jury were divided?
I am told that the latter is accurate because all of the jury do not have the same opinion in the particular case.
Then, how does the subject verb agreement fit in 'The jury is still out' ? I mean, 'The jury is out' would allude to a situation were the opinion on a matter is (are?) still divided.

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.”

articles - When to use "the" before a group of people

I wonder which of the following would be correct/preferred:

• Regarding the English proficiency of Chinese people, ... (not sure if this is correct)


• Regarding the English proficiency of the Chinese people, ... (I believe this is correct)

By "Chinese people", I'm referring to the people/residents of China.

Note: I've seen examples on Google where "English proficiency" is replaced by other descriptions and "Chinese" replaced by British/American/Japanese/etc.

In addition, is there any difference between British vs. American usage in this case?

Thank you very much for your kind attention.

Answer

I believe the Chinese people and just Chinese people do carry ever-so-slightly-different meanings.

The Overseas Chinese, particularly those living in South-East Asia, never cease to consider themselves Chinese. The same can be true of Chinese living in Britain or America. But if you say the Chinese people it suggests to me that you are talking about the population of the People's Republic. So to encompass all Chinese I would definitely drop the article.

I'm effectively saying that the presence of the article indicates the nationality, but its absence indicates the ethnicity - all Chinese everywhere.

But whilst I can speak of the Chinese, having spent a fair amount of time in South East Asia, I am not clear whether this "rule" would operate in exactly the same way with other ethnicities.

grammar - What's the difference between a few, few, the few

What's the difference between a few, few, the few?
Which one is formal or informal?

Answer

The few is quite rare, and used only when designating a small number of things or people that have some special distinction

• the few rounds left in their magazines, the few guests who escaped the fire

There's a big difference between few and a few, however.
They're directed quantifiers, and they point in opposite directions.

• a few means 'a small, but still positive, number', while


• few is a negative quantifier, and means 'fewer than expected, predicted, or wished'

Few governs negative polarity items like ever, producing the following pair:

• Few people ever come here in the winter, but not ...


• *A few people ever come here in the winter.

because a few isn't negative and therefore can't trigger ever;
as well as the following pair, which produce opposite results:

• Thank heavens that few people were hurt!



• Thank heavens that a few people were hurt!

because you're thanking heavens for negative versus positive injuries.

Negatives are pretty tricky; much trickier than most people expect.

grammar - "30 year" vs. "30 years"

Reading a report online, I read something like this.

during his 30-year rule.

Is it 30 year or 30 years?

Answer

"30 year" would be more conventional. "He ruled for 30 years, his rule lasted 30 years. it was a 30 year rule." I think the reasoning is that 30 year is taking on the role of an adjective in the final sentence, and that's the relevant difference. Note, however, the "Hundred Years War". In this construction it's possible that Hundred Years is acting as a proper noun rather than an adjective, hence the inconsistency.

What is a collective term for castles, citadels, forts, palaces etc.?

We at Travel-SE are having an ongoing tag reorganization, and we're trying to find a collective term that encompasses the following:

• castles


• châteaux (which are really castles, but not every castle is a château)


• palaces


• forts


• citadels


• country houses (which are really palaces, but for non-royals)

We'd appreciate if you guys can come up with an appropriate category that covers these all. We don't want to create separate tags because frankly people won't know the difference between these and won't care.

We were thinking of fortified-structures or palatial-structures, but these don't work quite well. residences is just too broad, and royal-residences is not correct since country houses were not used by royal figures.

Any other ideas?

Answer

After looking at wikipedia entries for castles and fortifications, I can see that there are many technical historical-architectural terms which are very precise and detailed.

1^st option
The encompassing term might be fortifications. This is technically probably a bit wide as it would include military constructs which people do not inhabit and might (technically) miss some of the buildings you are trying to describe. (You might go with fortified historical residences or some such term)

2^nd option

On the other hand, depending on technical correctness you are aiming for, pragmatically and simply castles might be a good tag (you can explain in the tags summary that it also includes citadels, stately homes, etc.. )

Both the term castle and fortification are taken from this paragraph in wikipedia:

Castle is sometimes used as a catch-all term for all kinds of fortifications, and as a result has been misapplied in the technical sense. An example of this is Maiden Castle which, despite the name, is an Iron Age hill fort, which had a very different origin and purpose. Although "castle" has not become, like chateau in French and schloss in German, a generic term for an English country house, many of these use the word in their name while having few if any of the architectural characteristics...

3^rd option

Combining common characteristics of the terms that you want to describe

• Historical private residences (is it really necessary to say private, I wonder)


• Historical or fortified residences

Finally, I am not a historian nor an architect, so maybe asking in a more specialized environment might yield technically more appropriate result (wikipedia discussion page?).

Subject-verb agreement with "Some" as the subject

In the sentence, "Some of their work to make their community a better place to live include(s):" followed by a list of 10 items, which is correct?

a) Some include:
b) Some includes:

A link to a specific rule to share with others would be helpful.

grammaticality - "Alex and I" vs. "me and Alex"

Is it improper to say "me and Person X"?

I always hear it said as "Person X and I", but have personally learned to say "me and Person X".

Is there a difference between the two versions and is one of them incorrect? "Person and I" just sounds more formal to me.

Answer

You would use "X and I" if you and X are the subject of the verb.

You would use "X and me" if you and X are the object of the verb.

For example:

"Smith and I are going to the store."

"She gave the apples to Jones and me."

grammar - Why are names considered proper nouns?

Names are supposed to be proper nouns because they refer to a unique entity, right? But what about when the condition of specificity is not applicable? Take the word "Albert". It's supposed to be a proper noun. Why? There are no doubt thousands of people with that name in the world. If you know more than one Albert then just the word in not sufficient for you to know who precisely is being referred to. You'd naturally want to know the full name or any other unique identifying characteristic to pin down the person concerned. For that matter, even the full name (say "Albert West") is something the person is likely to have in common with others on this planet of seven-odd billion people. So while "Albert" (or any other name for that matter) might be a noun, why is it considered a proper noun?

sentence patterns - Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number

I am the third daughter (or son) of my parents.
OR
I am the third child of my parents

How should a question that is answered with the above sentences be framed?

Answer

'Among your sisters, where do you fall with respect to birth order?'

Is that what you're looking for?

punctuation - Larry Trask seems to be violating rules about commas as mentioned in his own guide

I was reading Larry Trask's guide on how to use the comma. His node11.html mentions that we should not use a joining comma before any word other than and, or, but, while and yet.

But in node13.html, he seems to be making some dubious uses of comma violating the rules he has mentioned in his guide. For example,

"So, the bracketing commas shouldn't be there."

The comma used in that sentence is not a listing comma. It is not followed by and, or, but, while or yet. It is not a gapping comma either, and doesn't seem like a bracketing comma. Then why is the comma there?

Trask suggests that we fix such punctuation using semicolons. A comma should precede only the five connecting words he has mentioned: and, or, but, while and yet. For anything else, we should use a semicolon. But he doesn't do so in the next example. Why not?

"This is a good sentence, so you have now got the bracketing commas in the right places."

grammar - How to express must be in past tense in an inference

How do I express something like below in correct grammar:

If he is 21 this year, he must be 20 last year.

The problem is that I want to express that his being 20 is in the past tense. It doesn't feel right to say he must have been 20.

Searching around in ESL, I found related questions (but the answers don't apply): Past tense of "must" when meaning logical probability , whose answer suggest to use must have been; Is "must" ever grammatical as a past tense verb? , whose answer suggests to use had to. But he had to be 20 doesn't sound right either.

Answer

It really has to be

If he is 21 this year, he must have been 20 last year.

because the past tense applies logically to "he be 20 last year". Using an adverb to express the "must" part, we'd have

Necessarily, if he is 21 this year, he was 20 last year.

where the past tense of the clause "he be 20 last year" is expressed by using the past tense form of "be", which is normal in English.

When instead of "necessarily", we use "must", you might expect the second clause to be expressed

*He must was 20 last year.

But here we run into some idiosyncrasies of English grammar. You can't have a tensed verb like "was" following a modal verb; English permits only tenseless, i.e. non-finite, verb forms after a modal. And in a position where a tense inflection is not allowed, a present tense is just lost, but a past tense is converted to perfect "have". That's why we get "He must have been 20 last year". This is not logically a perfect; it's a substitute for a past tense which otherwise could not be expressed.

You can also see this conversion of a past tense to a perfect in some infinitive verb complements. "Believe" takes either a "that"-clause complement or an infinitive complement:

I believe that Mars is red.
I believe Mars to be red.

Notice that the present tense of "is" is simply not expressed in the infinitive form. But in a past tense complement,

I believe that Mars was watery at one time.
I believe Mars to have been watery at one time.

the logical past tense turns up as a perfect, because a tense is not permitted in a "to"-infinitive in English.

capitalization - Are chapter headings and other semantically smaller parts as the title capitalized?

I found the question Which words in a title should be capitalized? Regarding the number of answers votes and also according to my personal taste I like to capitalize titles. But what exactly are titles? Only the single main book title? What about other smaller semantic parts? Chapter headings, sub-chapter, ...

Answer

According to CMoS and APA (two popular style guides), some lower-level headings aren't capitalised in headline-style.

Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition (headings by level):

1. Centered, Boldface or Italic Type, Headline-style Capitalization


2. Centered, Regular Type, Headline-style Capitalization


3. Flush Left, Boldface or Italic Type, Headline-style Capitalization


4. Flush left, roman type, sentence-style capitalization


5. Run in at beginning of paragraph (no blank line after), boldface or italic type, sentence-style capitalization, terminal period.

APA (headings by level):

1. Centered, Boldface, Uppercase and Lowercase Headings


2. Left-aligned, Boldface, Uppercase and Lowercase Heading


3. Indented, boldface, lowercase heading with a period. Begin body text after the period.



4. Indented, boldface, italicized, lowercase heading with a period. Begin body text after the period.


5. Indented, italicized, lowercase heading with a period. Begin body text after the period.

grammar - Starting a sentence with "One question..." and then stating the question?

I am wondering about proper grammar in this case. Or if I should just avoid starting a sentence with "One question..." (my gut tells me I should).

Here are some examples:

One question you could research is, do female birds mature more quickly than their male counterparts?

I believe it is proper to end with a question mark there, and I put the comma because I also believe that is correct grammatically. Although I feel perhaps a colon would be more suitable?

and another example:

One question you could research, and whose answer I am particularly interested in myself, is: Do female birds mature more quickly than their male counterparts?

In this second example I am particularly interested in whether I should have a colon after "is", or if a comma (or nothing) would be better?

So to restate my questions: I am wondering whether the examples are correct, or if there are any suggestions/corrections regarding them. Additionally, is starting a sentence with "One question..." is okay, or should I avoid doing so for some reason?

Thanks.

Bonus Example: (I am okay if what follows is ignored/not answered, but I don't think it warrants an additional question so I'm asking it here).

Consider the following:

One question you could research is: what impact does doing ten jumping jacks a day have on a person's lifespan?

vs

One question you could research is what impact doing ten jumping jacks a day has on a person's lifespan.

I don't know if the second formulation is correct or not. If it isn't, why is it incorrect? If it is correct, why do I not need a comma or a question mark at the end? Did I reformulate the question as an indirect question? (I'm not clear on the distinction between direct and indirect question yet, sorry).

Answer

With your first set of examples, either are correct. I believe It is quite reasonable construction. I think you're struggling in that the first part of the sentence sets up an indirect question:

One question you could research is whether female birds mature faster than their male counterparts.

As for the punctuation, this is a style issue. Either of your constructions would fit with The Chicago Manual of Style

In your bonus example, you are stating an indirect question so the punctuation is correct in the latter case.

One question you could research is what impact doing ten jumping jacks a day has on lifespan.

Still this is confused by using what because typically what is a direct question word. You're better off rewriting in this case:

One question you could research is the impact of doing ten jumping jacks a day on lifespan.

adjectives - Word for anyone who forgets about anything in middle of a conversation

I've a friend who forgets about the topic on which we're having conversation at first place and deviates and talks about something else & then after sometime; in between he realizes that he is talking/discussing about different thing (which may or may not linked directly/indirectly with the original topic) and then we laughed about it.

But I'm just wondering if there's any specific word in English litrature about this thing.

descriptive grammar - My Boyfriend and I's favorite song... How would you phrase this?

I was always taught that if you want to make sure that the possessive pronouns are correct when referring to more than one person, you should try to say the sentence alone and use that pronoun. My boyfriend's favorite song is... Sounds good right? I favorite song...not so good. So I would suggest stating the sentence like this. My Boyfriend's and my favorite song is... Still sounds a bit clunky, but I believe this is grammatically correct. What do you think?

present perfect - Have lived vs. Have been living

What is the difference between the followings?

A. I have been living here for 5 years.

B. I have lived here for 5 years.

Am I correct that these two represent the same event, but A emphasizes the continuity of living while B simply states a fact that you lived there from 5 years ago to the present?

Is it true that the difference in present perfect and present perfect continuous is whether a speaker intends to emphasize continuity or a fact?

Answer

The difference between your two examples isn’t great, but, depending on context, A might give a slightly stronger impression than B that the speaker will continue to live there.

The difference is more apparent in a pair such as:

I’ve been reading your book.

I’ve read your book.

The first suggests that the speaker is still reading it, whereas the second suggests that the reader has finished it.

grammar - Is "curious of" acceptable or even better than "curious about"?

Many speakers and internet writers seem to use "curious of" in place of "curious about". For example:

I am curious of what he thinks.

This is in spite of what seems to be, by the rules of grammar I can find, less correct than saying:

I am curious about what he thinks.

I have heard both forms uttered so much that there seems in fact a subtle difference in meaning between the two, but I may be imagining things.

Two questions--

1. Is "curious of" really any less correct than "curious about"?


2. Is "curious of" actually more appropriate for certain subjects or certain relationships, due to different connotations perhaps?

grammar - Using "e.g." instead of "for example"

I am reviewing a software manual, and I frequently come across sentences like (made-up example):

The value is 1, but you can set it to e.g. 100

It seems to me that the use of "e.g." is wrong in this case and "for example" should be used instead. I have difficulty expressing why I feel this way, but if you take the meaning of "e.g." to be "for the sake of example" it seems to me that the general case is not explicitly specified (what is 100 an example of?).

I think it should be either

The value is 1, but you can set it to another value, e.g. 100.

or

The value is 1, but you can set it to for example 100.

Does anyone know if my intuition is right (I'm not a native speaker), or whether or not there are any formal rules to this?

Answer

Your hunch is right. The given statement is wrong.

The value is 1, but you can set it to another value, e.g. 100.

is correct.

The value is 1, but you can set it, for example, to 100.

The preposition was a bit off, but correct otherwise

It should be noted that e.g. is more commonly used with lists of examples.

As in:

life events (e.g. birth, death and marriage)

Sources - Wiktionary, Oxford, M-W

american english - How should I address a professor in the US?

I am always puzzled about how students address a professor in America. Perhaps "Professor + Last name" is the most formal way to do. Here are my questions:

• What if the last name of a professor is very long?


• Is it common that students use the nickname or the first name of a professor?



• What if the teacher is a lecturer instead of a professor? How should the student call him/her?


• Is it formal to write "Prof." instead of "Professor"?

Answer

So, the preferred method of addressing a professor in the US is not entirely consistent. Variations from university to university or even department to department occur, however, at the three universities/departments I've attended/been employed by, the following is true:

• If the professor holds a doctorate, calling him/her Dr. Lastname is the most common in my personal experience, but Professor Lastname is also very common, especially in departments that have faculty with a lower percentage of doctorates (since with Professor you don't have to know whether they hold a doctorate)


• If the professor does not hold a doctorate, Professor Lastname or Mr./Ms. Lastname are common


• In the US, the difference between professors and lecturers is not as clearcut as in other countries, especially to students. In many cases, they may not actually know whether their instructor is one or the other and so, in general, the same rules apply as to professors. As an example, when I worked as a visiting lecturer, I was referred to frequently as Professor, even though that wasn't my actual title.

A few other notes

• The length of the last name of the professor doesn't really change things. If it's hard to pronounce or spell, you may wish to avoid it by simply saying 'Professor', but it doesn't entitle you to switch to the first name or some nickname.


• Some instructors may prefer being addressed by either their nickname or first name. However, you should only do this after being explictly told to. I've had professors who preferred Professor Firstname or just Firstname, and they'll usually say so on the first day. However, I've also had professors get offended when students referred to them using a more informal form of address.


• Using Prof. as an abbreviation of Professor is fine if you're merging it with their name, just like Dr. is for Doctor.

Is "that've" a valid contraction for "that have"?

Is "that've" a valid contraction for "that have"?

For example, the sentence: "I've been working with some substances that've been detrimental to my health."

It follows the patterns of other similar contractions (like would've, that'll've, and others), but doesn't seem to be any dictionary I could find.

Answer

It's certainly found in speech alongside who've and which've, and that's how the pronunciations are normally represented in writing. It's a matter of judgement whether you use them in writing when not reporting actual speech, depending on the degree of formality of the context.

grammar - Future Simple vs. Future Perfect in difficult sentence

I would like to ask three questions:

1.) If the sentence mentioned below is gramatically correct.

Everything will be spotless by the time they get here.

2.) Is it correct to use Future Simple tense here? Or should it be Future Perfect as in sentence:

By the time we get there, everyone will have left. Nobody will even see you hair.

Also I would like to point one thing. First sentence describes a state ("be spotless"). The second describes an action ("left").

3.) Does this fact have an impact on using Future Simple (and not Future Perfect) tense in the first sentence?

Thank you very much in advance.

Answer

1.) Your examples seem grammatical in terms of tense (note at bottom on typo). Depending on context I might use a modal form (e.g. "Everything must be spotless") but I see no issue with using simple perfect.

2.) If you're asking whether you should use future perfect in the first example, note what that changes:

Everything will have been spotless by the time they get here.

In the first example, everything may not be spotless in the present but it will be by the time they arrive. In the future perfect version, everything may not be spotless in the present, but it will be for some period of time before the time they arrive. Future perfect is used to look backwards from some point in the future. That seems awkward unless you're emphasizing an earlier completion time. Here's that example with added context:

Guests are due to arrive at 6:30, but I will be done cleaning by 5. So everything will have been spotless by the time they get here.

Unless you specifically want to emphasize an earlier time, future perfect seems unnecessary here. This sentence would still convey the information that everything will be spotless in time:

Guests are due to arrive at 6:30, but I will be done cleaning by 5. So everything will be spotless by the time they get here.

The future simple signals the logical consequence of being done cleaning before the guests arrive.

3.) No, I don't see the difference between a state and an action affecting whether you should use future simple or future perfect tense. Instead it's functioning more on context and on whether you're emphasizing a future event or an event in the past from the perspective of the future.

(note) But check out "Nobody will even see you hair" in your second example. Do you mean "your hair?" "you there?" Something else?

single word requests - What do you call something that gathers a particular property given an object?

I'm working on a program that will have a list of functions each of which, given an object, will return a particular property of the object. For instance, one of these will return the height of the object, another will return the width, another the color, and so on. These properties will then be used to filter these objects given a list of property names and values.

Since the user will be able to create functions like these, and they'll be on a list, I need to give a name to the list. One option I though of was "gatherers", since they gather properties given object, but this doesn't capture the fact that each of them gathers specific properties, or that they are meant to filter stuff.

Another option would be "filters" but these are not exactly filters, since a filter has a both property and a value (like WHERE TEXT = 'hello' in a SQL query), while these represent the property without a value, or more precisely, the ability to recognize the value of a particular property given an object.

Is there any single word, or at least couple of words, that capture this idea?

Answer

You may use the noun collectors; and each "collector" picks up different "property".

Also, in object-oriented programming, the term setters and getters is used within a Mutator method. Please Check here if setters and getters is something suitable for naming your functions.

grammatical number - Are there nouns that are always plural — have no plural counterpart?

Are there words that have no plural counterpart, because they are, in fact plural? Words like rice or scissors come to mind.

grammar - The definite article before nouns mentioned for the first time

I've been taught that when one mentions an object for the first time and it's countable, one should use a/an before it.

I know that there are exceptions, when you speak of a renoun object which everybody knows, like the moon.

But I cannot see why the author uses definite articles in some places in this piece:

"It had better use THE advertisement with THE shirtless guy rather than THE shirtless girl."

That ad/guy/girl were mentioned in the text for the first time. Why does the author uses the definite article before them? And could you please provide some rule which would clarify the usage of articles for me?

Answer

You were taught wrong. (Or at least you were taught a rule that works much of the time, but doesn't always).

You use the definite article when you are referring to one specific item. Obviously "the moon" is a good example, but in your case there is (presumably) only one advert with the shirtless guy. Therefore you use the definite article. It doesn't matter if you are referring to it for the first time. It also doesn't matter that there may be many advertisements - there is only one with the shirtless guy, so that is the one we mean. The second part of the sentence qualifies the first.

Similarly there is only one shirtless guy and only one shirtless girl in the advertisements we are considering, so they also get the definite article.

If there were several advertisements with the shirtless guy the first article would become indefinite. If there were several shirtless guys the second article would become indefinite. If there were several shirtless girls the third article would become indefinite.