On another stackexchange site, I used the following phrasing:
I want to do X. It seems I can only do so when Y.
Someone edited the second sentence:
It seems
thatI can only do so when Y.
This made me realise that the edited form is perhaps more common -- but is my original phrasing grammatically incorrect? What role does "that" play in the second variation?
Which of the following is correct?
What he is looking for are books written by Jane Austin.
What he is looking for is books written by Jane Austin.
Is it are to agree with the object books or is to agree with the subject he?
Answer
I believe either one is actually correct, since the thing that determines the verb's case is the noun that comes first in the predicate nominative expression (on the left side of the imaginary equals sign). In this sentence, that first noun is what, which is technically a pronoun, but stands in for the noun that comes later. But of course, at this point in the sentence, it has not yet been determined whether the predicate noun that what is referring to is singular or plural, so the verb is essentially given the benefit of the doubt and is allowed to take either case, regardless of what the predicate noun turns out to be. This flexibility really only arises out of the fact that what is naturally ambiguous in number. If the sentence had begun The things he is looking for..., the predicate would have had to have been are books. Similarly, if the sentence had begun The thing he is looking for..., the predicate would have been singular - is books.
I would like to know if there is a difference in usage between these 2 structures.
In other words what situations might suit one and not the other?
Answer
It is about time (about an event or action) is used when saying that it is past the time when something should have happened: it’s about time she got a job; it's about time you shaved.
It is [only] a matter of time before (or until) something happens is used to express that something is sure to happen at some time in the future, but we are not sure exactly when. The house is burning, and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. If you keep swearing in the office, it is only a matter of time until you are dismissed. If you continue to torment the dog, it is only a matter of time before he bites you.
I saw this sentence online and it has been bothering me:
"Tomorrow is me and my girlfriend's anniversary."
I immediately had an aversion to this sentence after reading it but then I quickly had an aversion to my own corrections in my head:
"My girlfriend's and my anniversary is tomorrow."
"The anniversary of my girlfriend and me is tomorrow."
The original author's sentence plus my two corrections all "sound" incorrect despite one having a better chance at being grammatically correct.
The original author I think confused the adverb "Tomorrow" as being the subject since he or she (I don't want to assume the author is heterosexual) chose to begin the sentence with it. However, in my estimation the subject of a sentence will remain so no matter where it's placed within the sentence; thus, "tomorrow" cannot be the subject but rather "anniversary" is which led me to use the options I listed above. Which of these "corrections" is correct and why? Both? Neither?
Thank You
Edit: Thank you all for the replies. Basically, I'm having a crisis of what sounds good to the ear and is standard versus what can
sound incorrect/complex/clumsy to the ear but still be viewed as
grammatically viable. Yes, adding a verb to describe what the couple
would do on their anniversary and/or replacing "me and my girlfriend"
with a standard possessive adjective "our" would easily solve the
issue. But I guess my question was more about how irritatingly close
can a speaker get to "bad grammar" or "broken English" without it
being so? That's why I tried to use the OA's words at my disposal.
In what cases does one have to use all with a definite article?
Some examples:
All the people in this world...
Could you also please give a link to a reputable source that one can cite?
PCAs are usually assigned to an individual with a physical, mental, behavioral, or emotional handicap; whom they work with throughout the year.
Is this sentence grammatically correct? I know that semicolons are sometimes used when you have a list at the beginning of the sentence, to prevent confusion. Is that accurate?
Also, would "who" or "whom" be proper in this usage? I thought it would be "whom" because it's referring to the person who is helped, not the person who is helping, but I am not completely sure.
Answer
No, you don’t want a semi-colon there. A comma will do. Whom is grammatical, but so, too, would who be in an informal context.
My gut feeling tells me that sentences such as
Own mistakes have to be dealt with first.
Own experience matters the most.
We present own results.
are not correct, and I would supplement "own" with, for example, "your" or "my".
Is the above use of "own" just unusual, or is there a general rule saying that "own" always requires the possessive of a noun or a possessive pronoun?
The Oxford dictionary at least suggests that "own" cannot be used after an article:
Own cannot be used after an article:
I need my own room. (Not: I need an own room.)
It's good to have your own room. (Not: It's good to have the own room.)
Are there other words for which that is also the case?
("own" without a pronoun is often found in English texts written by German native speakers, because in German it is perfectly fine to say "Eigene Fehler ...".)
Answer
According to the CaGEL, the adjective own is unique amongst adjective because it only occurs with a genitive subject-determiner.
A genitive subject-determiner is either:
There are a very few exception to this rule, but they all occur in fixed phrases such as an own goal.
In short we cannot use the adjective own without a preceding noun.
[CaGEL is The Cambridge grammar of the English language Huddleston and Pullum, 2002]
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26868119
The interior minister also showed a number of slides and photos illustrating where he said police snipers were firing from. He named two buildings on Khreshchatyk and Kostyolna streets, saying other spots were still being investigated.
I would like to know why is there not a definite article such as the in front of Khreshchatyk and Kostyolna streets? Or, do you think, it's totally alright as far as grammar goes? If so, could you please explain the rules governing this particular usage?
An example where street names are used along with articles.
Source: http://rt.com/news/157884-shooting-mariupol-eastern-ukraine/
The outlet also reported that “on the Lenin avenue, two people were seriously wounded – one in the head and another in the stomach. A huge pool of blood is next to the “Arbat” café. It’s not known whether the wounded people have survived. Witnesses say they were driven away in a passenger car. The fighting is on next to the main police department, gunfire is heard. Two armored vehicles blocked the Artyom street.”
Answer
Since the question specifically referenced the BBC, this answer addresses British English. Elements may apply to other variants too.
In British English, we don’t generally use an article with names. A street name is a name, and doesn’t generally take an article (whether definite or indefinite).
There are exceptions. I might ask a stage artiste, “Are you the Harry Houdini?” but even there Harry Houdini is standing for “the famous person whose name is Harry Houdini.”
Street names are similar. Most towns have a road which is labelled “High Street”, and that is usually referred to as “the High Street” because there is only one and it’s the most important. But that’s the only street which customarily gets an article.
Roads are different, particularly where their name indicates their direction. We do speak of the Old Kent Road, the Edgware Road and the like. We might talk of the Hailsham Road and that might be labelled “Hailsham Road” but it’s the Hailsham Road because it goes there. Most Roads don’t get an article, and if the name is not “Road” it’s very rare. The Mall is an example; I can’t think of any other.
Titles always get a definite article, because by definition we’re referring to something of which there is only one (or at least, one “default” which doesn’t need further clarification). Thus in the same way that we might refer to the Queen, the President, the Aga Khan, we can refer to “the A68”. If the Department for Transport labels another road “A68”, then the title moves to the new road and we might refer to the original as “the old A68”. However, just as people’s names don’t change if titles do, the name of the road — e.g., the Matlock Road — generally wouldn't move with the title.
I understand from reading similar posts on this topic that if I want to write a sentence using "each of you," I should follow this with a singular verb. So, for example, "Each of you has given your all this year" is correct, and "Each of you have given your all this year" is incorrect.
If I'm right on this point, could someone explain how the quantifier shift would work if I wanted to rewrite the sentence beginning "You each"?
To my ear, "You each have given your all this year" sounds correct, and "You each has given your all this year" sounds horrible and wrong.
But is it wrong? If so, why is it wrong?
Answer
The fact that you can't always tell whether the subject of a sentence is singular or plural isn't your fault. It's English itself that doesn't make this clear. In a noun phrase of the form "each of [NP Noun ... ]", you could count either the "each" as the head of the entire noun phrase, or you could consider "each" to be a quantifier/determiner/article element and take the noun after the "of" to be the head.
If "each" is quantifier, then the grammatical number of the following head noun, which will be plural when there is an "of", will determine the number of the entire subject, and we'll get "Each of you have left". But if "each" is taken to be the head noun or pronoun of the subject noun phrase, since it appears to be singular, the entire subject will be considered singular. Then we'll get "Each of you has left".
The fact that "each" is subject to a transformation called Quantifier Float, which gives "You have each left", is sometimes taken as evidence that it should be "Each of you have left", the reasoning being that if "each" is a quantifier, it can't also be a noun or pronoun, so the plural "you" must be the real head noun. But that's not very good reasoning. Just because when "each" was converted into an adverb, the "you" graduated to become subject, that doesn't mean "you" was subject before the "each" was moved. It doesn't follow.
So there is no real answer to the question of how the verb should agree except to appeal to people's opinions. Take a vote, consult an authority, toss a coin. Whatever.
Above, I said 'the "you" graduated to become subject' in "You have each left". So it must be the head, because it's the only noun there in the subject. In "You each have left", I think we can also conclude that "you" is head of the subject, either because the "each" is an adverb and not within the subject, or if it is, it would have to be an adjective modifying "you" (English does not permit NP containing just two Ns). So, assuming that the verb will agree in number with the head of its subject noun phrase, we would expect the verb to agree with logically plural "you" when "each" has been floated.
What is the origin of the personal pronouns I, you, he, she, it, we, and they?
Answer
I haven't got time to take them all the way (or to check references, so this is from memory), but yes they do go back to PIE, with the possible exception of she. But they come by different routes.
I hope somebody has time to expand my random recollections.
Which is correct?
1) If I were a little taller, I would be able to reach the top of the shelf.
2) If I was a little taller, I would be able to reach the top of the shelf.
In the following sentence, I'm not sure whether the noun should be considered plural or singular?
A grid pattern of streets (Main, Elm, First) are shown.
Or:
A grid pattern of streets (Main, Elm, First) is shown.
The grid is clearly singular, but streets is plural. I'm thinking it should be singular because the grid contains the streets, but am not sure. Which one is correct?
Answer
In this case, the compound grid pattern is clearly singular. There are some words in English which will take their number from the number of the noun within their complementary prepositional phrase, but pattern is not one of those nouns. Therefore, I would always use:
A grid pattern of streets is shown.
Should I put a comma before the last item in a list?
I would like crackers, cheese and some soda.
I would like crackers, cheese, and some soda.
Answer
Using a comma before the last item in a list is known as the Oxford Comma, sometimes the Serial Comma. It is used before conjunctions in a list like this with three or more items. Its use is purely written style and optional. It is more common in America outside journalism, and much less common in other English speaking areas of the world. There are arguments for and against which usually come down to comprehension. Wikipedia quotes these ambiguities:
To my parents, Mother Teresa and the Pope.
To my parents, Mother Teresa, and the Pope.
Also on that wiki page you can find lots of links to certain style guides. Comma use is something of a grey area though, and everyone has his own style. Pick what reduces ambiguity.
Language log has an interesting article on how reading comprehension can be improved with comma use, including this type.
I have skimmed through the part on modals of a classic grammar book (Murphy's "Grammar in Use") and picked up all the structures that look strange to me. Could you, please, explain how often they are used and how do they sound in the contemporary British and American English?
[Lately added] This page explains some of the usages: British and Am. English: Differences in usage
1) I should ... / I shouldn't ... to give somebody advice:
—Is it cold? —Yes, I should wear a coat. (It is not a misprint! "I" refers here to another person.)
I shouldn't stay up too late. You'll be tired tomorow.
2) might to ask for permission:
I have finished my work - might I go home?
3) will for present habits:
Every morning I will get up early.
I've tried everything - the car just won't start.
4) Using should after a number of adjectives (strange, odd, funny, typical, interesting etc.):
It's strange that he should be late. He's usually on time.
I was surprised that he should say such a thing.
5) If something should happen ... :
If the situation should change, we'll let you know.
If Tom should phone, tell him I'll call him back later.
6) Begin the sentences from 5) with should:
Should Tom phone, tell him I'll call him back later.
7) It's (about) time ... :
It's time the children were in bed.
It's about time he did something instead of just talking.
8) Needn't and needn't have (done):
Everything will be OK. You needn't worry.
It didn't rain. I needn't have taken the umbrella.
9) might as well for an alternative:
Buses are very expensive - you might as well get a taxi.
10) oughtn't [to] (ought not [to])
You oughtn't to watch scary movies before sleep.
You oughtn't come to me for news, but here's some anyway.
11) shan't (shall not)
I'm goint for a walk. I shan't be late.
He hath promised I shall never want money; and you shan't want money neither, mother.
Answer
3) will for present habits:
“Every morning I will get up early.”
“I’ve tried everything — the car just won’t start.”
There is no question that the verb (or verbs; there may be several) will is one of the very trickiest ones in the English language for foreigners ever to master. The deontic senses are seldom intuitive to a non-native speaker. I strongly advise you to carefully study the OED’s entry for this word’s incredibly many subtle uses.
In this case, your two examples are not of the same thing at all, and you have mischaracterized them. The first uses will to express habitual action; it does not indicate a simple future situation. This is the OED’s sense 8 for this verb:
8. Expressing natural disposition to do something, and hence habitual action: Has the habit, or ‘a way’, of ––ing; is addicted or accustomed to ––ing; habitually does; sometimes connoting ‘may be expected to’
This is related to sense 15, which is still not a simple future, albeit perhaps closer to that:
15. As auxiliary of future expressing a contingent event, or a result to be expected, in a supposed case or under particular conditions (with the condition expressed by a conditional, temporal, or imper. clause, or otherwise implied).
Your second example, the one about the car, is completely different. This corresponds to OED sense 12:
12. With negative, expressing the contrary of senses (def#6), (def#7), (def#10), (def#11): thus commonly = refuse or decline to; emph. insist on or persist in not --ing. Also fig. of a thing. (See also (def#9), (def#13).)
Here, your car is persisting in not starting. It is the figurative sense at the end extending to things, as though they had the will to refuse. The referenced senses 9 and 13 are respectively:
9. Expressing potentiality, capacity, or sufficiency: Can, may, is able to, is capable of --ing; is (large) enough or sufficient to.
15. As auxiliary of future expressing a contingent event, or a result to be expected, in a supposed case or under particular conditions (with the condition expressed by a conditional, temporal, or imper. clause, or otherwise implied).
As I said, will is quite complex. Please study standard reference works regarding its use.
First off, I'd like to say "hello", as it's my first post here. Nonetheless, you guys have been helping me for quite some time, since I've been an avid reader. It's high time I asked a question that I haven't seen being answered before.
Articles, as we have to admit, might get a little tricky. Especially considering differences between AE and BE. I manage to handle them pretty well, that is until I come across some exceptionts I can not fully comprehend. Case in pont: I'm reading "Yiddish Policemen's Union" by Michael Chabon. The author sometimes uses structures like:
"(...) a faithful person could find encouragement, and a faithless one ample reason to despond"
Or
"(...) his bowed legs and simian arms affixed to his neck without apparent benefit of shoulders."
As far as I'm concerned both "benefit" and "reason" are countable and singular, so why would Chabon omit articles, that, to my eye, should be put before them? Or perhaps I'm the one messing something up?
I'm curious about whether to use comma before "and". Some people told me that using comma to connect two different sentences and two different subjects.
Please provide some examples to explain the usage of this. Thanks a lot!
Answering the question, Use of articles with adjectives, got me thinking. Why is the word "any" not classified as an article? We learn in grade school that the three English articles are "a", "an", and "the". Later on we learn that articles are part of a larger class called determiners.
Numerous dictionaries, including this one, declare any to be a pronoun and determiner. But look at this sequence:
a --> an --> any
(Should I drop the mic now? Nah, I'll continue in case any of you feel stubborn. 😉)
Whether you agree or not, think about the following:
I discern two differences with the accepted indefinite articles. The first is that any can also be a pronoun. Any of them will do. So what? The word a can also be a noun, the first letter of the Latin alphabet. Do we really need the second a of aardvark?
The second difference is that any can force the specific context mentioned in item #3. The (other) articles force a context as well, indefiniteness or definiteness. This is illustrated in the following conversation between two kids:
An ant bit me!
Which one?
I don't know, but it wasn't the one on your arm.
Damn! Any ants are too many. I don't want any ant to bite me.
I know, right? Let's go see if we can find a bandage.
In other words, a, an, any, and the all force contexts. That's sort of their point. So why is any the one left out?
When to use ‘who’ and when to use ‘whom’ seems to be one of the most common areas of confusion for English learners, and even possibly for native speakers. Personally, I don't find it confusing at all and (although I am no grammarian, as reflected in my answer) I even tried to reply to one of those questions in April 2017, my first month at ELU:
Conflicting who/whom usage rules in a sentence
I later found that members regularly and repeatedly ask about ‘who’ and ‘whom’ here:
https://english.stackexchange.com/search?q=Who+whom
‘Who and whom’ questions also get asked at other grammar websites with great regularity.
So linguistically speaking, what is it about ‘who’ and ‘whom’ that is so difficult for so many new learners?
Non-native speakers trying to improve their English often tend to go by rules rather than usage. Could it be that the 'rule' covering the use of who and whom is itself complex, ambiguous or contradictory?
Note: I am not asking what is the difference between who and whom, so somebody please don't close this question as a duplicate unless someone has previously asked specifically why who & whom create such difficulty for so many learners.
Nor is it primarily opinion-based if you can quote standard references or expert commentators to support your answer.
Answer
I think there are a few reasons:
Most people are not great at taking an explicit grammar rule and just adopting it; rather, we're much better at internalizing rules when we also have exposure to language that conforms to those rules. Since whom is rarely and inconsistently used, most people don't have enough exposure to it to get a good sense of when it's used.
Most people (including most English teachers, most popular grammar and style writers, etc.) are not great at formulating explicit grammar rules, partly because they don't give a coherent overarching grammatical framework that those rules can fit into. Normally that doesn't make much difference because the explicit grammar rules aren't really how you learn grammar, but with something like whom where explicit grammar rules are almost all you've got, this is a problem.
There's a close relationship between who/whom and certain other areas where traditional grammar differs from everyday English:
When to use subject vs. object pronouns. Do we say "It is me", or "It is I"? "Me and Jamie", or "Jamie and me", or "Jamie and I"? "She is taller than him", or "She is taller than I"?
Preposition stranding vs. pied piping. Do we say "that we spoke of", or "of which we spoke"?
So when trying to understand the grammar of whom, we also have to balance all the other pieces of formal grammar that we don't usually worry about.
The grammar of whom is often somewhat "long-range", in that the pronoun can be separated from the verb or preposition that it's the subject or object of. Consider this bit from Daniel Defoe's 1719 novel Robinson Crusoe:
This ſeaſon I found my family to encreaſe; for one of my cats that ran away from me, and whom I thought had been dead, returned about Auguſt, with three kittens at her heels, like herſelf, which I thought ſtrange, because […] [link]
where whom is erroneously being used as the subject of had, apparently because the writer (or narrator) felt it to be the object of I thought. You'll see this sort of mistake even with points of grammar that are not common sources of confusion; you'll encounter things like "Talking to people you don't know, about things you don't understand, sometimes make you look foolish" [made-up example], where make should be makes, but where the singular-ness of talking has become less salient by the time the speaker got to the verb.
I've read a number of questions here on SE English as well as from Google searches, however I'm still unclear on something.
Consider the following:
Alice walked carefully along the uneven lawn, making sure to keep her ankle straight.
Bob felt as if he was forgetting something as the bus stopped at the curb.
I'm confident these are both correctly conjugated, but as a native English speaker I also know I have a lifetime of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
The question is why is it that these two are both correct despite one mixing tenses, and what "test" can be used to determine such things?
Some things I read before asking this:
I've read more, but I'd rather not fish through my history just to show that I'm not just asking due to being lazy.
Answer
In your example
Alice walked carefully along the uneven lawn, making sure to keep her ankle straight.
there is only one verb marked for tense, i.e. establishing when something occurred relative to the time of utterance, and that is the finite verb agreeing with the subject: walked.
The participle making is present in form, but does not itself have tense. A present participle can be used with a finite verb in any tense, indicating that the action/state described by the participle takes place at the same time.
Next year I’ll visit all the major museums in Rome, making sure I have at least three days for the Vatican. [Future]
Hold the board in place, making sure it's perfectly flat. [Present]
A perfect participle indicates a prior action/state relative to the finite verb:
Having first made sure his shirts were properly ironed and folded, John got down to the business of packing.
While I was reading a book, I faced the following sentence:
There is a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets of quantities.
So, my question is: why the indefinite article "a" is not "an" in this phrase? The following word starts with a vowel, so shouldn't it be "an"?
How do I form a question based on the following details:
At 1pm on Sunday
Jim: Are you a virgin?
Jane: Yes
At 9pm on Sunday: Did Jim ask you whether you were a virgin?
or
At 9pm on Sunday: Did Jim ask you whether you are a virgin?
Answer
The difference is the mood
One is subjunctive (were) and the other is indicative (are)
While both sentences are indeed grammatically correct, the mood is completely different. A subjunctive mood suggests that there is doubt.
If you were a virgin | subjunctive
vs
If you are a virgin | indicative
The first sentence expresses the uncertainty of Jane's virginity. The same concept goes for these sentences
Using the million dollar sentence as an example, it's very clear that the subject does not have a million dollars, and there is usually a conditional phrase that follows, but that's another beast on it's own. You have to use the conditional because the first statement is in fact subjunctive.
If I had one million dollars, how would I spend it?
If fish could walk, fishing would be quite easy.
If a tree fell in the woods, would it make a sound?
If the student had read the book, he would have passed.
The root word here is indicate, which means to point something out, to demonstrate an actual, factual action... or being.
I have one million dollars
By using the indicative mood, there is no uncertainty, and there would be no need to use conditional phrases afterwards.. you cannot say
If I have one million dollars, how would I spend it? INCORRECT
The sentence would be the epitome of a grammatically incorrect sentence. It is very clear from the sentence that I do have one million dollars, no doubt whatsoever, no hopes, nothing..
If I have one million dollars, I will spend it. CORRECT
If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?
Any doubt would be expressed in subsequent sentences.
John : Jim, I just heard that you won $1 Million!
Jim : John, if I have a million dollars, then where is it?
Can you spot the subjunctive sentence?
If cats are people, then why can they not talk?
or
If cats were people, then they could talk.
How does the meaning differ for the following two sentences?
- Even then, the subject seemed as fascinating a problem as there could be.
- Even then, the subject seemed as fascinating as a problem could be.
What is difference between lie and lie down? Please explain with some examples.
Source: http://rt.com/news/mariupol-base-shooting-ukraine-008/
They called on the troops to abandon the base, but the soldiers didn't listen, the demonstrators said. Instead, the troops opened fire at the protesters, injuring at least four people. One of them took a bullet in his chest and is in serious condition, according to protesters.
I know that generally you don't need definite articles when using the expression according to someone or something. But is it possible, in theory, to use one? Or would it sound just plainly wrong to your ear?
Answer
Omission of "the" in reference to "protesters" conveys an attribute of a class of people, whereas "the protesters" conveys a reference to the actual, specific people who participated in or witnessed this particular protest. It strikes me that the intent of the writer is to highlight a particular point of view of the incident, namely that of a protester, to contrast that with some other point of view, say, that of a guard or soldier. Either construct is grammatically correct.
Which one is more appropriate - "If you don't mind me asking" or "If you don't mind my asking"?
I always thought that it was "If you don't mind me asking", but I recently heard "If you don't mind my asking" (more precisely, whilst watching True Detective, I heard "If you don't mind me asking" but the subtitles read "If you don't mind my asking").
Now, the latter makes sense if "asking" is referred to as a noun, but it sounds a little twisted.
Which one is the right one?
Thanks
Answer
You may say either one, though the meaning would slightly differ.
A person from The Turks and Caicus Islands is known as what? Likewise with Trinidad and Tobago, St Kitts and Nevis, São Tomé and Principé, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. http://www.un.org/en/members/
I've heard of "Trinidadian", but isn't that specific to one island? Then again I've heard of Bosnians but not Herzegovinians. In some cases, it isn't even clear what someone from specifically one group of islands is called. Turk? Caicasian?
I was asked to referee a discussion recently; specifically, whether veracity and validity were perfectly synonymous -- and if not, "why?", and further to provide clear demonstrative examples in simple sentences.
While I asserted veracity refers to "truth", and validity was more aligned with "accuracy" independent of human distortion, I could not find the proper words to define the subtle distinction, outside of technical applications (I is an engineer...)
However, I later stumbled across a line from Great Grandpa: "They don't make cars like they used to."
Which ironically, is totally true. (technology, efficiency, materials, safety). So I might say the statement has veracity (It's ultimately true, and Geepaw believes it with no deceptive intent.) BUT, the statement lacks validity. It's clear from the context an implied "cars [not as good] as they used to be"
It's easier on the scientific/engineering side. Many articles simply strike "veracity" from the acceptable vocabulary. Which I would agree with, because an inanimate object cannot lack veractiy. An instrument cannot lie. It might be terribly inaccurate, uncalibrated, broken, or inapplicable, and therefore lack validity, but it doesn't lack veracity.
So, okay, help? Specifically I'd like to see simple sentences that lack veracity but not validity, and anything that lacks validity but has veracity.
Or are these sufficiently synonymous in "everyday speech" that I need to let it go?
On edit
Pretty sure this equine is necrodestined, and the answer to my last question is obvious.
While validity seems pretty well defined, I'm still having trouble with veracity, as some [good] answers seem to imply the "truth" is at least somewhat dependent on the speaker's state of mind. In other words, if I believe my untrue statement, it still has veracity. Sorry, I can't get there.
I phrased the original question as "non-technical" "everyday" speech, but as @Peter Point commented, veracity probably isn't an "everyday" word.
Ultimately, I submit that "true" and "valid" are binary terms, but at least veracity (possibly validity) has some sort of spectrum.
Answer
I question the veracity of that statement
means that I don't accept that the statement, as a whole, is true.
I question the validity of that statement
means that there's a logical inference in the statement that does not follow.
For example, I would question the veracity of "He's dead!" (Maybe I saw a small movement that made me think he might actually be alive.)
But I would question the validity of "He's not moving! He must be dead!"
We are currently discussingq with my colleagues what the correct grammar would be in this context: you have just finished a meal and want to say it was/has been the best meal you ever had. What tenses would be used here?
This was the best meal I have ever had. - some say past simple should not be mixed present perfect like this and would choose past perfect.
Answer
If the meal is finished, then was, not has been. If it is continuing, then has been (so far), not was.
(However, what constitutes the "meal" experience/event? Is it over as soon as the last bite of food is swallowed? Is it over after everyone has left the table?)
These are all correct:
That was the best apple I ever ate. (you finished it)
This is the best party I have ever attended. (you're still partying)
My dictionary defines the following:
yarn: thread that has been spun, used for knitting, weaving, etc.
I am unsure of the meaning of the plural form "yarns". To illustrate, I'll use two examples:
A. "He sold yarns of many colours---red, blue, and white."
B. "She found that five yarns corresponded to a width of one centimetre in the knitted fabric."
After consulting with people that speak English well, I get two different answers:
"yarns" refers strictly to several different types of yarn, as the word is used in example A. However, "yarns" can not be used to refer to several threads of yarn as in example B. (This makes the "yarns" somewhat similar to the "peoples".)
"yarns" may refer to both several different types of yarn and several threads of yarn. Both example A and B show correct usage of "yarns".
Which of these definitions of the plural form is correct? (Or maybe the answer is something different?) If "yarns" cannot be used to describe several threads of yarn (as in example B), then what should example B look like? Is the term "threads of yarn" ok?
The text I am writing is rather formal, so I would appreciate answers that are appropriate in a formal context.
Answer
I believe explanation 1 is the better guide.
When you're talking about the same yarn, you'd say "lengths of yarn", but if there were two different kinds of yarn in the same weave, you'd say "the two yarns are interwoven..."
Other examples of nouns that are pluralized only when different types or classes are being referenced: "I favour milder tobaccos", "they deal in plastics", "a large selection of fabrics".
When two words are hyphenated do they always become one word? Or does it depend on why you use the hyphen?
For example 'four-wheeled carts'. Has 'four' become a prefix or is the purpose of the hyphen to simply imply the relationship between the two words?
Cheers
Answer
No. Hyphenating two adjectives creates a compound adjective, composed of two distinct words, connected by a hyphen for clarity.
From wikipedia:
A compound modifier (also called a compound adjective, phrasal adjective, or adjectival phrase) is a compound of two or more attributive words: That is, more than one word that together modify a noun.
I frequently see statements in the form of this one:
As a skilled computer programmer, this new language is crap.
I think that’s ungrammatical, but can’t explain why. I think it’s because the part before the comma doesn’t correctly attach to the second part.
I would rewrite it,
As a skilled computer programmer, I find this new language to be crap.
Because I think the first part has to attach to “I” or the verb “find”, which is done by the subject “I.”
Please educate me and others.
I know the past tense carries the past tense in every dependent clause, but referring specifically to places or to things that are eternal, like the Earth, seems a bit weird and therefore we sometimes (I believe incorrectly) say
He didn't know that New Jersey was actually on the East Coast.
Because it still is. Or
He thought the Earth was round.
So is it square now?
Logically speaking, would you consider the use of past tense here a bit confusing in a day-to-day speech in these examples? Would you instinctively opt for using the present tense?
Answer
Both tenses are OK, but I believe the past tense is a bit more common: it may be somewhat contrary to logic, but it sounds better. Harmony of tenses (if that's what it's called) is a linguistic phenomenon that is not always very logical.
Is it correct to say
Tsunami coupling in the code 'helps determine' human casualty
i.e., is use of multiple verbs consecutively correct?
Also, is it 'help determine' or 'helps determine'?
Answer
The two verbs reference different things: helps relates to 'Tsunami coupling' here, while determine relates to an abstract "one"; moreover, there's a to elided in the sentence as well. Read it as:
Tsunami coupling in the code helps (one) (to) determine human casuality.
The verbs there are not actually adjacent. Even if they were, that would hardly matter since they are unrelated.
The sentence is grammatically correct.
meta: If you still find the structure a little complicated, you may want to ask the question on ell.stackexchange.com
There was the following sentence in Time magazine’s article titled, “Serena Williams and the theater of public apology” being followed by the strap, “Her recent spat-with-followed-by-olive-branch-to Maria Sharapova was prudent but also pointless.”- http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/24/serena-williams-and-the-theater-of-public-apology/#ixzz2XD3sXGXt
Onetime tennis champion John McEnroe pulls Serena Williams aside to
tell her that he thinks she got screwed by a bad call during Samantha
Stosur’s upset of Williams at the 2011 U.S. Open final. “I think you
got screwed,” we hear him say. - -
“Why do I have to apologize?” we hear Williams ask McEnroe, after he
tells her she’s “the best thing we have in tennis.” “I’m tired of
apologizing. For something that’s not even like…I kinda feel, I just
have people picking on me. I’m done.”
I can’t find the meaning of "I am done." in English dictionaries at hand, but there are several English language sites carrying the meaning of the phrase:
Wordreference. com. defines "I am done," means I have finished some task or activity.
wiki.answers.com defines it means “I have finished” and “I am exhausted (e.g. from work),” as the slang usage.
answers.yahoo. com. defines the phrase means "the person speaking has completed a task --has finished a meal --has read a whole book, article, or other work --has nothing more to do.
However, it doesn’t seem to me that William meant she completed her task at all in this specific occasion, but she said she was sick and tired of being picked on, gossiped about each of her utterances by people.
Here are my questions:
Additionally,
Is “spat-with-followed-by-olive-branch,” which I think a fancy expression a popular idiom or set of word?
Answer
She is done (finished) apologising, and she's done (finished) listening to people who she regards as picking on her.
"I am done" is used, in this instance, in an exasperated manner. Ms. Williams is tired of having to apologise, she wants to stop doing it.
So, the phrase has three normal, informal uses:
Serena William's statement is an example of the third.
An example of the first could be "I'm done with the dishes." meaning that you've finished cleaning the dishes. Alternatively if a waiter aproaches you and asked "Are you done?" they're asking if you've finished eating (or drinking).
An example of the second could be if you're in an argument with a particularly obstinate person and you don't want to argue with them any more. You announce "I'm done." and walk away from them.
I'm having a hard time distinguishing between the two words. I'm unsure of seeking employment "from" or seeking employment "at" a company.
The particular sentence I have in mind is this "[some context]...gain as much experience as possible before seeking employment from/at your company."
My friend and I are having a debate about the following sentence and what to slot into the gap:
______ we had finished the course, we received certificates. (Before/After)
To me it sounds correct to use either before/after in the sentence, like this:
"After we had finished the course, we received certificates".
(We finished the course and then received certificates after that).
"Before we had finished the course, we received certificates".
(We received certificates before the end of the course).
My friend, however, argues that the action expressed in the past perfect ("had finished") must always be the preceding action, followed by the past simple ("received certificates") and so it is ungrammatical to use "before" here.
Which interpretation of the grammar is correct here?
Making a comparison with Who/Whom I now have a question about the use of what with prepositions in questions. I'll explain by example:
These two sentences are correct, one is more formal than the other:
Who/Whom
But if I substitute Who/Whom with What, the "formal" one sounds a bit awkward and I'm not sure if it's correct or not:
What
So, are those last two questions grammatically correct?
Is one more formal than the other?
Answer
Yes, they are both grammatical, but With what are you doing that? is much more formal, and probably quite rare.
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.
Which sentence is grammatically correct? If they are both correct, which one is used more and by whom (while you're at it, correct me on usage of 'whom' and single quotation marks if I used them wrong).
If it helps to answer this question, we usually say "put it down" as opposed to "put down it", and in fact, the latter expression is not even grammatically correct in the slightest bit whereas both (1) and (2) seem equally viable from the perspective of an ESL speaker (that would be me) although by convention, I usually say (1) even though I think I've heard stern mothers in American movies use (2) when shouting at their child (although maybe they say "Put down that box!" instead).
Answer
The sentences are both correct, but the order puts the emphasis on different things. "Put the box down" has an implicit emphasis on the box, whereas "Put down the box" has an emphasis on the action of putting the box down.
It suddenly came to my mind that this is quite strange:
- Obama, with whom I was at school, has just come to live in our street.
- Who are you hanging out with?
Obviously, both sentences are correct, so is "with whom".
But... why do you say "who are you hanging out with", not "whom"?
Answer
You can certainly ask Whom are you hanging out with?— it's completely grammatical— though the kind of person who would say it would probably use the even more stilted With whom are you hanging out?
The difference between who and whom has been covered extensively in previous questions. Whom has been suffering a steady decline (in conversational English) for some decades, and sounds formal or affected. As such, you'd be unlikely to hear it used with the colloquial hanging out, as whom is largely absent from less formal registers these days. Additionally, it is familiar to see who at the head of a sentence as an interrogative pronoun, so it is either less noticed by or less objectionable to pedants.
Is there a rule to understand how the group "Cha" has to be pronounced?
"Character" sounds with a hard first syllable, while "Charm" sound softer, but I don't find how to tell which sound to use before earing someone saying the word. It could be because of the double consonant "rm" vs "ra"? Or is it just a matter of knowing the rule for every single word?
EDIT: More specifically, let's talk about UK English pronunciation.
Answer
I already dealt with <GH> pronunciation variation here; <CH> is a more interesting situation because it involves borrowings from familiar European languages, rather than languages written in other orthographies.
The grapheme <C> goes all the way back to the Semitic glyph gimel, the third letter of the original alphabet: 'aleph 'cow', beth 'house', gimel 'camel', etc. 'Aleph represented a glottal stop, a phoneme the Greeks didn't need, so they threw it away and invented vowel letters (which Semitic writing didn't need so much and didn't use).
So they made alpha a vowel letter. Beth became beta and /b/ is /b/, pretty much the same thing. Gimel /g/ became gamma /g/, and the letter still had the same camel-like hump.
When the Romans borrowed Greek letters, alpha became <A>, beta <B>, and gamma <C>. But it no longer meant /g/; it got devoiced to /k/; <C> always represents /k/, in Classical Latin (Medieval Latin is quite another matter).
And that's the last time that <C> always represents anything. When Latin split into the Romance languages, and Latin writing became a standard for other languages, <C> split into many varieties, depending on the original histories of the various languages, what sound changes had occurred when to which one, and which words had been borrowed into which languages (before or after the sound changes). Some of these variations acquired new spellings as <CH>, because the grapheme <H> is often used to differentiate letters.
From the standpoint of English, the various pronunciations of <CH> include:
Which of the two is correct? Or are they both.
In which cases would one be preferred over the other?
Edit 1: Context
I made other adjustments. Adjustments which included leaving my car at home parked. On one of such days, I see it from . . .
Answer
One of such is not commonly used as a compound determiner with the meaning 'one of the type just specified'. This claim is supported by the results of Ngrams for "one such X,one of such X's" where X = opportunity, problem, day, task... . Care has to be taken with a raw Google search to filter out false positives like 'one of such problems as tend to occur in this type of research' where the compound determiner is one of NOT one of such. A Google search for "on one of such days" - "on one of such days as" shows an insignificant number of hits.
I am looking for an alternative for "full-fledged".
Mister X systematised its use and meaning, and developed the notion
into a full-fledged concept of ...
The context is academic, but not related to zoology. Its a paper about language and semantics, and I do not like the phrase "full-fledged" in those contexts, so I guess I have two questions:
Answer
The other substitutes available for full-fledged can be :
completely developed, developed, experienced, full-grown, grown,
grown-up, in full bloom, mature, qualified, schooled, seasoned,
skilled, trained, well-developed
In mine view mature will be more appropriate.
i.e.
Mister X systematized its use and meaning, and developed the notion into a mature concept...
In the sentence "The convention was attended by hundreds of executives, many of who/whom stopped by our stand to.." should it be "many of who" or "many of whom"?
What is the most common word for a student with special duties who helps the teacher?
As I googled it, I found a number of suggestions including monitor, prefect and factotum. But which one is the most commonly used term in American and English schools?
Update: In an American movie set in an elementary school, one of the students introduces herself to a new teacher, beginning with the words "as the class factotum, I'd like to say 'welcome to our school'." Is "factotum" a common word for a student representative of his/her class?
Here are the examples of adjectival intensification:
It's quite cold here in March.
It's pretty cold here in March.
It's fairly cold here in March.
It's rather cold here in March.
To me, their meaning seems altogether the same—It's cold to a slight or medium degree, a little more or a bit less— but I doubt about the exact sameness.
To make the question topical, I should explain that it was brought up during one of the numerous wide-ranging discussions on the subtleties of the English language I had a few days ago with an acquaintance of mine. Then, he claimed that all intensifiers, even those in my examples, can be ranked by their strength, and backing his point, he mentioned a book on adjective intensification he had come across when he studied the English Language at the University (not in the English-speaking country) in the early 2000s.
After a painstaking search, I came across a link to a book which is unavailable in the place I live in. When I sent the link to the man, he said that the book's title seems familiar to him, but he's not sure.
So, my question is:
Is it true that the intensifiers in the examples can be ranked by their strength? If it is true, what might be their descending order? If there's no rule for this, is there a customary usage order?
Answer
All words have some vagueness (except for maybe technical words with stipulated definitions).
The four words you gave, quite, pretty, fairly, rather (to which could be added very, really, kind of, sort of) depend a lot on context and emphasis. They are not exact synonyms (there are never exact synonyms) and they are somewhat interchangeable, but give slightly different feelings.
I'd order them very roughly as really, rather, very, pretty, quite, fairly, kind of, sort of, but with a lot of overlap in strength and context and understatement may have turn one more than the other. 'Rather' is certainly more than 'fairly' but certainty fades the closer they are.
And even though two may be very hard to distinguish by strength, each still has its own 'feel' to it that is slightly different from the others. 'Very' is kind of boring and has weakened over the years. 'Rather' is a bit rare (to me) in US English, and sounds a little formal, a little British English.
So you can order them, but that order is not set in stone, there's lots of room for slightly different orders.
I read this sentence on an educational website:
Now times have changed and you are ready for situations involving forces in two dimensions.
Shouldn't there be a comma before and, since the subject of the sentence has changed (things vs. you)?
Now times have changed, and you are ready for situations involving forces in two dimensions.
What is the exact comma rule for joining two clauses with and?
Answer
According to some authorities, such as Purdue OWL, yes, a comma should be used before "and" in that sentence:
Use commas to separate independent clauses when they are joined by any of these seven coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet.
It's a compound sentence, as you identified, and should therefore have a comma.
That being said, a more reasonable guideline, as given at Grammartips.homestead.com, governing comma use is that they, like all punctuation, should be used to reduce or eliminate ambiguity. You can often eliminate the comma
if both independent clauses are quite short, especially if the two clauses are very closely related, and even more so if the subject of both clauses is the same, or
if only the first clause is quite short, especially if the two clauses are very closely related, and even more so if the subject of both clauses is the same.
Here is an example involving two short clauses conjoined with 'but':
John went to the store but he didn't buy anything.
Usually when a word starts with a vowel, we will use "an" before it. But for union, it is "a union" not "an union." It is not explained in the previously mentioned a vs an why union is an exception. It explains how to know exceptions for h like hotels.
Also are there any exceptions for the opposite side, where there should be an "a" but is an "an" instead? (Unfortunately I have no example of a case like this.)
Answer
The a/an-rule is based on pronunciation, not on spelling. Though the word union is spelt beginning with a vowel, the u is pronounced "you":
/ˈjuː.ni.ən/
So, this is why it is accompanied by a rather than an and this is also the case for many other words starting with a vowel, have a look at these:
- a user
- a European
but:
- an ultimatum
- an orange
Note that there are words which start with an h and when that h is not pronounced, these words also go with an:
an honor
However, if this h is pronounced, then the article used is a:
- a hill
- a heathen
Here's a short but clear article that explains the usage of a/an: Articles: A versus An
Someone says I need to use "was", someone says to use "were". Which one is correct?
What I saw were a driver and an attendant.
or
What I saw was a driver and an attendant.
So I heard this in a movie and I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct . . .
Should it be:
or
Which one is right, you guys? I'm getting a bit rusty I'm afraid.
Answer
It's a matter of tense.
In present tense (ie you are looking at the object now):
Do you like what you see?
In past tense (ie you were looking at the object yesterday):
Did you like what you saw?
My question relates to these questions :
What is the common way in English (and American English) to say about many related events that can happen due to some condition:
I suppose if this gadget [will be] packed in cardboard box there [will be] less chances that the package [will be] stopped at customs for any additional inspection of its contents.
or even:
I suppose if this gadget [will be] packed in cardboard box there [will be] less chances that the package [will be] stopped at customs for any additional inspection so there [will be] no delay in delivery.
Note: I used "[will be]" to depict that action will occur in a future - I understand that it is incorrect.
I have a problem in the interpretation of the following sentences in the present perfect tense.
1) I have worked for them since 2006.
Does it mean I am still working for them or I don't work for them any more?
2) I have lived in this house since 2006.
Does it mean I am still living in the mentioned house or I don't live in this house anymore?
EDIT: Please note that there is time expressions in both sentences.
English (India) has evolved over the years. It's being given a separate place of its own since the no. of English-speakers are growing rapidly. An example would be the addition of the option English (India) in many popular websites and softwares.
What dictionary would be the most reliable standard for English (India)?
Answer
Websites for Indian English Dictionary :
1) http://www.vsubhash.com/Dictionary_Of_Indian_English.asp
2) http://www.amritt.com/india-english-dictionary/
Ben stared into the distance, then rose from his seat and with his arms held wide, “By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes.”
And as Jane followed his gaze, “My tongue will tell the anger of my heart, or else my heart concealing it will break.”
“Though she be but little, she is fierce!” chuckled Victor.
Would it be correct to write the quotes in the dialogue in this way or would it be expected that the quotes should be centred in the page?
And as Jane followed his gaze, “My tongue will tell the anger of my heart, or else my heart concealing it will break.”
The above is a subordinate clause. Would I get away with that, so I can avoid the rather tedious he said, she said that breaks flow in dialogue in writing? Or would I have to join it to the sentence above, which could cause confusion as to who the speaker is, or would it?
Would it be necessary to capitalise as in Something in the first quote as this would be a new line in the play script.
Secondly, would the same rules apply for singing dialogue in a narrative?
At this point Ben was swinging around the lamppost, “Slast Chlistmas, I gave you my heart.”
Is this okay without he sang?
Jenny joined tunelessly, “And the very next day, you gave it away.”
So I am giving a presentation to an American audience tomorrow, and I have rather cluelessly labeled some components on a Powerpoint slide using the alphabet. When I talk about "component Z", I want to say the right thing. It's too late in the night now to re-label with numbers. I grew up calling it "Zed", but noticed many Americans prefer "Zee"; I want to be correct, not herd-minded.
Answer
The letter 'Z' is called:
'Zed' (/zɛd/) in British English and Commonwealth English (i.e., UK, Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, etc.)
Note that this is also close to its name in several non-English languages: "zeta in Italian and in Spanish, zäta in Swedish, zet in Dutch, Polish, German, Romanian and Czech, zæt in Danish, zett in Norwegian, zède in French, and zê in Portuguese" (all names ultimately derived from the Greek letter zeta).
'Zee' (/ziː/) in American English and Newfoundland English (parts of Canada)
'Izzard' (/ˈɪzərd/) in Scottish English.
Now for which you should use in your case:
The US almost exclusively uses 'Zee'. This is how it's taught to children in schools, and the name they're familiar with. If you use 'Zed' in your presentation, you call attention (a little) to your non-US-ness. Whether this is good or bad is for you to decide.
On the other hand, if you use 'Zee' and the audience consists of a large number of non-Americans (which is possible at a university) or people who otherwise expect you to say 'Zed', some observant ones may notice that you chose to change your normal pronunciation. :-)
From experience, it is my impression that most Americans are either aware of the alternative pronunciation 'Zed' or (more likely) can understand what you mean from context. So the probability of actual confusion is small, I feel, though the probability of distraction may be high enough for you to choose 'Zee'.
"It's sad to see you leave."
"It's sad seeing you leaving."
I know the first one has a infinitive, and the second one a gerund.
But I'm not sure about the difference of the meaning.
or these two sentences mean exactly same?
In this related question (Definite article with proper nouns, titles followed by a common noun), the OP asks if it is grammatical to use the definite article before phrases like Advanced programming in Java whitepaper and Microsoft Office 2010 product. The accepted answer by @Kosmonaut was:
Yes, it is. This is because the "Advanced programming in Java"
whitepaper phrase forms a syntactic unit, with whitepaper as the head
of the unit. The definite article for a phrase always corresponds to
the head of the phrase, so using the definite (or indefinite) article
for these phrases makes perfect sense and is correct English.
My question is whether the same answer applies to phrases like Heathrow Airport, Hyde Park, Waterloo Station, Edgware Road and Parliament Square. I ask becase it seems to me that airport, park and station, etc. sound like they are part of the proper noun itself, and not simply a common noun. Moreover, I think the head of the unit in these cases would be the place name (first noun) and not the place type (second noun). If that's true, then I assume that no definite article should precede these phrases. Is that correct?
Answer
Alexg has got it right, in my view. However, since OP says he is waiting for someone to provide a generalized answer, here's mine.
It is hardly ever wrong to omit the article. "The Mall" is the name on the signs, so must be used: "Strand" (the formal name) is both awkward and confusing, so 'the Strand' is usual: most English towns have a few similar names.
Otherwise, there are many names that have developed from descriptions; 'London Road' is the classic example. Most towns in the Home Counties have a road that leads towards London, and refer to it as 'the London road'. Often, when street names were being given, it was named "London Road". In such a case, locals will often call it 'the London Road', while outsiders including the Post Office call it 'London Road'; I wouldn't say either was right or wrong. (Road is, in practice, the only term to which this applies: "the High Street" is usual, but so is "Church Lane is the high street in that village.")
Similar rules apply to stations, airports, roundabouts, etc. Bournemouth has a roundabout with a Frizzell office block, which everyone calls "the Frizzell roundabout". The council put up a sign saying "Frizzell Roundabout", so you can call it either. As far as I can see, all names with articles follow this rule: you can call what used to be Eastleigh Airport (the airport for Southampton) either "Southampton Airport" or "the Southampton airport". "The Southampton Airport" is not correct, but is an understandable mistake; if enough people use it, the name will change.
One last purely national point; in theory, you could refer to a railway terminus named 'Thingtown Central' as either "Central Station" or "the Central"; maybe this happens in the US. Britain has too many places like Exeter, where Exeter Central is a suburban halt, and the central station is Exeter St David's. (The explanation is historical.) So "the Central Station" would be highly ambiguous, and is never used.
One of the things that is constantly confusing for English language learners, but comes with ease to native speakers, is when to use present continuous and when to use present simple.
Because of this, there are long lists of specific situations where students have to learn which tense is used for what.
For example, we use present simple for a re-occuring or habitual event "I walk home with Josh at 5:00pm" (implies this is a regular occurrence), whereas we use present continuous for a one off future planned event "I'm walking home with Josh at 5:00pm" (I'm doing that later today).
However, one thing that I keep seeing crop up in textbooks is the idea of "timetabled events". This is always left undefined, and is not really clear what it means. The typical example given is "the plane leaves at 3 tomorrow".
But honestly, I'm sure I'm just as likely to use the expression "the plane's leaving at 3 tomorrow."
Which tense to you think you would use, and should the use of the continuous here be viewed as "incorrect"?
I'm editing a draft of a scientific paper which repeatedly uses the word "setup" to refer to the, well, experimental setup.
Example:
The dimensions of the setup are 250 mm × 250 mm × 50 mm.
Every time I see the word "setup" appear by itself, I cringe a little, thinking of, say, Microsoft Windows' SETUP.EXE. However, the phrase "experimental setup" sounds OK.
Is "setup" accepted as a valid word to use for an experimental apparatus, in formal scientific writing in American English?
I had never seen or heard of the word "devotement" until reading it in my Chinese girlfriend's brother's college application essay. To me, it's always been "devotion." However, I noticed that Google Drive was not marking it as an unknown word, so I looked it up on Google. Turns out it's defined in plenty of online dictionaries with a definition equivalent to that of "devotion." It even exists in thesauruses. But for the life of me, I could not find something that talked about when you would use "devotement" instead of "devotion", or how such a similar word ended up in usage. Even now, Chrome's spell check doesn't like that I've placed "devotement" in this paragraph. Why Drive's spellcheck doesn't complain when Chrome's does... only adds to the mystery for me.
Can anyone clear this up for me? Why does "devotement" exist? When would one use it?
Answer
Devotement is an outdated, less common variant of devotion:
- The action of devoting, or fact of being devoted; devotion, dedication.
- 1604 Shakes. Oth. ii. iii. 322 He hath deuoted, and giuen vp himselfe to the Contemplation, marke, and deuotement of her parts and Graces.
- 1852 Wayland Mem. Judson (1853) i 29 His own personal devotement to the missionary cause.
OED
Ngram: devotement vs devotion.
Ngram: devotement.
It origin is probably due to the practice of adding the suffix -ment to verbs to form nouns which starred from the 16th century:
-ment :
suffix forming nouns, originally from French and representing Latin -mentum, which was added to verb stems sometimes to represent the result or product of the action. French inserts an -e- between the verbal root and the suffix (as in commenc-e-ment from commenc-er; with verbs in ir, -i- is inserted instead (as in sent-i-ment from sentir).
Used with English verb stems from 16c. for example merriment, which also illustrates the habit of turning -y to -i- before this suffix).
(Etymonline)
Devotion (n.) has an older origin:.
- early 13c., from Old French devocion "devotion, piety," from Latin devotionem (nominative devotio), noun of action from past participle stem of devovere "dedicate by a vow, sacrifice oneself, promise solemnly,"
From which devote (verb)
- 1580s, from Latin devotus, past participle of devovere (see devotion). Second and third meanings in Johnson's Dictionary (1755) are "to addict, to give up to ill" and "to curse, to execrate; to doom to destruction."
and later (17th century) "devotement".