verb agreement - "5 votes {was/were} chosen to be the number of close votes needed...": Which is correct?

"5 votes was chosen to be the number of close votes needed to close a question"

Grammarly says that I should change "was" to "were," but it doesn't sound right to me. What's the correct conjugation to use here, singular or plural?

Answer

To paraphrase your sentence, you would say:

The number of close votes needed was five.

The subject of the sentence is the number (singular) so the verb takes a singular form.

(Or, more precisely, it's the entire subject phrase the number of close votes needed, because the number is modified by of close votes needed. But for the sake of this explanation, it's easiest to think of just the number.)

Just as you would say:

The number is five.
The numbers were five and six.

Again, the verb matches the singular or plural subjects.

So, going back to the actual phrasing of your sentence:

5 was chosen to be the number of close votes needed.

The subject remains the number and the verb remains in the singular.

Note: As per a perfectly correct comment, the number of votes cannot be 5 votes; it is simply 5. I have edited the actual sentence to correct this.

The sentence in question has been constructed in such a way that 5 votes misleads you into thinking that it's the subject.

Subject in sentence with only object pronoun

Let us go

is a correct construction in the English language and definitely not:

Let we go

However, the question is: since us is an object-case pronoun, what is the subject of this sentence?

Answer

It's an imperative, and in English the imperative tense only is possible in the second person.

So grammatically, the subject has to be "you".

It can't be interpreted literally; it's an idiom whose meaning isn't really an imperative that you do something, but a suggestion that we do something.

grammar - Does this stylistic guideline have a name?

The principle would be something like: Avoid a long modifying clause that creates distance between your subject and verb

For example, according to this guideline, the sentence

One of his uncles who had made millions of dollars in the oil industry
in the sixties by inventing a new kind of pump left John a giant
inheritance.

should be rewritten as follows:

One of his uncles had made millions of dollars in the oil industry in
the sixties by inventing a new kind of pump. This man left John a
giant inheritance.

Does this principle or guideline have a name? Bonus points for references to any books or websites that discuss it.

EDIT - A related link

This article discusses using noun phrases instead of clauses as a way to improve writing. While more focused than the principle above (and still without a name), I thought it was a good guideline, and it's the closest thing I've found so far.

Answer

Well, it's not a rule, it's a guideline. Your first sentence is after all grammatically correct. If we used commas to make the part from who to pump a parenthetical clause as thus:

One of his uncles, who had made millions of dollars in the oil industry in the sixties by inventing a new kind of pump, left John a giant inheritance.

Then it isn't even a difficult sentence to parse.

The reason for the guideline is threefold:

1. With a greater distance between subject and verb there comes a greater chance of introducing an error or ambiguity by e.g. having a noun in the piece between the subject and verb that could be mistaken for the subject. (So while it's not a rule, following it makes us less likely to break a rule by mistake).




2. It tends to make for snappier and more easily understood sentences.




3. It tends to make for shorter sentences, which in turn tends to make for snappier and more easily understood sentences. (Favouring short sentences is a guideline in itself).

It's very important to stress the difference between a guideline and a rule. Knowing the rules let's us write English that is correct. Knowing the guidelines can help us write English that is not only correct, but good.

At the same time, breaking the guidelines is often the best approach to a given sentence, paragraph, etc. that results in stronger writing than if it was followed. Breaking the rules is in the "don't try this at home" territory; there are times that it can be done, but they are rarer, require more skill to carry off, and even the greats can sometimes produce questionable results.

Also, the way we might debate rules and guidelines differs too. If someone were to say (as some have done) that there is a rule against splitting an infinitive, then it can be debunked by showing that it is commonly done and produces a clearly understandable expression. If someone were to say (as others have done) that while there is no such rule, there is a guideline to avoid it, then to argue against one must show that the product of ignoring it is as good, or better, than of following it—and that will be subjective at the best of times.

In terms of your question, this distinction is relevant. The rules of grammar are studied not just by those of us who wish to follow them well, but by those of us who want to understand how language works; to know the explanation for why "the cars is parked outside" is not something we would say (that being an example of agreement, specifically agreement in grammatical number because cars is plural and is is singular).

The guidelines are more given to disagreements of personal opinion (can you imagine if Philip Roth were forced to follow the guideline of avoiding long sentences or Ernest Hemmingway forced to abstain from sentence fragments?), often vague in definition (how large a distance between subject and verb do we need before we consider your guideline broken?), often contradictory (the guideline against long sentences conflicts with that of using longer sentences in the middle of a paragraph than at the beginning or end), and harder to detect (how to judge a conscious effort to keep subject near verb from simply not having much to add between them?).

These features in themselves make them less likely to have name, and less likely again to have names that are universal. I personally think of "proximity" when I'm wondering if I have stretched words too far from their companions, but that would certainly not be a good name since "proximity principle" is term for a grammatical rule.*

The stylistic principles we do have names for tend not to be those that help writing be clear and understandable, as those which are used for specific effects. Often these go against the first set of principles, as diacope, anaphora and epistrophe along with many others go against the general guideline of avoiding repetition.

Between it not being a firm rule and it being vague, I think the odds of finding a fully agreed on name are slim. No doubt some people have names for things, as we're all given to naming things and those of us who worry about distance between subject and verb particularly so, but I'd be more surprised if they are widely accepted and used by others.

*Not an uncontroversial one. The proximity principle has us write "more than one bystander was hurt" rather than "more than one bystander were hurt", because we have was/were agree with bystander which is singular, rather than the whole phrase more than one bystander which is plural. However, some would disagree with this one, and some who would agree would disagree in other cases that some people use it. The proximity principle is perhaps more useful in speaking descriptively of what people do write, than prescriptively about what you think people should write.

verbs - When is the present perfect tense used instead of the past tense?

When is the present perfect tense used instead of the past tense?

I know that the present perfect tense is used when some adverbs (e.g., never, ever) are present in the sentence; the same is true for sentences like the following one.

When you returned, I have been at home since 3:00 PM.

In which other cases should I use the present perfect? Do the following sentences require it?

I have walked downtown everyday for a year.

I have been at home since 3:00 PM.

Answer

The present perfect is used for unfinished or undefined time. I don't think your example is correct, since for a year is understood to be a finished time. A time period of one year. It would have been correct if you wrote:

I have walked downtown every day this year.

In that case you'd have unfinished time. The time period would be up to and including now. If you used a defined and finished time in the past like last august, then you'd have to use the simple past.

I walked downtown every day last August.

Since last August is finished time, you have to use the simple past.

Grammar: Should the sentence say, "my sister or I" or "my sister or me"?

I read the following sentence, "My mother won't put up with my sister or I swearing." My question is, should the sentence say, "my sister or I" or "my sister or me"?

Is there a word that means (ac)cumulation over time?

I’m looking for a word that means (ac)cumulation over time. The time aspect is important. I looked around National Geographic articles on ice sheet formation hoping that I would stumble on a suitable word, but didn’t.

I'm trying to think of a more succint publication title. My current (and somewhat wordy) version is

"A Time-series Accumulation Approach to Soil Moisture Retrieval".

I was looking for an adjective to replace the "time-series accumulation" part.

adjectives - "Inward-pointing" or "inward pointing"

Which one is correct?

The normal vector we mean is the inward-pointing normal.

The normal vector we mean is the inward pointing normal.

Answer

First let me state that this is mostly a matter of style, and if you are writing for an academic or technical publication, you would do well to get a copy of their style guide and look there for your answer.

That said, hyphens in compound adjectives are used for clarity. They are not always necessary, but are used when a compound may be ambiguous, as in

I'm hosting a small car auction

I'm hosting a small-car auction.

Here the first sentence could mean an auction of small cars or a car auction that is small. The second sentence specifies that it is the former.

When an adverb and adjective combine to make a compound adjective, a hyphen is frequently unnecessary, because more often there is less chance for ambiguity.

He was a well known cellist.

Here there is little chance for confusion, so the hyphen may be dropped.

In your example, "inward pointing" and "inward-pointing" are both correct and easily understood. It becomes a matter of style as to which you prefer.

grammar - Didn't you know there+ was/is

What is the difference between the following:

Didn't you know there was an election today.

Didn't you know there is an election today.

Isn't the second one ungrammatical?

Using the Possessive with Gerunds: appreciate their thinking or appreciate them thinking?

In formal writing, which sentence would be a better choice to imply "I appreciated that they had thought of me"?

1. I appreciated their thinking of me.


2. I appreciated them thinking of me.

Is there a subtle difference in the two constructions? To mean that sentence number 1 stresses on the act of thinking and sentence number 2 stresses on the people who are thinking? Or can both be used to mean the same thing?

possessives - What is the correct way to say "It was this week that Justin and my lives changed forever"?

What is the correct way to indicate "Justin and I" as being possessive of our individual lives in this sentence? Is there a way to do this without restructuring the sentence?

A friend of mine posted a Facebook status that said, "It was this week that Justin and my lives changed forever," in regard to a Facebook memory. This doesn't sound correct to me, as it is possessive and thus, I assume, needs a possessive suffix ('s) after either "Justin" or "my".

I've seen some other threads on here that come pretty close to answering my question, but they all follow the joint possessive (my and Justin's) with a singular noun, like "cat" or "seafood dinner".

The best solution I can think of is to change "Justin and my" to "our", but in a sentence that follows she says, "Now he's gone over a year...etc." without any other reference to Justin, so I feel like individual identity might be important to maintain. Some other possibilities that I've seen suggested include:

• It was this week that Justin and my's lives changed forever


• It was this week that my and Justin's lives changed forever


• It was this week that mine and Justin's lives changed forever


• It was this week that Justin and I's lives changed forever



• It was this week that Justin and my's life changed forever

Are any of these suggestions even remotely correct?

Thanks in advance, everyone!

---

Links to the threads I mentioned:

Another page I found - they suggest 'our' the the second last paragraph

Answer

The least amount of restructuring I can think of is:

It was this week that both my life and Justin's changed forever.

The use of both makes it clear that there are two lives—rather than a shared single life (in the case of a partnership).

Without any restructuring, the "best" that can be done (I think) is:

It was this week that Justin's and my life changed forever.

With joint ownership, the possessive belongs to the final subject. In the example, since the first subject has a possessive, it could be assumed that there is no joint ownership. Of course, this is still not ideal. I don't think there is a good solution without some degree of restructuring.

meaning - The rhetorical effect of "no more ... than" construction

The following is a part of the section 15.70 of A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Longman).

Rachel is no more courageous than Saul(is).

The sentence implies that both Rachel and Saul are not courageous(
'Rachel is not courageous, any more than Saul is courageous').

and later

They are no more scholars than my baby (is). ['They are no more scholarly...']

The rhetorical effect of the construction is not so much to make a comparison as to intensify the negation.

Since it is absurd to say "my baby is scholarly", I can notice that this sentence has a rhetorical meaning. But, in the first example there is no suggestion that Saul is not courageous. Does the no more ... than construction automatically suggest that the proposition of subordinate clause is false? Or, does it depend on the context (so, it only has the literal meaning if it is taken out of the context suggesting that the proposition of subordinate clause is false)?

grammar - How can I say "Do something in exchange" in a different way?

I'd like to know alternative ways to say: "Do something in exchange" when someone helps me. If possible can you guys give me three or more examples?

For example,

"Thanks for helping, what can I do in exchange?"

Could I say "Do something back" (I don't know if it's grammatically right) to show my appreciation.

Thanks in advance.

Answer

Is there something I can do in return?

[do] something in return Thesaurus.com

grammaticality - Is it considered rude language to omit interrogatives in speech?

At least, I think the proper word is interrogatives. But, for example, in proper sentence structure, you would see sentences such as,

Are you still here, Alouicious?

Is there a doctor in the room?

In informal speech, sometimes you can omit the actual questioning word, but still pass it off as a question, so long as it isn't confused for a completely different query.

You still here, Alouicious?

There a doctor in the room?

I know it's probably not sound in terms of grammar, but my concern is, is this considered a rude or uncouth kind of language? Or at least, is it considered far less polite than to use the full sentence?

It also shows up in the case of converting, say, "What the are you doing?" into "The you doing?", but I imagine the politeness of that scenario tends to get clouded by the choice of intensifier.

Answer

What you are talking about is totally sound in terms of grammar; it's just informal. It's not generally considered rude at all, except on occasions using informal language in general can come off as rude. (Of course, your last example with "what the _" has the potential to be quite offensive, but that would be determined by the profanity you decided to insert into the sentence and not whether you dropped a verb.)

This process is systematic. You are omitting either the copula or the auxiliary verb in an interrogative sentence. This means the word that is dropped is either be, have, or do.

• (Are) you tired? (copula)


• (Is) he coming with us? (auxiliary)



• (Have) you seen anything like this before?


• (Does) anyone want tea?

People do this all the time; probably more than they realize.

---

As for "(what) the hell" and such constructions, the dropping of what and the syntax behind it is a bit of a different animal. Profanity often has extra-linguistic properties; even the "what the _" construction (forgetting about omitting what) itself does not follow any kind of normal syntactic structure at all.

(For another example, check out this extremely interesting linguistics paper: English Sentences without Overt Grammatical Subjects. Warning: this paper examines profanity so... don't be surprised at what you read.)

Need help with this thesis title formation

My thesis title must convey that it covers three topics:

1. Verification of compressible CFD codes


2. Verification of incompressible CFD codes


3. Residual-based mesh adaptation

Note that the first two topics are somewhat similar to each other in that they both are about verification.

Which of the following is the correct formation for the title?

(a) Verification of Compressible, Incompressible CFD Codes and Residual-based Mesh Adaptation

(b) Verification of Compressible, Incompressible CFD Codes, and Residual-based Mesh Adaptation

(c) Verification of Compressible and Incompressible CFD Codes and Residual-based Mesh Adaptation

Note the comma after "CFD Codes" in (b). Also, let's not worry about title case capitation etc. for now.

Are there any other good formations to convey the information about the three topics?

I am not an English major, so pardon any ignorance.

How to ask a question to get an ordinal number answer

Possible Duplicates:
How to phrase an asking sentence that must be answered with an ordinal number?
Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number

Given that I want to know Barack Obama is the 44th President of U.S.A, how can I frame a question like:

The how manyeth president is Barack Obama?

Answer

I'd go with the following structure:

Q: Where does Obama fall in the sequence of US presidents?

A: [He's the] 44th [president].

This reflects similar usage when discussing, for instance, rankings:

Q: Where did Harvard fall on the U.S. News & World Report list this
year?

A: 2nd.

punctuation - Hyphenation in compound adjectives

Possible Duplicates:
To hyphenate or not?
When is it necessary to use a hyphen in writing a compound word?
When is it appropriate to use a hyphen?

In the sentence "Portland is known to be one of the most bike friendly cities in the US", is a hyphen necessary in "bike friendly"? As far as I know, the hyphen is only required when leaving it out would cause ambiguity. Wikipedia uses the example of "a small appliance factory" vs "a small-appliance factory".

As far as I can tell, the sentence above is pretty clear. A quick google search for "bike friendly city" brings up instances of both hyphenated and non-hyphenated usage. Thoughts?

Please excuse the poor formatting, sent from my iPhone.

meaning - "Me being" versus "my being"

Until a few months ago, I had always thought that sentences like this were correct:

They always hated me being an atheist.

Only later to find out that the correct form is:

They always hated my being an atheist.

I came to understand the reason behind this and started using the proper form, but as I've seen the latest futurama episode, I found out the problem is far from over. The main cast character, Fry, said the following:

Never bet against me being stupid.

And now I'm totally lost. I've tried googling for an answer and all I found (by @Cerberus here or by others here, here, here and here) seems to disprove the fact of "me being" being correct.

So I ask: did the creators of futurama make such a horrible mistake, or does this problem go deeper than meets the eye?

Does an abstract noun take "articles" before it?

We're taught that abstract nouns don't take any articles before them.

But we have sentences like -

Speak the truth.

and

Don't tell a lie.

Why do abstract nouns like "truth" or "lie" take the articles before it here?

Please, answer my question with an explanation!

Thanks in advance!!

Usage and meaning of "plus"

I have a question about this word: "plus".
Where can we use "plus"?
Do these phrases have any meaning? What are they?

• America Plus


• American Plus

Answer

Plus is Latin. Means "more" but in the additive way.

Non plus ultra = No más allá. No further than that.

1 plus 1.

When used in names, means "best", exaggeration, some kind of "push up". I'm just recalling this so you surely should check the Latin original term and the usage in English today.

In your examples. American Plus = American Best, American Top.

As with many Latin words, the translation is subjective to the context, but when used in branding, is just a "cliché" to say you're top.

grammatical number - What is the plural of "API"?

What is the plural of "API" (Application programming interface)

Is it part of English irregular plurals ending in "-i"?

grammar - using of inversion in english

Only when is the green light on vehicles may cross the train track.

Only when the green light is on vehicles may cross the train track.

which of these is grammatically correct to use, as I have learnt the word only at the beginning of the sentence followed by auxiliary verb(inversion), but it sounds a bit odd to me.

grammatical number - "They're using a cell phone" vs. "They're using cell phones"

The usage of singular and plural has always been confusing for me.

I often see sentences like these

1. People are using cell phones.


2. People are using a cell phone.

Does the first sentence mean everyone has a phone and they are all using their own?
Does the second sentence mean they are sharing one cell phone?

If I see a group of people holding a cell phone in their hand(s), <- even this is confusing for me, should I use the first sentence then?

Another example: you see two men, and both of them are carrying a bag. Which sentence should I say/use?

3. They are carrying backpacks



4. They are carrying a backpack

Could you please make it clear for me?

Answer

This aspect of grammar is called the distributive plural. Swan in Practical English Usage (p530) has the following discussion:

Singular and plural: distributive plural

1. people doing the same thing

To talk about several people doing the same thing, English usually
prefers a plural noun for a repeated idea.

• Tell the kids to bring raincoats to school tomorrow.




• (More natural than Tell the kids to bring a raincoat ...)

Plural forms are almost always used in this case if there are
possessives.

• Tell the children to blow their noses. (not ... to blow their nose.)


• Six people lost their lives in the accident.

Quirk et al. in A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (p768) list two similar examples:

• Have you all brought your cameras? [Each has a camera.]




• Hand in your papers next Monday. [Each has to hand in one paper.]

and agree with Swan that "... the distributive plural is the norm ...".

But the CGEL goes on to state that:

... the distributive singular may also be used to focus on individual
instances. We therefore often have a number choice.

• Some children have understanding fathers / an understanding father.




• We all have good appetites / a good appetite.

The CGEL concludes its discussion as follows:

The singular is sometimes used to avoid ambiguity:

• Students were asked to name their favorite sport.

The singular makes it clear that only one sport was to be named. Similarly:

• Children must be accompanied by a parent.

Turning to the OP's example, the speaker has a 'number choice'. While, according to Swan and Quirk, the plural is the more usual form (People are using cell phones), the singular (People are using a cell phone) can also be used 'to focus on individual instances'.

As for the recipient of the message, their world-knowledge will most likely lead them to interpret both sentences identically, namely that each person is using his or her own single phone. People don't usually use more than one phone at a time, and people even less usually jointly and simultaneously use a single phone.

The same reasoning applies to the backpack example. Our experience of the world tells us that people almost always carry a single backpack and almost never share the carrying of a single backpack.

It is incumbent, therefore, on the maker of the message to anticipate when our real-world experience may lead us to the wrong interpretation or when the message is inherently ambiguous and a correct interpretation is important. In both such cases, the message needs to be phrased in such a way as to be clear to the recipient how many of the items are involved for each of the people.

For example:

• Two people and one backpack: They are carrying a backpack between
  them.




• People, all using more than one phone: People are using each of their
  phones.

hyphenation - Hyphen rule for "thing doers"

I'm confident in my abilities regarding where to place and not place hyphens except in one area: when you have a phrase that consists of a noun and a noun that consists of a verb with -er at the end, does that get a hyphen?

For instance, if I'm talking about a scheme that will give you twice as much money as you had before, is that a "money doubler" or is it a "money-doubler"? Some instances of this sort of phrase just turn it into one word like "heartbreaker" or "homemaker."

I have no idea what to call this, so I don't know what to Google. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Answer

There is a lot of fluidity to compound words. Though you will see cry-baby and low-life and to-day seldom today, they used to be common. (Not all words go this way -- we used to get off our hobby-horse and eat some ice-cream, but these are largely separated by a space to-day.)

I would consider the no-space, no-hyphen forms like homemaker and chickpea to be reserved for the most familiar terms which happen case-by-case.

I don't think there is a general rule. The New York Times Manual of Style lists dozens upon dozens of specific word combinations so that their editors know how to speak of airfields, air-conditioners, and air rifles.

Question about conditional

I'm referring to Benidorm, Season 2, Episode 1 (Jacqueline):

This structure:

If it were me who had picked up that ******, I wouldn't have come
back.

This sentence sounds (and looks) strange. I am used to standard 2nd and 3rd, as well as mixed, conditionals.

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

Massimo

Is this a non-defining relative clause in the past perfect, dropped into the middle of a 2nd/3rd mixed conditonal?

Answer

Yes, it's grammatically fine: I can't see anything strange about it.

And yes, there is a defining relative clause in there; it modifies the NP "me".

word choice - Use of “of” vs “from” to identify one’s company/department

I was reading this document about conducting business meetings with customers, and in the Opening meeting section I noticed this sentence:

On joining, identify yourself (Hello everyone. This is (name) of company-name (department))

So basically they are saying that I should say

Hello everyone. This is Abc of Xyz Development.

Isn't from more suitable? I would say:

Hello everyone. This is Abc from Xyz Development.

Answer

In a nutshell: "from" implies in origin.

In this case "of" is used because "from" would imply that you ARE from development and came from there such as in: "I came from X department". If used in this case, that could mean you were transfered from Development to some other department (ambiguous, I'd say). On the other hand, the use of "of" means you are related to Development at a non-specified degree, including the degree of working there.

grammar - Question about singular/plural with present perfect

Is the following sentence correct?

"Two thirds of land has already been sold."

Is it correct as it has the singular have verb "has" or it shoulb be rewritten with the plural verb "have"?

Answer

In the question and related comments, two separate "fraction" issues have emerged.

1. Should the verb be plural because it refers to a fraction?

Generally speaking - though there are exceptions - the fraction takes the same plurality as the thing it modifies; see here for a good explanation. In the specific context of the present question, "the land" is singular therefore it's appropriate to use the singular verb "has".

2. Should the fraction be hyphenated?

This depends on how the fraction is being used. In situations where the fraction is a noun, there should be no hyphen, whereas if the fraction is being used as an adjective to describe something else, it should be hyphenated; see here for an explanation. For example:

• "Two thirds of the land" [the "thirds" here is a plural noun, with
  "two" being the adjective that modifies it];


• "Two-thirds share of the land" ["thirds" is now acting as an
  adjective modifying the noun "share", and "two" is acting like an
  adverb modifying "thirds"].

So in the present question, it's correct to write the fraction without the hyphen.

uncountable nouns - Can some kind of [uncountable_noun] outnumber another kind of [uncountable_noun]?

I wanted to say that there was more anonymous feedback than registered feedback, so I considered saying:

Anonymous feedback outnumbers registered feedback

This seemed not quite right, so I said:

Anonymous feedback... er... instances outnumber registered feedback instances

This seemed not really to be an improvement at all, aesthetically at least.

Perhaps talking about one kind of feedback outnumbering another is alright, or has some justification since the feedback comes in discrete units (votes). But trying this with other uncountable nouns seemed worse...

Helpful information outnumbers useless information

That feels wrong...

So, can and should some quantity of an uncountable noun ever be said to outnumber another quantity of the same noun? Is there a better alternative than forming some compound countable noun (perhaps replacing outnumber with something else)?

grammar - A pack of wolves run through the woods

Is the correct to say

A pack of wolves run through the woods

or is the correct English

A pack of wolves runs through the woods

The former sounds right. However, I think the subject is a pack and of wolves adds a description to the subject. In this case the subject is singular, so therefore the verb must be singular.

Am I correct? It just doesn't feel right.

grammar - abbreviation for number neutral?

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this..

But when identifying pronouns, they are often given codes

1ms = 1st person masculine singular

and if a language, e.g. english and many others, don't specify gender in the first person, then C is (common?) gender..

1cs = (I guess) 1st person ("common?") singular

So "I" or "me" in English is given the pronoun abbreviation code 1cs

What about though, if the third letter in the abbreviation (the gender), is "common"? e.g. in English, in the second person "You" can be male or female, singular or plural. It's like 2cc (though i've not seen the abbreviation 2cc) What is the correct abbreviation to describe that neutral gender and neutral number?

phrasing - Another way of expressing "morally wrong" ideas

In an article I'm writing, I have the following sentence:

"It might be a bit of a moral gray area to..."

I go on to give an analogy to connect it to the topic I'm writing about, but I'm not liking the phrase "it might be a bit of a moral gray area." I'd like to re-phrase this sentence somehow, but I'm not sure how to express the idea of "a morally gray" area, if that makes sense. Something that... while it's not outright bad or illegal, it's also not ethically acceptable.... "or is it?" That's kind of where I'm stuck with phrasing. Any help, advice or ideas would greatly be appreciated.

Answer

"Morally dubious" would convey your meaning well. It carries the idea that someone could think the course of action might be defensible if they try hard enough but really it is not what a decent person would do.

It's very similar to @Miike's 'morally-questionable' but seems a little stronger in its condemnation to me.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks in advance for any tips!

pronouns - Under which conditions can "one" be used to refer to non human entity?

I've heard that one is understood as referring to people if one uses any one as in

Q: Which of these ice cream flavors do you want?
A: Any one.

I understand that any one sounds like anyone, but is that a reason not to use the expression?

What about other uses of one, such as the first one and one of them?

Answer

"One" is used as a pronoun for things and people.

Things:

• "Please hand me the one on the right."


• "John wants the same one as all his friends."


• "Having only one is never enough."

People:

• "Mary is the one who gave me this cold."


• "The one on the right is my sister."


• "Go in one at a time, please."

grammatical number - What is the plural of "chewing gum"?

What's the plural of "chewing gum"?

Hearing "do you have any chewing gums?" sounds wrong; I would say "do you have any chewing gum?", but looking it up, there seems to be a bit of confusion on Google. Some results indicate that "chewing gums" is the plural form of "chewing gum", while others say that "chewing gum" is an uncountable noun, and has the same plural as the singlar form.

Answer

Chewing gum is an uncountable (mass) noun, and therefore follows these rules for plurals:

singular: chewing gum This chewing gum is delicious.
plural 1: chewing gum Do you have any chewing gum?
plural 2: chewing gums Ten of the chewing gums in our test lost flavor after two minutes.

single word requests - What is the number written at the end of some names?

As far as I can tell there is [Title/Suffix] [First Name] [Last Name/Surname] [Number].

I am confused on two things really:

• What do you call the last part of someone's name like "III" for 'the third'?


• Why do they call Mr./Mrs./etc the suffix of a name when it is actually the first part of the name?

Answer

You have it backwards. II/JR.... are the suffix. Mr, Mrs. are the Title or prefix

word choice - If I help "evacuate" a building, what am I doing to the people?

I remember reading somewhere that to evacuate a person is a medical procedure, and not something to be done during an earthquake. (I thought it was in Fowler, but I just looked and couldn't see it). The point is that it is the building that is being evacuated, not the people. "Evacuate" comes from the Latin word for "to empty out".

If this is so, what is happening to the people that are being helped out of a building that is being evacuated?

I was reminded of this question during an episode of CSI: Miami (don't judge me) where someone tells flame-haired Horatio Caine that "You helped evacuate me yesterday". What should she have said to him? "You helped evacuate the building I was in" sounds a little circumlocutionary.

I should have anticipated answers saying "You can use evacuate like that". As far as I can tell, the OED doesn't allow "evacuate" to be the verb that you do to people when removing them from a burning building. So there isn't quite a consensus that I'm barking up the wrong tree, although the concise OED allows "to remove from a place of danger".

Let's say I didn't want to do that for the (perhaps mistaken) reason that it was worth having a distinction between what is being made empty and what it is being emptied of. Let's say I'm super-worried about there being some confusion about whether Horatio helped the woman get to the hurricane shelter or whether he helped perform an unlicensed medical procedure on her. Both might be legitimate readings of "He helped her evacuate". I want this to refer to the latter, so how would I unambiguously talk about the former?

Answer

I'd say that you are rescuing them, or helping them exit the building.

possessives - "Me and Joey's" or "mine and Joey's"

Which of the following should I use?

Today is me and Joey's anniversary
Today is mine and Joey's anniversary

word choice - Whatever/everything/anything..how to find out?

I am desperate because I just cannot find the way how to know which one is correct.

E.g.:
Do whatever/everything/anything you like.
Do your best whatever/everything/anything you do.
Stop doing whatever/everything/anything I do!

I am particularly interested of explanation - I somehow feel what fits (usually)

Answer

In general, there is little or no difference between them; the three words can be used almost interchangably in many situations (particularly anything and whatever). But your examples manage to point out some subtle contextual differences.

---

Do whatever you like.
Do anything you like.

These are pretty much synonomous. Figure out something you want to do, and do it.

Do everything you like.

This is more all-encompassing. Instead of focusing on one thing to do, you can do several things.

Perhaps it's better described with a more concrete example. Suppose a parent and child are brainstorming birthday ideas, and they've come up with four: have an afternoon party, meet with friends at a restaurant for dinner, go skating, or go bowling.

If the parent says:

For your birthday, we can do whatever you'd like.

The implication is: pick one (or maybe two) of those options, and we'll do it.

But if the parent says:

For your birthday, we can do everything you'd like.

The implication is: it may be an exhausting day, but we can do any or all of those things!

---

Whatever you do, do your best.
With anything you do, do your best
In everything you do, do your best.

All three of these are ways to say, "Put forth your best effort." The third one seems more universal, but the end result is the same. It doesn't matter of you do your best every time you start a new task (Whatever you do, do your best), or if you live by the exhortation to do your best at all times (In everything you do, do your best). No matter how it's worded, live by this principle, and you'll always be doing your best.

---

Stop doing whatever I do!
Stop doing everything I do!

Both of these sound like someone is being chided for aping someone else. But

Stop doing anything I do!

doesn't sound quite right. Anything seems too vague to refer to some explicitly mimicked action, but whatever and everything work just fine.

definite articles - Using "the" with name of research center

The name of our research center is Southeastern Transportation Center, STC is the acronym, of course. In writing, I use STC, not 'the STC' but our director says 'the' is needed so that it reads well. For example, I write: STC supports graduate education.; director says it should be The STC supports graduate education.

Ruling?

Superlative, present perfect vs past perfect

In the following context, can I have present perfect, or do I need to use past perfect?

It was the worst food I've ever eaten / I had ever eaten.

Thank you :)

Compound adjectives functioning as adverbs modifying other adjectives; is it possible and grammatical?

Soul-crushingly bad; heartbreakingly sad; bone-crunchingly violent; etc. I swear I have seen it done, but I am not sure whether it's proper grammar or not.

capitalization - Should foreign titles be capitalized according to English rules?

Most words in a title are capitalized in English but this is not true of all languages; others only capitalize the first word and proper nouns. When you want to use a foreign title in an English text, say Lorem ipsum, which is the correct capitalization?

Option 1: Use English rules.

Lorem Ipsum is a pretty interesting book.

Option 2: Use rules of the original language.

Lorem ipsum is a pretty interesting book.

grammaticality - Why do we use the word "Do" when connecting a sentence?

I was reading a news paper article of Times Of India, and came across a sentence-

To begin with, a woman's right to property has already been established under law. This means that she has equal rights to her parental property as her male siblings. In such a scenario, according women an extra legal right over their husbands' residential property - which too could be inherited - is unfair. Neither do men have the same rights over their wives' property nor can they claim emotional damages during divorce.

Why there is a word "do" in between "Neither" and "men have".?

From my pointing of view It might be -
"Neither men have the same rights over their wives' property nor can they claim emotional dames during divorce".

I have also heard people saying that
"I do agree with your statement".

Why could not it may be "I agree with your statement".

Is There any grammatical mistake in these sentences or both I can use interchangeably?

Answer

The most common form of sentence inversion in English is called subject-auxiliary inversion. In order to perform this inversion, the sentence needs an auxiliary verb. If the sentence doesn't have an auxiliary, one is added. Often, that auxiliary is "do".

Inversions are most commonly used for questions. In this case, the inversion is used to create an embedded question, and there are actually two embedded questions in the sentence each with inversions. The first one uses "do" and the second one uses "can".

Neither

• do men have the same rights over their wives' property

nor

• can they claim emotional damages during divorce.

The embedded questions are complete sentences in this case, so you can say:

• Do men have the same rights over their wives' property?


• Can they claim emotional damages during divorce?

Note that not all embedded questions use question order, e.g.,

I know who he is. (correct)

I know who is he. (incorrect)

The second example is different.

I do agree with your statement. (correct)

I agree with your statement. (correct)

In this case, "do" is used for emphasis.

meaning - "A number of students" vs. "the number of students"

From the grammatical view both are correct, but please explain the difference in meaning:

1. The number of students in the class is fifteen.


2. A number of students were late for class.

Answer

The number of students in the class is fifteen.

The verb is singular because it refers to 'the number'. The subject of this sentence is 'the number'. 'Of students' is a modifier of 'the number'

'A number of' means several, some.

Several students were late for class.

Some students were late for class.

A number of students were late for class.

The subject of these sentences is 'students', and 'some', 'several', 'a number of' are modifiers of 'students'. The verb agrees with the subject.

"(zero article) failure" but "the departure": articles before mass nouns

A quote from The Economist:

In Iraq failure to reach a similar security agreement led to the

sudden and premature departure of all American forces.

Here we have two nouns which may be either mass or count according to Oxford Dictionary. One has a zero article (failure), the other takes THE (departure).

Filling in articles (which were pre-cut in a text editor), I've committed two mismatches with The Economist's version, as follows:

In Iraq *the failure to reach a similar security agreement led to *a
sudden and premature departure of all American forces.

I thought that the noun "failure" here is a mass noun, yet modified enough (which failure? - "to reach a similar..") to merit the definite article.

Concerning the "departure", I'd consulted Oxford Dictionary which states that the word may be used as a count noun: "she made a hasty departure". Besides, the troops' departure may well be unknown to the reader, hence "A".

Assuming both nouns are mass nouns in this sentence, I have two questions:

1. Can we still use "THE" with "failure"? Or does it need to have an "of-phrase" modifying it in order to take THE? ("..the failure of the government to reach..")





2. Can we use zero article with "departure"? (despite the post-modification by an "of-phrase"; It seems to me that "of-phrases" are powerful inducers of THE-ification.)

And still it puzzles me why "departure" here cannot be a count noun, like in "she made a hasty departure".

Answer

Yes on both counts.

When you say you made two mistakes, I disagree. I guess your teacher is a grammar Nazi…

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

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




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

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

Answer

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

My fish's native habitat is rice fields.

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

Rice fields are my fish's native habitat.

syntactic analysis - Unclear grammar of present continuous — is it present continuous?

A clerk taking cash from a customer and not entering it in the cash register.

Here's my question: how and when can I use subject + verb + ing without be like the first part in the sentence?

For me, I'll say: "a clerk takes cash" (present simple) or "a clerk is taking cash" (present continuous). Sometimes, I see sentences like the one mentioned above, but I can't detect what kind of tense that is. Under what conditions should I use this subject +verb + ing form?

grammaticality - Can I end a sentence with "on"?

Does this sentence make sense "I would like to propose forming a partnership where we work together to provide optimal service to the new developments you are building, or have already started construction on."

grammar - Usage question: "I hadn't drank any coffee before I lived in Italy."

Ok, so as an English teacher, I know that in the present and past perfect tenses, the auxiliary verb have is followed by the past participle form of the verb.

Using most verbs, I find that this is true for all sentences I have heard. However, on several instances, I have run into a native speaker using the past form of the verb (drank) where the grammar calls for the past participle (drunk).

For example: "I hadn't drank any coffee before I lived in Italy."

According to grammar norms, this sentence should be: "I hadn't drunk any coffee..."

More and more, I noticed that people tend to use drank instead of drunk after perfect aspect constructions. This construction was used across all communities of practice and wasn't subject to dialect boundaries.

According to results from http://www.phras.in, have drank and have drunk are clear, with the standard have drunk being 4x more prevalent than have drank. However, with an instance rate of about 200,000 for the non-standard form, that is nothing to scoff at. However, the opposite was true with the negative form haven't drank vs. haven't drunk with the non-standard being almost twice as prevalent.

EDIT: As for the dialect variant idea, I have researched into the various dialectal changes involving the past participle. Most constructions involving the variant are indicated to be dialectal or just plain bad grammar. However, when I started hearing it from people from the UK, this is when I started asking questions. Looking into it further, I have found some linguistic research papers involving corpora and frequency analyses of this phenomena and have found that there is definitely a shift among non-standard verbs to use the past instead of the participle for perfect aspect. At least according to the BNC and COCA. This is usually with germanic-root words such as bid/bade/bid, drink/drank/drunk, bit/bit/bitten.

Research Paper: I haven't drank in weeks

Another Example

So, my question, then, is whether or not there is some sort of construction that is the exception for this particular situation, i.e. some construction where perfect tense does not use past participle after the aux. verb, or if this is simply some crazy, non-standard phenomenon with the verb drink in the perfect tense.

Answer

My guess is, this is part of a general conflation of past tense and past participles for ablauting verbs. Where I grew up (Sydney, Australia), the past participle is often used for the simple tense (I drunk the coffee, rung the captain, then sunk the boat). This only happens with participles that lack overt suffixes (so, it's impossible with worn or seen). The phenomenon you've spotted looks like the flip side of this conflation, with the simple past filling in for the past participle. Very nice if you're a grammar watcher.

meaning - Difference between "I am really sorry" and "I really am sorry"

I know they are slightly different, but I can't tell how.

I've read about the usage of the word "really" in a negative sentence. But it didn't tell me about how the position of the word "really" can affect the meaning in a positive sentence.

I've heard sentences I'm confused about:

• I am really sorry


• I really am sorry

And these are the ones I've made up myself (I don't know if this kind of sentence exists):

• She can be really persuasive


• She really can be persuasive

How do I tell them apart (the grammatical structure)? Are they different in meaning too? How?

Answer

In 'I am really sorry', really is an intensifier. You can replace it with very.

'I really am sorry' is a reassurance: you are not saying how sorry you are, just that you are definitely sorry.

grammaticality - Adjective phrase for a time?

I wrote a sentence that I don't know is correct.

The presence of the doctor after the incident matters to every patient.

I think "after the incident" is used as an adjectival phrase.

But there are phrases like day after tommorow, and day before yesterday...
so, is the sentence I wrote grammatically correct with the adjdctival phrase "after the incident"?

Reason I am asking is because I thought that whiz-deletion was used. And when I try to restore the original version if this sentence, it becomes presence of doctor (which was) after the incident, which sounds nonsensical to me.

Is the whiz-deldtion used, or is it the product of other grammar structure?

punctuation - Should I use adjacent parentheses or a semicolon (or something else)?

In scientific writing it is common to use parentheses to refer to the details of statistical analyses at the end of a sentence. However, it is also common to refer to figures or tables this way. Often I find that the same sentence requires both a reference to statistical details and a figure (example below). Should I use adjacent parenthetical references or separate the statistical information from the figure reference with a semicolon?

Treatment A contained significantly greater mass than treatment B (p = 0.001)(Figure 1).

OR

Treatment A contained significantly greater mass than treatment B (p = 0.001; Figure 1).

Answer

Don't write pairs of parentheses back to back (don't do it)(no, really!). Either you can put on of the two items in the main text:

Treatment A contained significantly greater mass than treatment B (p = 0.001), as show on Figure 1.

or use the semicolon, as you proposed:

Treatment A contained significantly greater mass than treatment B (p = 0.001; Figure 1).

grammatical number - What is the proper way to write the plural of a single letter? (another apostrophe question)

When writing (a blog post, script, etc..) what is the proper way to indicate two or more instances of a single letter? For instance, in Monty Python's Bookshop Sketch:

C: I wonder if you might have a copy of "Rarnaby Budge"?

P: No, as I say, we're right out of Edmund Wells!

C: No, not Edmund Wells - Charles Dikkens.

P: (pause - eagerly) Charles Dickens??

C: Yes.

P: (excitedly) You mean "Barnaby Rudge"!

C: No, "Rarnaby Budge" by Charles Dikkens. That's Dikkens with two Ks, the
well-known Dutch author.

P: (slight pause) No, well we don't have "Rarnaby Budge" by Charles Dikkens

with two Ks, the well-known Dutch author, and perhaps to save time I
should add that we don't have "Karnaby Fudge" by Darles Chickens, or
"Farmer of Sludge" by Marles Pickens, or even "Stickwick Stapers" by Farles
Wickens with four M's and a silent Q!!!!! Why don't you try W. H. Smith's?

C: Ah did, They sent me here.

I had always believed that plural never uses an apostrophe before the 's' (it's only used for possession), but I have rarely seen in written material the format "four Ms". (On a side note, whoever wrote this transcript also used "two Ks".)

On a side note, and perhaps this should be a separate question, if a Compact Disc is a CD, then two Compact Discs would be two CDs right? (I see "CD's" written everywhere)

Answer

The Chicago Manual of Style, one of the more widely used style guides in the United States, says:

Capital letters used as words, numerals used as nouns, and abbreviations usually form the plural by adding s. To aid comprehension, lowercase letters form the plural with an apostrophe and an s.

So: Dikkens with two Ks, but mind your p's and q's. (And always CDs, unless you're talking about something the CD owns.)

Is "No" a complete sentence

I'm aware No is what is called a "sentence word". Does that mean that on its own, it is a "complete sentence"?

Please state the reason for your answer, i.e. do not simply answer "Yes" or "No"

grammaticality - "Led Zeppelin was" vs. "Led Zeppelin were"

Led Zeppelin were an English rock band formed in London in 1968.

(Source.)

Is "were" really the right word here? It feels like it should be "was".

After reading the answers and my own searching, it appears to be correct in this case

Should I use American English or British English?

Answer

"Led Zeppelin were..." would be considered improper in US English, but in the UK, names of groups, organizations, and companies are often treated as plural:

[T]he Government have taken £4.5bn from the mineworkers' pension scheme...

In this context, "Led Zeppelin were..." would be appropriate.

grammatical number - What's the correct plural form of "premise"?

Someone criticized me for using the word "premises" to denote a set of assumed "propositions", due to its connotation with houses and buildings.

Is that correct? If so, what should be the proper plural form of "premise"?

Answer

Merriam-Webster give an example using premises: premises of the argument>.

I do not think there is anything wrong with this use of premises. I don’t find homophony or having multiple meanings to be valid reasons to criticize use of a word.

grammaticality - Can You Use "It Is Because" to Explain Your Opinion

For background I work in ESL as an assistant, and I give a native's perspective, but sometimes I doubt myself.

My students have a habit of writing "it is because" to explain why they think something (or, rather, they use it for everything). For example:

"I agree that school uniforms are good. It is because they are easy to wear."

They try to use "it" to refer to why they think this way. To me, this seems off. I checked around and found that most of the time when referring to something for the first time "this" or "that" are normally used, and that they are also used for ideas. I also feel that when you're talking about something personal, like your opinions, you don't use "it."

Would I be able to correct this to "this" and have it make sense grammatically? The other teachers (non-natives) think that "it is because" is fine in this context, but it still feels off to me. I generally try to keep my corrections close to their original work so that they can more easily understand what was wrong which is why I want to know if I should correct this to "this is because." Or, does "it is because" work in this context?

meaning - have somebody do something vs. have somebody doing something

History, as recounted by the victors, had the capitalists winning.

I think that the above sentence means that history caused the capitalists to win. Can I say

History, as recounted by the victors, had the capitalists win?

What is the difference between the structure have somebody doing something and have somebody do something?

Answer

To have somebody do something most commonly means to cause somebody to do something (eg, ask, force, pay). But in this sentence the verb had means something like believed, perceived, recorded, claimed, or stated.

The clerk said the robber was tall and blond, but another witness had the robber as being of average height with red hair.

The history that the victors created claimed that the capitalists were the winners. More simply: The victors claimed that the capitalists were the winners. The rhetorical style suggests that the writer may be expressing disagreement with or doubt about that claim.

There are many reasons for chosing an -ing form over another type of word, sometimes more than one reason in a particular instance. Here, the primary purpose was to avoid the phrase to have somebody win, which suggests that have means cause. We would need more context to figure out if the -ing form is also related to a time aspect. I would guess not, as it probably functions here as a verbal noun instead of a present participle.

future - "The more you (will) ask them, the harder it will be"

Is this correct?

The more you will ask them, the harder it will be.

Should I use

The more you ask them, the harder it will be

instead?

Using past tense when referencing a still-true fact

In the sentence: "I didn't know she had a son,"

Can I say "I didn't know she has a son" instead, because he is a teenager now?

Or are both correct?

Answer

If she currently has a son, then you can use either version #1 or #2:

• 1.) "I didn't know [(that) she has a son]."




• 2.) "I didn't know [(that) she had a son]."

For that situation, where she currently has a son, the #2 version happens to use a backshift preterite. (Note that "preterite" is the same thing as a "past-tense verb"). As to which version is preferable, well, that depends: which one do you prefer? That is, which one sounds better to your ear?

One of the reasons why a subordinate clause -- like your "(that) she has a son" -- can be backshifted into "(that) she had a son" is that the matrix clause is headed by a preterite (the verb "didn't").

Backshifting in a subordinate clause can occur when either one of the following conditions is true:

• A.) The tense of the matrix clause is a type of past-tense.





• B.) The time of the matrix clause situation is in the past time sphere.

Sometimes, depending on the purpose of the sentence, there can be a preference for either the non-backshifted version or for the backshifted version. Sometimes the non-backshifted version might be considered to be "much more widely appropriate" than the backshifted version. Sometimes the backshifted version is obligatory.

NOTE: There's a common misconception that a present-tense verb being used in its timeless sense (or other related uses) cannot be backshifted. That is untrue, as backshifting is still generally available. For instance, in the older 1985 reference grammar by Quirk et al., A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, section 14.31, page 1027:

Here are other examples where present forms may be retained in indirect speech:

• Their teacher had told them that the earth moves around the sun. -- [11]

. . .

In all these sentences, past forms may also be used, by optional application of the backshift rule. Sentence [11] has the simple present in its timeless use, . . .

And so, according to Quirk et al., the following backshifted version (to correspond to [11]) is also acceptable:

• Their teacher had told them that the earth moved around the sun.

Here are some related posts, on the topic of backshifting:

(Some of the material in this post has been borrowed from those two related posts.)

grammatical number - Plural of an initialism written in lowercase with abbreviation full stops

Although similar questions have been already posed and answered here, I still have this doubt: in the case of initialisms written in lowercase (and possibly having full stops after each letter), how should we write their plurals? Should we be using an apostrophe before the 's'; no apostrophe; no 's' at all...?

---

EXAMPLE 1: The term random variable is usually abbreviated as r.v. So, several random variables could be referred to as r.v.'s?? If not, how?

EXAMPLE 2: Cumulative distribution function is usually abbreviated as c.d.f.; or even cdf, very often.

EXAMPLE 3: Very famous in Maths: greatest common divisor is usually abbreviated as gcd.

---

This question differs from previous ones in that I am interested in the plural of initialisms / acronyms written in lowercase.

meaning - Is there any dialect of English that uses "positive ever" to mean "once"?

One of the most interesting things for me is to learn that some construction that seems completely ungrammatical to me is completely okay for speakers of some other dialect of English. For example, things like "I'm done my homework," "The car needs washed," and "Anymore those things are completely useless."

The last of these constructions, called "positive anymore," comes from a reinterpretation of the word "anymore" used in negative sentences like "I don't like nachos anymore" as meaning something like "nowadays."

Recently, I came across a similar example of what seems to me to be "positive ever":

hmm..actually, i have ever used a fan in an enclosed room for
about maybe 1hr..and yes it got stuffy but no i did not die. But the
stuffiness irritated me so i switched it on the aircon with the fan.

(comment from "Ask a Korean!: FAN DEATH IS REAL")

From the context, it seems like "ever" does not mean "always" here (as it can in archaic speech); instead, it seems to mean something like "once." It seems to me that this reinterpretation is understandable if we look at sentences like "Have you ever [done something]?" which could be rephrased as "Have you [done something] once or more than once?"

I'd like to know if this construction has been observed being used by any native speakers, since I'm not sure if the author above was a native speaker or an English language learner.

I tried to search for more examples on Google, and I came up with a fair amount, but many of them seem to be from non-native speakers. I found the most examples searching for the exact sequence of words "actually I have ever."

• "is it correct to say: ‘I have ever been to London’?" (BBC Learning English)


• "S/O- Actually, I HAVE Ever" -- BabyCenter


• "Actually, I have ever coordinated an international conference before. But at that time, organizers were all Japanese, so that communication was not difficult. This time, however, even a short chatting took much time due to a physical distance." (Sing Out Asia-E)



• "Actually, I have ever experienced recovery problem and know that the rewritten data cannot be recovered. Therefore, I hope your data has not been completely overwritten." (Put failed Hard Drive in External Case to retrieve data? -- Apple Support Communities)


• "Actually, I have ever transfer my Android phone data to my computer before, so I can share my experience with you." (Best method to transfer contacts from HTC Phones to PC -- Android Community | Flickr)


• "Actually I have ever saved the percentage field into a KV store before." (Halting the Event Dispatch Thread activity temporarily (v7)|)

I can't find any mention of it on the Yale Grammatical Diversity project website where I got the three sentences in my first paragraph. I googled "positive ever," but it just turned up a post talking about the aforementioned archaic "always" meaning, and not the apparently newer "once" meaning.

I know that to many of you, this construction will sound as wrong as it does to me. So, I'm not interested in just hearing that. What I'd like to see is more evidence about it, such as examples or a description of it being used by some native speakers, or another source besides the BBC link above that states that it is not used by any native speakers.

grammaticality - "You all need to put your right feet/foot in front of your left"

My friend is trying to convince me that the following statement is correct when talking to a group of people.

1. You need to put your right feet in front of your left.

To me, the following sentence seems correct rather than the former because every individual in the group only has one right foot.

2. You need to put your right foot in front of your left.

I'd love to know which of these is correct, or if they are both are right then why (or why not).

Answer

You are right. And to use "feet" sounds absurd, as if a centipede were advancing multiple right legs simultaneously.

Marjorie Skillin, Words into Type (1974): "To avoid ambiguity, a singular noun is often used with a plural possessive when only one of the things possessed [or in this case one pair of legs] could belong to each individual" (p. 357). Among the examples given are these:

Forbes knew most of them by their first name.

They eyed each other furtively and cursed under their breath.

If text surrounding your sentence makes it clear that a group is addressed, then the reader will know that "you" is in the plural; otherwise one could not tell whether "you" is sing. or pl. when the singular "foot" is used. Or the sentence could say, "You all need to put your right foot in front of your left." (That's not meant to evoke you-all as in Southern dialect, but simply means "all of you.")

grammaticality - Is "I'm better than you're." a gramatically correct sentence?

Since "I'm better than you are." is a gramatically correct sentence, and "you're" is a contraction for "you are", my logical side assumes that "I'm better than you're." is a gramatically correct sentence. However, it sounds off and my intuition tells me it's wrong. Is it gramatically correct?

grammaticality - Singular or plural "set"?

I'm having some issues with a sentence that is part of the purpose in a report that I'm writing. I'm not sure if the word "communicate" (in bold) should be singular or plural.

The applications in the "set" will communicate with each other, not with other "sets".

The purpose of this report is to develop a sample set of applications
that communicates between services on the internet, mobile devices
and a central processing unit in a motor vehicle.

Confusion in "-ing" form verbs use

I am a reading Jane Eyre book published by Oxford Bookworms.

I have found this sentence:

[...], while I lay awake all night, trembling with fear, and eyes wide open in horror, imagining ghosts in every corner.

I do not know when to use "-ing" like trembling and imagining. There is no be verb before them and I cannot distinguish any relative clauses (I know be verbs can be omitted in some cases when there is relative clause.).

Would you please guide me a bit in this case?

Thank you in advance

verbs - Which is correct? If I was or If I were for this particular sentence

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.

punctuation - Interchangeability of "—" (dash) and ":" (colon)

Let me cite two examples, one using "—" (dash) and the other using ":" (colon):

John has three sisters — Sita, Mita and Rita.

John has three sisters: Sita, Mita and Rita.

Grammatically, both sentences are correct. The only issue here is the use of two different punctuation marks as one sentence uses "—" (dash) and the other ":" (colon).

Which punctuation mark is correct? What is scope of usage of each of the punctuation marks? Can they be used interchangeably in the given context?

I am not going into the issue of m-dash or n-dash; nor am I concerned how a "—" (dash), when occurring in a pair, is to be used.

Can anyone shed some light?

Answer

Probably mostly a matter of preference. I myself have slight preference for a simple comma over "--". And a larger preference for "--" over ":". The dash to me signifies a space of time, almost a breath if it were spoken. The colon to me has a "scientific" highfalutin feel, similar to "to wit".

verb agreement - "was" or "were" when there is number mismatch between subject and predicative complement

I have a question about this sentence:

The only thing he feared more than the wolves were the swirling buzzards.

I believe it to be correct, but someone suggested that the "were" should be changed to "was".

Which one is correct?

Answer

The only thing he feared more than the wolves were the swirling buzzards.

in this sentence, was would be correct auxiliary verb because the only thing is a Singular.

expressions - "choice words" meaning

I am translating a document, and I came across this sentence:

One of the fans of your work is a cute girl – this time I’m assuming you’re a man, I’m sure over the past four years you’ve learned some choice words for people who do that.

I don’t understand the last part of the sentence: "I am sure ... " What does the expression "choice words" mean? I thought something like "insults". But then, what does it relate to?

Any ideas? Some context might help: it is an imaginary life of a man who lives an idyllic life in the mountains.

grammatical number - Apostrophe in “beginners guide”

In the phrase beginners guide to …, where should the apostrophe go?

1. Beginner’s Guide to […]


2. Beginners’ Guide to […]

In my particular case, this is the title for a presentation so there are multiple beginners that are being addressed.

Answer

If your intention is to address each member of the audience directly, I suggest you prefix the phrase with an appropriate article, as in:

A Beginner's Guide to Shoe Hurling

or

The Beginner's Guide to Shoe Hurling

The use of the apostrophe before s seems more apt in this context.

Although:

Beginners' Guide to Shoe Hurling

is also grammatically correct, but would make your presentation sound impersonal.

Why are some first names always abbreviated and some not?

Is there any consistent rule or at least an explanation why in some names the first name(s) are traditionally nearly always abbreviated and in some are not?

Why, for example, T.S. Eliot but Thomas Wiseman,

or H.G. Wells and not Herbert Wells;

Charles Dickens and not C.G. Dickens or something?

Obviously, both forms must be correct, but in practice only one or another appears for a particular name in writing. And it mustn't be the first name that affects it, as the first example demonstrates... (And let's stick to real names, as opposed to pen names, which can be anything).

grammar - Which is correct: "The facts are known by us" or "The facts are known to us"?

Which is correct?

The facts are known by us

or

The facts are known to us

I think by is correct but my friends persist that it's to.

Inversion - Sentence starting with rarely

This is from my English Cambridge Proficiency Book. In Unit 8 about inversions, I had to rewrite the sentence:

Original sentence:

It is very difficult for town centre redevelopment to achieve a harmonious balance between old and new

My answer:

Rarely is it easy for town centre redevelopment to achieve a harmonious balance between old and new

Correct question (according to the book):

Rarely do/will/can town centre redevelopments achieve a harmonious balance between old and new.

I wonder why my answer isn't acceptable.

Is there anything fundamentally wrong with my sentence?

Thanks

grammar - Whether you need the word 'to' in the sentence - Which place do you want to go to?

Which sentence is correct and why?

1. Which do you want to go to?


2. Which do you want to go?

I am a native English speaker and was asked this by a Japanese person. I think number 2 is not correct but I don't know the reason why, or if in fact I am actually right.

Thanks!

Correct use of "whom"

It is something in this sentence, which does not seem correct to me. Maybe the way I use whom?

We use 70% of the data to estimate the probability of default of the remaining 30% of the data. In addition, we use the model in Section 5 to generate the latent space of the clients to whom we estimated the probability of default. <

Answer

Your use is correct, though old fashioned.

To use whom correctly:
Say "to him, to her, to them". Use to whom.

To correctly switch to who:
Say "He is, she is, they are". Use who is.
Or, anytime you don't want to use the nearly archaic whom.

The problem you're seeing may be "clients TO whom". Judging from the rest of your sentence, it looks like you "estimated for" them, unless statistics related grammar requires the "to".

tenses - Is choice of verb form or construction determined by context or by a sentence's internal structure?

I'm trying to understand the concept behind the correct usage of tenses. Should I choose the correct tense based on the context or is it strictly constrained to the text within the sentence?

For example I have a phrase like this:

Within a year before the renovation, a total of 10,000 people had
visited the museum, and the majority had voiced dissatisfaction
with their experience.

So basically I'm describing an action 10,000 people had visited the museum which is taking place before the certain event renovation.

Now. I want to add a bit more clarification to this idea and write something like this:

During this time, 40% of the museum guests voiced their dissatisfaction with the
experience.

Now this sentence is in Simple Paste tense, but is it correct? I mean, the overall context is in Past Perfect Simple, as stated by the previous sentence. So should the second be in Past Perfect Simple as well, if it's following the first one as part of the same paragraph?