Noun1 + Noun2 take/s a plural verb?

I recently attended a grammar class, where the trainer explained:

A singular noun and a singular noun take a plural verb.

However, I feel it should have been

A singular noun and a singular noun takes a plural verb.

because the two singular nouns together take the verb, and they cannot be considered two different elements. Is my understanding correct?

Answer

I don't think your intuition is correct in this case. As you yourself said, " the two singular nouns together take the verb". Note that you used the plural verb "take" in this context. "A singular noun and a singular noun" refers to two nouns, and even if they are considered to form a single unit, it's still a grammatically plural construction. Plural agreement is definitely possible, as is typically the case for "compound subjects" consisting of two singular noun phrases joined by "and". (I don't know whether I would say that the use of a plural verb is mandatory in this sentence—your suggestion of "A singular noun and a singular noun takes a plural verb" doesn't sound terribly bad to me—but plural agreement is definitely not prohibited in this context).

grammatical number - Plurality of a group also referenced using we/our/us

This question (migrated to writers.se) uses an example sentence along the lines of

ABC is expanding our operations overseas.

As a Brit, I'm quite comfortable with either ABC is or ABC are in most contexts, but in this particular construction the switch in plurality from is to our in a single sentence really grates. Curiously, I find I don't have this problem if those two words are in separate sentences.

ABC is a dynamic company. We are expanding our operations overseas.

Is this just a personal hangup of mine? Or there a US/UK divide on the issue?

I don't think this is a question about whether companies are singular or plural (as covered here). I'm asking about attitudes to using both is and our in the same sentence like this.

Answer

ABC is expanding our operations overseas.

This is grammatically correct, but doesn’t have the intended meaning. Our cannot refer to ABC because they disagree in person: ABC is third-person while our is first-person. In that sentence, ABC is transitively expanding “our operations”.

If we’re treating ABC as singular, then it should be:

ABC is expanding its operations overseas.

Treating ABC as plural:

ABC is expanding their operations overseas.

If the intent was to add emphasis to the fact that the speaker is part of ABC:

We at ABC are expanding our operations overseas.

word choice - Enamored of/with/by

It seems that "enamored" can be used with any of the prepositions "of", "with", and "by". What is the proper usage for each?

This is the sentence I'm writing:

The team, enamored with this new metaphor, spent much of the remaining time brainstorming ways to apply those principles to the project.

"By" sounds the most natural to me in that context, and "of" sounds stilted. "With" is somewhere in between.

Answer

Looking at Google Ngrams, British English seems to use nearly exclusively "enamoured of", while American English uses both "enamored of" and "enamored with". "Enamo(u)red by" is quite rare on both sides of the pond. I would probably say "enamored of" when talking about a person, an animal, or an abstract idea, and "enamored with" when talking about a tangible object. I can't tell whether this is just me, or American usage in general. After looking at some examples on Google, I can say lots of people don't follow this rule.

He was enamored with his new model airplane.

He was enamored of the idea of running his own business.

But all three of these prepositions are acceptable grammar, and all three should be understood equally well.

grammar - Why you're laughing vs Why are you laughing?

Recently I was talking to my friend in English. He started laughing and I asked him Why you're laughing man?

Someone told me you should say Why are you laughing? and this one is totally wrong.

I got a little bit confused. I know "Why are you laughing?" is correct but I can't wrap my head around it fully that mine is totally wrong.

I represented what I meant through intonation of the sentence and my buddy had no problem understanding it. my question is:

The form I used was totally wrong? and I should stop using it?

I'm guessing in written English this form is wrong and if I use it, it's gonna represent a statement, but in the spoken language, since we have intonation I thought it might be unnecessary to emphasize on being totally grammatically correct for every sentence I'm saying.

Am I wrong?

Adding the 'the' article for proper noun and abbreviation?

As a part-time English tutorial teacher who isn't specialized in language, I would like to ask about article usage for proper nouns and abbreviations.

Do you add 'the' for the following sentences?

"I have just returned from _____ Massachusetts Institute of Technology."
"I have just returned from _____ Hong Kong."
"I have just returned from _____ MIT."
"I have just returned from _____ HK."

The reason of asking this question is because from where I live (Hong Kong), we have a public transportation named MTR (Mass Transit Railway), which we always seem to add 'the' before 'MTR'. (Example text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTR)


'The MTR' also appears in one of my students' text book. ("I go to school by the MTR.")

I am a bit confused by the article usage before abbreviation. My guess is:

'The' for organizations/companies;

No 'The' for location and individual's name;

But I still do not know if 'the' is needed for algorithms. For instance I am writing an academic paper about Neural Network. Should I put 'the' in front of NN?
(ie: The prediction is then carried out by ______ NN.)

I would like to hear your thoughts about article usage for abbreviations. Thanks in advance!!!
(Also I may have made some mess in the question, apologies to you who read this but passed by before.)

Update:

My confusion continues as I read more stuff:

Organization and Companies: (full name)

"Dragonair became a wholly owned subsidiary of Cathay Pacific after completion..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Dragon

Meanwhile: "A charter for the incorporation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology

But there is some new understanding that I would like to share:

When a proper noun/abbreviation is used to describe an object, the article usage will follow the object unless it's a location.

E.g.: an HMO facil­ity, a SWAT team

http://editingandwritingservices.com/using-articles-with-abbreviations/

Exception on location: "It started operations in July 1985 with a Boeing 737-200 service from Kai Tak International Airport..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathay_Dragon

I will keep on updating when more questions pop up in my head. Great thanks!

Update 2: I have marked this as duplicate with this link.

word choice - "A classmate and I was" vs "A classmate and I were"

I'm writing a resume right now targeted towards a specific company. My girlfriend (a classmate) and I were (see, I don't know if that's the right word, hence this question!) the first from our school to be awarded a scholarship from this company.

Is it more correct to say:

Awarded such and such scholarship in 2011. A classmate and I were the first students from my college to be awarded this scholarship.

Or:

Awarded such and such scholarship in 2011. A classmate and I was the first students from my college to be awarded this scholarship.

The first seems much more correct when spoken, but the rule I've been taught is to take the other person out and use the words that make sense about just you.

Answer

And links two things (e.g. a classmate and I), and results in a plural subject (A classmate = 1, I = 1, so a classmate and I = 1 + 1 = 2), so were is correct:

Awarded such and such scholarship in 2011. A classmate and I were the first students from my college to be awarded this scholarship.

The rule you refer to applies only to figuring what case of pronoun to use (e.g. I or me), not to whether you should use singular or plural (e.g. was or were). When you use the rule to figure out which of I or me is correct, you should alter the number of the verb (were becomes was) and direct object (students becomes student) when you take out the other person:

A classmate and I were the first students becomes I was the first student (correct).

A classmate and me were the first students becomes Me was the first student (incorrect).

When you add the classmate back into the sentence, you can be assured of the proper pronoun (I, not me).

grammatical number - In special cases, can you use "one such family are" vs. "one such family is"?

Is it correct to say "one such family are..." as opposed to "one such family is..." in some circumstances?

Say, for instance, as used in this article on gene families:

[...] One such family are the genes for human haemoglobin subunits; [...]

The problem occurs when the family is a collection of things. It sounds weird if you say "One such family is the genes for human haemoglobin subunits" and saying "One such family is the family of genes for human haemoglobin subunits" is too wordy.

Does the problem make sense?

usage of an indefinite article

I'm stuck on the sentence.

May we put an indefinite article in the sentence below if we talk about the object in general?

Here is the example:

• Is it possible to find out the height of a triangle if we know the length of its sides?

Here is the article a after the preposition of and I'm not sure is it correct.

Could you point out my other mistakes if I made?

tenses - "If I were" or "If I was"?

Possible Duplicates:
“If I was” or “If I were”. Which is more common, and which is correct?
“Was” versus “were”—word usage

Which one is correct:
"If I were a cop, I would wear a uniform"
OR
"If I was a cop, I would wear a uniform"?

Answer

if I were

This we call the second conditional utilising the subjunctive form, which can be used to discuss hypothetical/unreal situations.

If I were a cop, I would wear a uniform implies that I am not a cop and so I don't wear a uniform.

if it was

This would be the beginning of a question about a past event, for example:

If it was raining, why did you go out? meaning that it rained and you went outside; the speaker is questioning your motives.

Hope that helps

grammaticality - My grandma believed that the Sun "revolves" or "revolved" around the Earth?

We all know that universal statements are always in present tense. For example,

My grandma did not believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Here, though the sentence is in past tense, Earth revolves around the Sun remains in simple present tense.

But in case of a false belief that is contrary to a universal truth, does the above rule apply similarly? For example,

My grandma believed that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Will this sentence be taken as grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be "My grandma believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth"?

Ambiguity with two possessive pronouns in a sentence

Is it clear who the first and second "their" refer to in the following sentence, or is the sentence likely to confuse the reader --

"It has been decided between the parties that party number 1 will have permanent custody of their son xxx and daughter yyy and will be their legal guardian"

If there is ambiguity can it be better written?

Tense simplification in subordinate clauses - past perfect instead of would have

in Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" he states in entry 580.6 ("past instead of would ..."): "would, like will, is avoided in subordinate clauses; instead, we generally use past verbs". He also gives the following example:

-Would you follow me wherever I went?

However, if I wanted to refer to an unreal past situation in a subordinate clause (and by that, I mean not only an if-clause), would it be correct to use a past perfect form. For example, if I modified Michael Swan's example so that it refers to an unreal past situation, would this sentence be correct?

-Would you have followed me wherever I had gone?

My point is, Michel Swan just talks about using past verbs instead of would in subordinate clauses, but he doesn't mention anything about using past perfect forms instead of "would have".

I really appreciate every answer. Thank you in advance

prepositional phrases - "I gave him + INDIRECT OBJECT" vs. "I gave + INDIRECT OBJECT+ to him"

Consider these two sentences: "I gave him a pencil," and, "I gave a pencil to him."

Is it correct that the important part of the sentence is placed at the end? When we want to emphasize the pencil that I gave him, must we say, "I gave him a pencil?" When we want to emphasize that it is him to whom I gave a pencil, must we say, "I gave a pencil to him?"

grammar - When to respond to "you" with "I" or "Me" from sentence context

I'm writing a program that responds to sentences, but I'm running into an issue:

You write: I like that you like me.

Program responds: What do you think makes you like that me like you?

You write: I like that you are my best friend.

Program responds: I also like that me are your best friend .

In simple cases, switching 'you' to 'me' and me to 'you' works fine, but in this case it isn't grammatically correct.

Under what circumstances should 'you' become 'I', and how can I tell from sentence context/wording? Can you think of more cases in which you/me,my/your cant be interchanged?

Answer

Have a look at the first two rows of the table on pronoun case at OWL:

Pronouns as Subjects  Pronouns as Objects  Pronouns that show Possession
I                     me                   my (mine)
you                   you                  your (yours)

The second-person singular has the same form whether used as a subject (you) or an object (you). The first-person singular has different forms—I as subject and me as object.

In mathematical terms, the mapping of these first-person pronouns (I/me) to their second-person equivalents (you/you) is not one-to-one, so there's no inverse that maps the word you back to a single first-person pronoun.

To answer your question, there will be endless cases where you would need to be replaced with I (subjective case) and endless cases where you would need to be replaced with me (objective case). The context you need is the case of the pronoun you. I have no experience trying to algorithmically parse natural language at this level, but I gather it's not trivial.

Bear in mind that you can also be plural, so you may need to consider we/us (first-person plural) in addition to I/me.

usage - Would you say 'yes, neither do I' / 'yes, me neither'?

My question does not have to do with the correctness/incorrectness of 'neither do I'/'me neither', but with the presence of the 'yes' (or 'yeah', which is how it most often 'comes out' for me) at the beginning.

If someone were to say:

I love chocolate.

I'd naturally answer (orally) one of the two:

Yeah, so do I. / Yeah, me too.

But if someone were to say:

I don't like driving.

Would it be normal to answer:

Yeah, neither do I. / Yeah, me neither.

Or with it be best to say:

No, neither do I. / No, me neither.

---

I do not understand why my question was marked as a duplicate. My question is not about the personal pronoun (I or me) but about the adverbs (Yes/Yeah or No). I do state in the first paragraph that my question concerns "the presence of the 'yes' (...) at the beginning.", whereas the question I'm supposedly 'duplicating' is clearly focused on the personal pronoun.

I shall edit to make the words I'm concerned with in bold to see if that clarifies that I'm not interested in the pronouns.

Answer

The short answer is yes, it would be normal to respond with either statement.

As was mentioned already in the comments, the "yes/yeah" parts of your example sentences are simply agreeing with the original speaker. It would become awkward if they'd followed their statement with a question ("I don't like driving, do you?" "Yeah, me neither.") and sounds more like you'd formulated your response before they'd finished speaking, but as it stands it's not awkward and definitely not incorrect.

I know you didn't ask about the difference between responding with "me" or "I" but in formal speech they should both be "I" since you are the subject of your own statement. "Me too" and "me neither" are both fully accepted in conversational speech, though.

Having grown up in England and then moved to the States I will say that I have (on incredibly rare occasions) encountered people who are amused by my "formality" when I say "neither do I" but have never encountered the opposite with "me neither."

So, while both are fully acceptable statements in both the English speaking countries I have any experience with, the States appears to have a (very, very) slight leaning towards "me neither" in an informal setting.

word choice - Technical terms for user-website interaction

I am making a context diagram of a website and I noticed that the words I used for a user and the website's interaction are not consistent or cohesive.

I have been using the pairs of words below to indicate that a user requests to "see" a webpage:

a user "visits" a website and the webpage "views" (as a response to the user)

I can't find a more acceptable alternative for these two but I am sure there are better ones out there that I just don't know.

One more, what should I use if the page that a user wants to see is a popup or specifically a modal element (which means a user is not directed away from their current page)?

Answer

A user views and inputs. A website displays and outputs. A modal pop-up is called a modal window.

nouns - Is the word 'group' singular or plural in sentence: "My group of tenth-graders is/are so well behaved?"

I have read similar questions on this forum and as per best of my knowledge it should be considered plural because it's referring to every student of class.

I read this sentence in my grammar book: "My group of tenth-graders is so well behaved?"

But my instincts says the word "is" should not be used. I'm confused now. Please confirm whether I'm right or wrong.

hyphenation - When to use a hyphen?

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

Would you write

Task-planning for robots ...

or rather

Task planning for robots ...

contractions - Is it okay to say "Yes you're." instead of "Yes you are."?

I was having an SMS conversation with a friend and somehow "Yes you're" came into play in retaliation to a comment.

Example:

Person 1: "You are bad at English".

Person 2: "No I are not.".

Person 1: "Yes you're".

Is that acceptable?

I would assume that it is.

Think of "don't".

You can say:

"No, don't."

or

"I don't."

and it is a contraction like "you're".

So, is it okay?

Answer

No, this is unidiomatic. "You're" always requires a subjective completion. (And to my ears, it sounds completely wrong.)

Hyphenation of a phrasal attributive with an open compound: "A B to C noun"

I'm wondering how to properly hyphenate (or en-dash) the following phrase:

fiber optic to BNC converter

That is to say, a device that converts "fiber optic" to BNC. If it didn't contain an open compound, I'd simply write "optic-to-BNC converter; but I'm not sure how the open compound "fiber optic" might affect the situation. I prefer not to write "fiber optic–BNC converter", as this could cause confusion in some contexts if the reader doesn't read "–" as "to". I also thought about

fiber optic–to–BNC converter

, but that looks too strange to me.

My best guess is

fiber-optic to BNC converter

. I think this expresses that "fiber" and "optic" are related but "BNC" and "converter" are not. Is this the right way, or is there a better solution?

Note: this is actually an example of poor writing because fiber optic is essentially a transmission medium, while BNC refers to a connector type. So I actually solved my problem by writing "optical-to-electrical converter" (and afterward, "optoelectronic converter"). Nonetheless, the basic question remains. Another example phrase that exemplifies the problem is "surface area to volume ratio", for which I've found evidence of a variety of hyphenation styles.

Nested quotation with ellipsis

Suppose that Mr. X writes a book that says the following:

In his essay on biscuits, Mr. Y says "the crux . . . is the apostrophe" which goes to show that you can't trust everything you hear.

Suppose now that I wish to write an essay of my own, and that I wish to embed thecited excerpt from Mr. X's book as an inline quotation in the essay. My essay would then look something like this:

Via his publications on philanthropic metaphysics, Mr. X has been foundational in the development of modern anthrophysiology. As Mr. X writes in his book Something Fishy, "In his essay on biscuits, Mr. Y says "the crux . . . is the apostrophe" which goes to show that you can't trust everything you hear" (Mr. X, 2015). This book Something Fishy, in particular, has been very well received by the academic and philanthropic communities.

Note that the ellipsis in my essay will not be due to an omission of my own! It will be due to an omission made my Mr. X in his quotation of Mr. Y.

Here is my question: should I make some special note or mark in my essay so as to indicate that the ellipsis in my quotation is not due to an omission by my self?

Answer

To indicate that the ellipsis occurred in Mr. X's version of the text, you can make that fact explicit in the parenthetical note where you identify the source of the quotation. This is consistent with the treatment endorsed by Chicago Manual of Style, fifteenth edition (2003):

11.70 Italics added. An author wishing to call particular attention to a word or phrase in quoted material may italicize it but must tell readers what has been done by means of such formulas as "italics mine," "italics added," "emphasis added," or "emphasis mine." This information appears either in parentheses following the quotation or in a source not to the equation. ...

Occasionally it may be important to point out that italics in a quotation were indeed in the original. Here the usual phrase is "italics in the original" or, for example, "De Quincey's italics."

Instead of italics in a quoted block of text, you're dealing with ellipsis in such a block, but the situation calls for similar handling. In identifying the source of the ellipsis in your quotation, you can't simply say "ellipsis in original" because the reader might stumble over the issue of whether you mean X's original or Y's original. Hence, "X's ellipsis" may be the simplest and clearest explanatory wording to use. That yields this form of your paragraph:

Via his publications on philanthropic metaphysics, Mr. X has been foundational in the development of modern anthrophysiology. As Mr. X writes in his book Something Fishy, "In his essay on biscuits, Mr. Y says 'the crux . . . is the apostrophe' which goes to show that you can't trust everything you hear" (Mr. X, 2015; X's ellipsis). This book Something Fishy, in particular, has been very well received by the academic and philanthropic communities.

You'll notice that I also altered the embedded quotation marks from double quotation marks to single quotation marks in order to avoid clashing double quotation marks. If you are using standard U.S. style conventions, the embedded quotation marks should be single, and the surrounding quotation marks double; in standard UK style, I believe, the positions are reversed.

Ultimately we're discussing an arbitrary approach to styling a complicated quotation, and various alternative approaches are undoubtedly possible. The important point, as Chicago emphasizes, is not to distract readers with multiple approaches within a single book or essay: "Consistency in usage throughout a work is essential."

grammar - Conditional sentences

What type of conditional sentences should be used in a context like this?

(This person graduated from school many years ago.)

You know, my mother went to school and said that until she(the teacher) had apologised I wouldn't have attended her classes.

Answer

Before we try conditionals, I think we could do with some simple reported speech.

This is the context I inferred from your question (please correct me if I'm wrong):

• Direct Speech

My mother went to school and said (to the teacher): "Until you
apologize, my daughter won't attend your classes."

• Reported Speech

You know, my mother went to school and told my teacher that until she
apologized, I wouldn't attend her classes.

I suppose because the sentence is part of an ongoing narrative, it would be enough to just use reported speech and its tenses rule.

But if we isolate your target sentence, you can employ your past conditional:

My mother went to school and talked to my teacher. If she hadn't
apologized, I wouldn't have attended her classes.

possessives - Should I write each "team's", "teams" or "team" captain?

I'm writing about the captains of sport teams. Each team has one and only one captain. I'm confused on how to express this :

We will communicate this information to ...

• each team captain


• each team's captain


• each teams captain


• each teams' captain

It's my understanding that each is followed by a singular as per https://dictionary.cambridge.org/fr/grammaire/grammaire-britannique/each, so I think I should use captain against captains (I could be wrong on this one too, though)

However, I'm confused with the "team" part. There are several teams, so should I pluralize this word here ? Also, maybe should I use the possessive 's ?

Which is the correct way to complete the sentence ?

Answer

It should be each team’s captain, because each implies you’re talking about each of several teams individually, so you can use team’s as the singular possessive.

word choice - Is there a subtle difference between "somebody" and "someone", "anybody" and "anyone"?

Are there any subtle differences between "somebody" and "someone", or can they be used completely interchangeably? Similarly, can you imagine a situation in which you would prefer "anybody" to "anyone" or vice versa?

verbs - Are there any differences between "update" and "upgrade"?

Are there any differences between "update" and "upgrade"?

Answer

If you're talking about software, there is, imo, even though the two do overlap. (A lot depends on the context: I'm assuming a general one below.)

Usually, when you update a software, you apply patches and additional bits and pieces that the seller provides you for free, in theory to keep your copy in line with the official version (which is likely more stable, more secure and may even provide you with some new / better options, functionalities.)

On the other hand, when you upgrade a software, you usually buy / pay extra for a version unavailable for free. Of course, an upgrade serves as an update as well (in most cases.)

An example: say you have an antivirus program that you did not pay for (it being made legally available for free), but which has a commercial version as well: You usually update its database (to keep you safe from newer threats) - but if you upgrade it, it means you pay for an advanced version that gives you extended protection: not just via an updated database but also through extended capabilities (like email-scanning, link-scanning etc that were unavailable in the free version, no matter how up to date your database was.)

(Again, a real lot depends on the context.)

grammaticality - Past perfect sentence in "I would have killed the snake if I had hit him..."

Is the following a correct past perfect sentence?

I would have killed the snake if I had hit him hard with a stick.

Answer

It is a perfectly normal English construction and is an example of what foreign learners are sometimes taught as the Third Conditional. The speaker imagines something that didn't actually happen (in this case, he didn't hit the snake) and speculates what the consequence would have been if it had happened (he would have killed the snake).

grammatical number - "X of 1 Points" or "X of 1 Point"?

I am trying to express credit earned toward a total number of points, and I'm considering two ways to write it in the case where full credit is only one point:

• X of 1 points


• X of 1 point

My opinion is that the first one sounds more correct, but I'm not sure.

I am using these standalone to display as titles over something and it is possible to get a fractional amount of points.

Would it make a difference what the first number is? For example, if they get full credit would it be "1 of 1 Point" but otherwise it's (for example) ".5 of 1 Points"?

I should make note that full credit isn't always worth one point and the actual number of points it is worth is important to make known (since it can be different for each question) so the total points has to be there.

Answer

If you are tracking points toward a goal, where the goal in some cases is one point, I would label it “X of 1 point,” “X of 2 points,” and so on. My reasoning is that this heading is an abbreviation of “X [points scored out] of 1 point [possible],” thus the plurality is of 1 and not of X.

However, as other people have noted, there may be better ways to present the data.

grammar - “Investigation report” vs “Investigative report”

There's an article on the internet written about how to write a report of an investigation.

However, I'm a bit confused of the usage of "investigation" and "investigative" in the article.

The link of the article is here: https://i-sight.com/resources/ultimate-guide-to-writing-investigation-reports/

In that article, they call it "Investigation reports" in the title, but they use "Investigative report" in the body of the article, instead.

I don't know whether this sort of usage is their mistake or it's grammatically correct. If they're absolutely correct, please explain to me the difference between "Investigation report" and "Investigative report".

And a side question, can I use "Investigating report"?

Many thanks.

Answer

For all intents and purpose, 'investigation report' and 'investigative report' should not matter in meaning, especially in the case of your source article, which seems to liberally switch between the two.

But I do perceive the difference.

'Investigation report' is a compound noun. It means the report of an investigation (which you might have made). The report has a neutral tone: you are simply presenting the facts and figures you have uncovered during your investigation.

In 'investigative report', 'report' is modified by the adjective 'investigative', meaning 'intended to examine something carefully'. In this case, the nature of the report becomes more of an argument. It implies that this report carefully examines evidence, argues for an idea, and draws conclusions or presents a theory. Perhaps you might have heard of investigative journalism or investigative reporter whose job is to discover the facts and present it in a manner that convinces the reader.

grammar - "Nobody want to go there," or "nobody wants to go there"?

In English, the number 0 is treated as plural. It is then:

• 0 seconds



• 1 second


• 1.2 seconds


• 2 seconds

Shouldn't it be "nobody want to go there," instead of "nobody wants to go there"?

I also saw in TOEFL that "any __" should be used with a singular. But I see it very common that it is a plural also. Why is that? (updated: example, "we don't have any apples any more" vs "If you get any apple, please let me know.")

Answer

• Zero cars have driven by.


• Not one car has driven by.

Both of these sentences are fundamentally describing the same thing semantically and yet they demand different number agreement. Both of these are possible because grammatical number agreement is only partially informed by semantics.

Just because some descriptions of a lack of something have plural number agreement, that doesn't mean that all descriptions of a lack of something must have plural number agreement.

So, it is true that zero takes plural number agreement, and nobody takes singular number agreement. However, there is no reason that these have to work in the same way.

---

I have no idea what your second question (regarding TOEFL) could mean. Any can refer to singulars or plurals — it completely depends on what is in that blank space.

• Is there any water left? (Singular verb agreement for grammatically singular water)


• Are there any cookies left? (Plural verb agreement for grammatically plural cookies)

single word requests - Test subject but the subject is an inanimate object

I'm looking for a synonym(?) for ‘test subject’ that is applicable when the subject is an inanimate object.

I've tried using the thesaurus looking for synonyms of 'test subject' but it's only offering me alternatives that describe a living subject such as 'guinea pig'.

The phrase it's being used in would be:

Here is an overview of the test subjects being used for this experiment

I've considered the following words:

• examinee


• testee


• subject

But these all feel like they are referring to a person or an animal instead of to an inanimate object.
I'd prefer the word to be formal as it's being used in a research context.
The 'best' word would be a single word that implicitly conveys the fact that the subject of the sentence is in fact, an inanimate object.

Note:
The reason that ‘subject’ is not applicable lies in its definition:

subject - 6. a person who is subjected to experimental or other observational procedures; someone who is an object of investigation; "the subjects for this investigation were selected randomly"; "the cases that we studied were drawn from two different communities"

Answer

In trying to say they're test things but not things-for-test but specifically the things-under-test...

article - a particular item or object.

But that's still not entirely perfect. So, acknowledging that if you say "test device" it's not totally clear whether it's for test or being tested, my industry also uses DUT as an acronym for device under test.

DUT - a manufactured product undergoing testing

I'd probably use article or device in your case. Object is another possibility.

grammar - The proper time to use "zero article", though the noun is countable followed by

I basically know that when I want to use some nouns then I need to consider the proper form of the articles ahead of the nouns and if the noun is countable or uncountable.

Sometimes I see some cases which don't use proper articles like "a/an or the", called "zero article"

I understand when the noun is uncountable then the noun can stand alone without any article (or with zero article), but I see there are some cases "zero article" was used though the noun is countable noun obviously.

Is there some grammatical rule for it?

I hope I could know the grammatical rules precisely because I want to use it properly. Sometimes it is frustrating to use "a/an or the" over and over again. And I know it can be omitted when it is obvious like setting the title or theme of some exhibitions in the leaflet or banner etc.

Answer

There are no grammatical rules for which articles should or shouldn’t be used with certain nouns.

Except a and a plural noun – it is incorrect to say “I dreamed a dreams.”

Don’t think that you have to use a particular article, or no article, depending on the noun. This is a case of selecting the article, or leaving articles out completely, depending on what you want to mean when you use the noun. Adding articles (or not) changes the specificity of the article-noun phrase. And there are grammatical rules for that.

The following titles are all grammatically correct.

• Dream of Atlantis


• Dreams of Atlantis


• Dreaming of Atlantis


• Dreams of the Atlantis



• The Dreams of Atlantis


• The Dreams of the Atlantis


• A Dream of Atlantis

The first title is like the “telegraphese” Janus mentioned. The others are all grammatically correct.

I have to ask:

• Who or what is dreaming?


• Is someone (or something) dreaming of a
  thing called Atlantis?


• Is Atlantis a person (or thing) that is having
  dreams?


• One dream?


• Many dreams?

You have to decide that first. Then you can choose the correct grammar to express your intended meaning.

Can modal verbs in the perfect tense, i.e. may/might/could have done, refer to the future?

I think the pattern 'modal + have + past participle' refers to the present or the past. Can it refer to the future as well? Are all of the following sentences correct:

He may have arrived yesterday.
He may have arrived now.
He may have arrived tomorrow.

grammar - How to punctuate a quote of a question?

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Yes, you are punctuating correctly:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grammaticality - "This chapter, and the following chapters in this section" — singular or plural?

I have some technical documentation that has the phrase:

This chapters describes how to...

And I need to upgrade it to refer to the current and following chapters. What is the correct English phrase to use?

This chapter, and the following chapters in this section, describes how to...

or:

This chapter, and the following chapters in this section, describe how to...

In other words, is the thing doing the describing a multitude of chapters (that would "describe" something), or are the multitude considered a single item here (needing "describes")?

Or, are both phrases wrong?

Answer

There is no need to repeat "chapters":

"This and the following chapters describe how to ..."

Plural verb agrees with the compound subject in this case.

There's a good segment on compound subject verb agreement here:

http://www.towson.edu/ows/moduleSVAGR.htm

If you need to include information about the section, then you can get away with something like:

"In this section, this and the following chapters describe how to ..."

If you like, you can get away from the use of "in this section" altogether by doing something like:

"This chapter through chapter 15 describes how to ..."

Oddly, the singular verb seems to agree here since now it is a single subject--a nounal phrase which operates as a collection--rather than a compound subject. It is like saying:

"This collection of chapters describes how to ..."

pronouns - "I showed the monkey himself in the mirror". Why is this sentence grammatical?

I am asking this question for a homework assignment where we have to explain why certain uses of reflexive pronouns i.e. himself, herself, are grammatical or ungrammatical.

For one of the questions, we have to explain why the use of the reflexive pronoun "himself" in the sentence "I showed the monkey himself in the mirror" is appropriate.

I read from various online websites that we generally use reflexive pronouns as the direct objects when the subject and object of the sentence refer to the same entity.

However, in this case, I thought that the subject of the sentence is "I" and the object of the sentence is "himself". According to the rule, the sentence "I showed the monkey himself in the mirror" should not be grammatical but it sounds correct nonetheless.

Can anyone offer an explanation for this? Thanks in advance!

grammar - Is it possible to "revenge" a situation?

From the usage I am familiar with, it sounds strange to use "revenge" as a verb by itself. I am used to hearing it together with another word, such as "get revenge" or "take revenge". My dictionary lists revenge as being both a noun and a verb though, so is it correct to say "I wanted to revenge my first experience traveling abroad and do it right the second time"?

I corrected someone who is a non-native English speaker, advising that it's more natural to say "get revenge". However, I could not say with confidence that it is wrong to "revenge" something or someone.

On a related note, I have heard the synonym "avenge" being used in this way: "I will avenge his death". So are "revenge" and "avenge" sister words that have been adopted with different usage? Or perhaps their usage follows the same rules but it has become more popular to use "revenge" together with another verb?

Thanks

Answer

This is unusual for an English verb in that it is reflexive.

Example

"I hear you are very angry about what happened"
"Yes, and I intend to revenge myself."

The same is true for 'avenge.' In fact they seem to be used interchangeably as this ngram shows:

Google ngram: revenge myself,avenge myself

However it makes little sense to say, "I wanted to revenge my first experience traveling abroad and do it right the second time"

Revenge is a way of inflicting punishment on a person. Who are you punishing by travelling abroad?

Maybe you want to redress the past experience?

grammar - "to" between substantive and infinitive

I have the following simple sentence:

This is the file to download.

I know what this sentence means (This is the file that shall be downloaded.). However, I believe that this paraphrase depends on the current context; but I don't understand what role the "to download" has in the sentence. What is this construction called?

punctuation - Possessive noun and sarcasm quotes

I use sarcasm quotes like so:

Let's ask the "expert".

But with a possessive noun, is the following the correct way, or isn't there one?

Let's ask for the "expert's" advice.

grammatical number - "Was" or "were" for "half a dozen"

In Microsoft Word, the following sentence is flagged. It tells me to use "was" instead of "were"

There were half a dozen books strewn about the floor.

I would think that you would use "were" since it's a quantity more than one. You wouldn't say, "There was twelve books strewn about the floor." Does the use of the "half" modify it somehow?

Answer

Formally speaking, the Word grammar checker is right. The subject of there were is the word half, which is singular. So under formal grammar the sentence should be:

There was half a dozen books on the floor.

However, many people find this sentence to be odd in practice, since English speakers often prefer "semantic number agreement", in which the effective plurality of a phrase is determined by its meaning and not the grammatical number of its head. Therefore, for many registers people prefer your original example:

There were half a dozen books on the floor.

If you're writing something formal and can't abide to say there was half a dozen, then rephrase the sentence to avoid phrases like half a dozen.

grammatical number - Is it correct to say: These are not homework?

A teacher sent home a list of assignments with a cover letter explaining, "These are not homework."

"This is not homework," or "These pages are not homework," sound equally normal to me, but "These are not homework," just sounds weird. Is it correct grammar?

...

I don't agree that the question: 'Agreement in “[Singular Noun] Is/Are [Plural Noun]”?' describes this specific usage. In "These are not homework," the word "These" is not a singular noun. It's a plural pronoun. I suspect that some of the problem is that the missing noun is implied to the reader only by the physical presence of other documents, and not contextually from the surrounding content of the cover letter itself.

Answer

Can't a noun in plural form be complemented with a noun in singular form? Of course it can. Here are some examples:

These workers make a lot of mistakes when they work since they are
new to this job. They are not the main reason we are losing money – the state of the market is.

and:

These people are my family.

and also:

We are a team!

If the above sentences sound grammatically correct to you, there's no reason why your teacher's sentence would be any different.

The quote you provided is perfectly fine and makes the same sense:

These (things you need to do) are not (the) homework (you are
obligated to do).

grammaticality - Possessive apostrophe for owner of owner of owner of

I've read Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities and "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X", but my question is a little different. Not sure if the title is correctly chosen or not.

So the question is, if something belongs to a person, whose name I don't know for example, then I would say:

1. It's my uncle's sister's nephew's object


2. It's my uncle sister nephew's object

I suppose the first one would be correct, but it looks strange. Can anyone point to a rule that specifically states how to deal with the possessive apostrophe in those situations?

Answer

The first example is the correct usage as it is the object of the nephew of your uncle's sister.

1. It's my uncle's sister's nephew's object

It does not matter how many people are in the list, each one will still have a possessive apostrophe in a list like this.

1. It's my uncle sister nephew's object

This doesn't make any sense as it describes the object of someone who is your uncle-sister-nephew.

How to answer this question? Yes or No

Sorry, if this question is naive.

If someone asks me,

"You didn't go to school today, right?"

If I did not, should I answer, Yes or No?

Similarly,

"You do not like eating fish, do you?"

If I do not like eating fish, should I say Yes or No?

Answer

No, I didn't go to school.
Yes, I went to school today.
You are right, I didn't.

What is the rule for adjective order?

I remember being taught that the correct order of adjectives in English was something along the lines of "Opinion-Size-Age-Color-Material-Purpose."

However, it's been a long time and I'm pretty sure I've forgotten a few categories
(I think there were eight or nine). Can anyone fill them in?

Answer

I am re­mind­ed of how J.R.R. Tol­kien’s moth­er once fa­mous­ly
cor­rect­ed him at a very ear­ly age when he said ‘a green great drag­on’.
She told him that it had to be ‘a great green drag­on’, but when he asked

her why, she couldn’t an­swer, there­by start­ing him down the road of
puz­zling over mat­ters lin­guis­tic and philo­log­ic his whole life long.

This top­ic is one of con­tin­u­ing re­search. Sim­ply goog­ling for
‘ad­jec­tive or­der­ing re­stric­tions’ (AOR) or ‘ad­jec­tive hi­er­ar­chy’
can un­cov­er some fas­ci­nat­ing re­search in this area.

In her 2006 pa­per on “Ad­jec­tive Order­ing Re­stric­tions
Re­vis­it­ed” on pp
309–407 of the Pro­ceed­ings of the 25ᵗʰ West Coast Con­fer­ence on

For­mal Lin­guis­tics, Alex­an­dra Te­o­dor­es­cu writes:

Ad­jec­tive or­der­ing re­stric­tions (AOR) have been wide­ly dis­cussed,
but they are still not very well un­der­stood. For ex­am­ple, in
lan­guages like English pre­nom­i­nal ad­jec­tives are strict­ly or­dered.

…

For ex­am­ple, ad­jec­tives that de­note qual­i­ty have been ar­gued to

pre­cede ad­jec­tives con­vey­ing size, which in turn pre­cede ad­jec­tives
con­vey­ing shape, and so on, in all lan­guages (5). Sim­i­lar claims have
been made for oth­er ad­jec­tive types, and the re­spec­tive or­der­ing
re­stric­tions are giv­en in (6).

• (5) Qual­i­ty > Size > Shape > Color > Prov­e­nance [Sproat and Shih (1991)]




• (6) a. Posses­sive > Speak­er-ori­ent­ed > Sub­ject-ori­ent­ed >Man­ner/The­mat­ic [Cinque (1994)]




•        b. Value > Di­men­sion > Phys­i­cal prop­er­ty > Speed > Hu­man Propen­si­ty > Age > Color [Dixon (1982)]

See Teodor­es­cu’s bib­li­og­ra­phy to chase down re­lat­ed work. You
should al­so look for pa­pers that cite hers (Google Schol­ar finds 26 such
ci­ta­tions
to her work), like Lu­cas Cham­pi­on’s 2006 pa­per on “A Game-The­o­ret­ic
Ac­count of Ad­jec­tive Order­ing
Restric­tions”, which
starts off with the Tol­kien ex­am­ple.

Build­ing then on Cham­pi­on’s work is this English-lan­guage pa­per by
An­to­nia An­drout­so­pou­lou, Ma­nuel Es­pañol-Eche­va­rría, and Phil­ippe
Pré­vost en­ti­tled “On the Ac­qui­si­tion of the Prenom­i­nal Place­ment
of Eval­u­a­tive Ad­jec­tives in L2
Spanish”, from the 10ᵗʰ His­pan­ic Lin­guis­tics Sym­po­si­um in 2008. This one is in­ter­est­ing
be­cause it looks at how sec­ond-lan­guage learn­ers ac­quire an
un­der­stand­ing of ad­jec­tive or­der­ing when learn­ing a new lan­guage:

In this pa­per, we fur­ther in­ves­ti­gate knowl­edge of ad­jec­ti­val

or­der­ing re­stric­tions in for­eign lan­guage learn­ing, by fo­cus­ing on
L2 ac­qui­si­tion of eval­u­a­tive ad­jec­tives (EAs) in Span­ish by French
learn­ers.

The most re­cent pro­fes­sion­al pub­li­ca­tion I could find on this is­sue
is Katy Mc­Kin­ney-Bock­’s 2010 pa­per on “Ad­jec­tive Class­es and
Syn­tac­tic Or­der­ing
Re­stric­tions”,
in which she writes:

There is a lack of con­sen­sus in the lit­er­a­ture as to which
clas­si­fi­ca­tion of ad­jec­tives is di­rect­ly rel­e­vant for the
ob­served syn­tac­tic re­stric­tions on their or­der­ing. In this pa­per, I
ar­gue that ad­jec­tives are di­vid­ed in­to four class­es of rel­e­vance
for syn­tac­tic or­der­ing. I pro­pose that ad­jec­tive or­der­ing
re­stric­tions (AOR) are the re­sult of ad­jec­ti­val con­stit­u­ents
rais­ing or not rais­ing in the struc­ture as a con­se­quence of their
com­plex­i­ty, rather than stip­u­lat­ing that se­man­tic prop­er­ties

cor­re­late to syn­tac­tic heads.

and whose ex­tend­ed ab­stract reads:

I ar­gue there are four class­es of ad­jec­tives rel­e­vant to
syn­tac­tic or­der­ing: pred­ica­tive/in­ter­sec­tive,
pred­ica­tive/non-in­ter­sec­tive, non-pred­ica­tive, clas­si­fy­ing
(Sven­on­i­us 2008, Al­ex­i­a­dou et al 2007), and pre­vi­ous pro­pos­als

have not iden­ti­fied the rel­e­vant se­man­tic di­men­sions. Among the
prop­er­ties of grad­abil­i­ty, mass/count, and in­ter­sec­tiv­i­ty, on­ly
in­ter­sec­tiv­i­ty is syn­tac­ti­cal­ly rel­e­vant. The four class­es of
ad­jec­tives are mo­ti­vat­ed by the dis­tri­bu­tion of
or­dered/non-or­dered ad­jec­tives, scope ef­fects with cer­tain
ad­jec­tive-pairs, PP-mod­i­fi­ca­tion, N-drop­ping and com­par­a­tives
(Bouchard 2002, Hig­gin­both­am 1985, Ken­nedy 1999). DP struc­ture
in­volves 1) merg­ing the clas­si­fy­ing ad­jec­tive with pro­nounced N, 2)
merg­ing in­ter­sec­tive ad­jec­tives with N, 3) merg­ing
non-in­ter­sec­tive ad­jec­tives with a silent copy of N.

Fi­nal­ly, if you’re look­ing for some­thing slight­ly less pro­fes­sion­al
— or at least, less aca­dem­ic — then in this blog
post­ing,
the wri­ter pos­its an or­der­ing of:

• eval­u­a­tion


• size



• shape


• con­di­tion


• hu­man pro­pen­si­ty


• age


• col­or


• ori­gin


• ma­te­ri­al


• at­trib­u­tive noun

And sum­ma­rizes with:

If there’s def­i­nite­ly a mean­ing dif­fer­ence be­tween dif­fer­ent
ad­jec­tive or­der­ings, let that de­ter­mine how you or­der them, and
don’t use com­mas. If you can’t find a mean­ing dif­fer­ence, don’t go
try­ing to force there to be one. In­stead, go by the
ad­jec­tive-or­der­ing hi­er­ar­chy, and don’t use com­mas. If more than
one ad­jec­tive has the same kind of mean­ing in the hi­er­ar­chy, then use
com­mas, or ands or buts if the ad­jec­tives have con­tras­tive mean­ings.

There’s a lot more out there on this top­ic.

grammar - What exactly is an "adverb"?

From comments to “Weekdays” used as an adverb", I learn that The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary says "open weekdays from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.", shows the word weekdays is an adverb.

It seems to me that in "We open weekdays at 7 a.m.", and "We open tomorrow at 7 a.m." both weekdays and tomorrow are the same "part of speech" - and again in "I'll go tomorrow".

I will happily describe words like happily and quickly as adverbs - for example...

"I'll go quickly", and by extension "I'll go quickly and quietly".

On the other hand...

"I'll go tomorrow" can't be extended to "I'll go tomorrow and quietly".

Am I being thick, or is OALD spouting nonsense?

Answer

The theory of adverbs (and of Conjunction Reduction) given by McCawley in The Syntactic Phenomena of English explains why you can't get your example

*"I'll go tomorrow and quietly."

It would have to come by Conjunction Reduction from

[[I'll go] tomorrow] and I'll [[go] quietly]

but Conjunction Reduction requires the two constituents to be conjoined to occupy the same place in the original conjoined structures. That is not the case here, as I've indicated with the brackets -- "tomorrow" is a sentence modifier, but the manner adverb "quietly" is a V' modifier.

orthography - Graphotactics of possessive: the true reason for the apostrophe

I have some hypotheses for English graphotactics:

1. 〈w〉 and 〈y〉 are optional positional variants (i.e. allographs) of 〈u〉 and 〈i〉, respectively, in digraphs that correspond with diphthongs or vowels: 〈aw〉 ≈ 〈au〉, 〈ew〉 ≈ 〈eu〉, 〈ow〉 ≈ 〈ou〉; 〈ay〉 ≈ 〈ai〉, 〈ey〉 ≈ 〈ei〉, 〈oy〉 ≈ 〈oi〉, 〈uy〉 ≈ 〈ui〉. They are the preferred allograph at the end of morphemes.


2. 〈y〉 is a required positional variant of 〈i〉 at the end of native words, but digraph 〈ie〉 may be a possible alternate.


3. Final 〈y〉 in a stem gets replaced by 〈i〉 when a inflection suffix follows unless it is part of a digraph: fly > flies/*flys/*flis but boy > boys/*boies/*bois.


4. The apostrophe 〈’〉 is used to visually separate the possessive suffix 〈s〉 from proper names – i.e. words with initial capital – to ensure that #3 does not apply, so names have a constant representation.


5. #4 is not necessary for pronouns, hence 〈its〉, 〈hers〉, 〈his〉 instead of *〈it’s〉, *〈her’s〉, *〈he’s〉. #4 is applied to other nouns as well, though.


6. In vowel digraphs, round-top letters 〈a〉, 〈e〉 and 〈o〉 are preferred for first/left position whereas flat-top letters 〈i〉/〈y〉 and 〈u〉/〈w〉 are preferred for second/right position.

Are there any graphemic analyses of English that support these observations, especially #4?

I’m only aware of a bachelor thesis in German by Marlene Franke from 2008 which isn’t available online. It’s likely based on theories and work done by Fuhrhop/Buchmann (e.g. 2011: The length hierarchy and the graphematic syllable DOI: 10.1075/wll.14.2.05fuh) and Primus (e.g. foundational 2004: A featural analysis of the Modern Roman Alphabet), who support #6 at least.

Note that #4 is (usually) not extended to the only other possible suffix which is also an 〈s〉, i.e. the plural marker: all the Jennys and Billys.

grammaticality - speaking about conditional past event using had (verb)... would (verb)

If the author had spent any time in China, they would know that an “engineer” in China is NOT the same as an “engineer” in the USA. This is a mistranslation. An “engineer” in China is equivalent to a “technician” in the USA.

Is this correct, or should would be followed by have known?

Please explain the rule.

Answer

If the author had spent time in China, according to the quote, they would not only have learned that an engineer is different there, but would presumably retain that knowledge today... hence the present tense.

You might object that the author wrote the mistaken passage in the past, and should therefore be referred to using the past tense, but it is a common conceit to talk about literary works and similar things in the present tense: "In Julius Caesar, Shakespeare writes about...", etc.

grammaticality - Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"?

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in their bookcase.

or should it be:

Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in his or her bookcase.

Answer

Certainly many usage guides have advised against use of this "singular they" on various "logical" grounds. Nevertheless, singular they has long been part of the English language, and there are various posts on Language Log giving examples of it being used in the Bible, by Shakespeare, by the president, by the Canadian Department of Justice, etc.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language's coauthor Geoff Pullum (a frequent Language Log contributor) calls the idea that they must never occur with a singular antecedent a myth.

There is no shortage of usage "experts" who advise against it, as the other answers in the question should make clear (though these days their reasoning tends away from a simple "it's wrong" towards something more defensive–"some people will think it's wrong, so avoid it"). But despite them, use of singular they occurs at all levels of the language, both spoken and written, informal and formal.

It's not ungrammatical per se on the basis of analysis of actual usage using reasonable linguistic methods. But use it at your own risk of being criticized by the self-righteous but misinformed.

nouns - "A friend of my father" vs. "a friend of my father's" — which one is right? Why?

I have seen them both in my reference book, which is written by a native speaker. I wonder why there are two different phrases to describe the same meaning and am looking forward to some reasonable details to explain why this is so.

orthography - Is there a term to describe words whose pronunciation bears little relationship to their spelling?

The English language is peppered with wonderfully weird spelling/pronunciation combinations. For example

• colonel, pronounced kur-nl, probably my favorite, there isn't even an r in the word!


• Gloucester, pronounced glos-ter


• Worcestershire, pronounced woos-ter-sheer

And the list goes on, wikipedia has an extensive list of strangely pronounced spelled names here. No one unfamiliar with these words would be able to guess how to pronounce them, their pronunciation is usually the product of their particular history. Colonel, for example comes from the French colonel and has kept its original spelling but not its pronunciation.

So, is there a word to describe words whose pronunciation cannot be inferred from their spelling?

Answer

The Wikipedia article on the topic simply refers to these as irregularities, though one might also call them idiosyncrasies or anomalies - though none of those terms refer specifically to words with unusual spelling / pronunciation.

I think the best word to describe such irregularities is aphonetic, though that word seems relatively rare. I didn't find it listed in any dictionary, but here's an example from one of the documents in that Ngram search:

grammar - Usage of the article 'the' in the phrase Internet of Things

I am writing a paper on the topic, Internet of Things as a part of my curriculum. I couldn't help but wonder as to why every article, conference paper and journal publication refers to it as "The Internet of Things ". If my memory serves the is added to a noun (common noun) or a phrase if it weren't specific (or precise) enough. There are cases wherein proper nouns also take the article 'the' like names of geographical locations such as rivers, oceans, mountain ranges etc. However I don't see a need for using 'the' in this context. The name of the topic in itself is precise enough and leads to no confusion of subject after all.

I know there is a question about usage of articles properly, that has been answered. However, it doesn't answer my question accurately. So I implore the readers to not jump the gun and mark this question as duplicate.
References:

1. Wikipedia




2. Cisco




3. Techopedia




4. Tech-target

Answer

I don't know what the subject actually is (it's your paper), but I can imagine "the internet of things" as a phrase describing a particular aspect of the internet that you might be writing about. You could have "The internet of people", "the internet of rumour", "the internet of conspiracy theories".

Other parallel examples: "The Cornwall of my childhood", "The cinema of shock", "The politics of class".

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

I stated the following:

Angela was reading to Frank and I.

Someone corrected me, stating

"Frank and me"

Which is right?

Idiom or word for a very crowded place

There is a popular idiom in Russian for describing a really crowded place: "(there's) no room for an apple to fall" ("яблоку негде упасть").

I struggle to think of anything similar in English, and the dictionaries I consulted were of no help, simply translating it as "crowded" or not even including it at all.

The context would be something and anything along the lines of

The place was so crowded that [X].
The room was full to the extent that [Y].
The street/square was [Z].
At the top of the hat charts, there is [no room for an apple to fall].

Which is to say, I am not married to any sentence structure in particular — I'll gladly rewrite from scratch to use a vivid and idiomatic adjective or noun, word or phrase, metaphor or saying, rather than try and shoehorn it into a sentence it does not feel itself welcome in.

What possessive pronouns do have an apostrophe?

I was explaining it's vs. its to someone the other day, and I said "None of the pronouns (his, hers, theirs, yours, its, whose, ...) has an apostrophe." Later I got to wondering whether that was really true, and sure enough fairly quickly found one that does: one's, as in "One's memory isn't what it used to be."

Are there other pronouns that use an apostrophe?

Answer

Everybody's, everyone's, somebody's, someone's, anybody's, anyone's, nobody's, no one's.

EDIT:

And also the reciprocal pronouns: each other's, one another's.

whoever vs whomever - Who vs. whom in complex sentences

I know that who is used when asking about a subject (Who is at the door?) and whom is used when asking about an object (By whom was the door opened?). How do you determine which one to use when the object becomes the subject of another clause?

For example, take the sentence:

I gave the prize to ____ deserved it most.

Would it be whomever because it's the object of "gave," or would it be whoever because it's the subject of "deserved"? Is their a hard-and-fast rule to rely on in situations like this?

Answer

"Whoever" would be correct. The blank in your sentence is not the object of "gave". The entire clause "___ deserved it most" is the object of "gave", which in turn means you'll use "whoever", which is the subject of "deserved".

The rule here is exactly like what you said: who = subject, whom = object. The trick in this case is understanding the clauses in this sentence.

pronouns - How to tell if "which" refers to subject or object of main clause?

I have not been able to find a satisfactory answer regarding rules about this issue. What I have heard are lots of opinions:

Here is a picture of my house, which I like very much.

Here is a picture of my house that I like very much.

In the second example, that clearly refers to the subject of the main clause, since we could omit it and it would still mean the same thing:

Here is a picture of my house I like very much.

In the first example, is there any rule about what which refers to? There is some ambiguity otherwise.

Answer

There's ambiguity when you try to analyze a sentence devoid of any communicative context. But since language is "quite often" used for communication, other things serve to help disambiguate; such as perceived speaker's intention, the topic of the discourse, the intended function of the sentence. If they don't, you can always ask your interlocutor whether he is referring to the picture or to the house.

suffixes - Pronunciation of the -ate suffix

I've noticed that a few words may be both a noun and an adjective, remain spelt the same, but change the pronunciation of -ate to ət or āt. Sometimes the meanings are related, others they are not.

For example: separate.

We separate the objects into separate categories.

We pronounce the first with āt but the second as ət.

Off the top of my head, the only other I can think of is "conjugate", though I'm fairly certain there are others that are just not coming to my mind at the moment.

Is this just coincidence or the product of some understandable process?

word choice - "Help rule out" vs. "help to rule out"

Duplicate of:
What is the correct way to use infinitive after the verb “help”: with or without “to”?
“Could help avoid” vs. “could help to avoid”
“Helping you do something” or “Helping you to do something”?
Infinitive without “to”?
Is it correct to say “John helps you talk with people”?

My sentence fragment possibilities are

• ... can help rule out false alarms


• ... can help to rule out false alarms

I feel like both are technically correct, and that the latter sounds somewhat more formal while the former may be a little more clear. I often come upon the general issue of when to use "to [verb]" or just "[verb]" — is there a general rule? Is only one of them actually correct?

(Even if someone can explain how to describe the difference between these cases would be appreciated, i.e. "infinitive vs. ____" )

Answer

Either an unmarked infinitive (an infinitive without a to complementizer), or a marked infinitive with to will work. Here. Since the matrix verb is help.

But that's only true with help.

Every English verb is has its own rules for what kinds of Object Complement clauses it permits, requires, or forbids. See here for Subject and here for Object Complement examples.

As I used to tell my grammar classes, verbs have more fun.

modal verbs - Is a past tense protasis necessarily hypothetical when followed by an apodosis with "would have"?

Is a protasis with a verb in the past tense necessarily interpreted as a hypothetical condition when followed by an apodosis with "would have" + past participle?

For example, is the sentence

If John was there, he would have seen the accident.

inappropriate after the following situation?

You've just heard that John was in a place at a time yesterday. You infer that there is a possibility that John saw the accident you know happened nearby at about the same time.

I asked this question in ELL, but have not got conclusive answers.

Answer

First let's translate some of the terms that I'm going to use, because there's many different variants:

• Consequent: also called the apodosis or result clause


• Antecedent: also called the protasis or if-clause


• Hypothetical: also termed remote or subjunctive or imaginary


• Non-hypothetical: also termed open or indicative or real

The Original Poster's Question

It is perfectly possible to have a past tense non-hypothetical antecedent with a hypothetical consequent, in just the same way that we can have a present tense non-hypothetical antecedent with a hypothetical consequent. Consider the following:

• If he's Bob, you would be Mike.


• If she left at four, she would have arrived by now.

The first has a non-hypothetical present tense antecedent and a hypothetical consequent. The second has a past simple non-hypothetical antecedent and a hypothetical consequent.

The Original Poster's example is therefore perfectly readable as a conditional with a non-hypothetical antecedent. The antecedent Bob was there uses tense in the normal way and therefore indicates a proposition entertained as a fact. The consequent uses a past perfect construction to indicate a situation where we would otherwise expect the past simple. This backshifting of tense indicates a hypothetical consequent. It represents a logical deduction on the part of the speaker:

• If John was there, he would have seen the accident.

grammaticality - Omission of "being" after prepositions

I've heard from somewhere in this website that being can be deleted after almost every preposition... which aroused many questions as to the usage of being for me.

Today, I encountered this sentence:

It was not even close to straight.

What I normally prefer:

It was not even close to being straight.

The original author of the sentence did not include "being" in this sentence, and I wondered if it was fine to do so, as it was just a comment for some silly video (not very credible). This sounded slightly too elided, but not so much that I detected the horrendous ungrammaticality.

So my question is this. Is it grammatical and not informal to delete the being here? And also, is the rumor (at least to me, it is) true that "being" is redundant after the prepositions so is almost always deleted?

Word order: phrasal verb plus adverb

I'm dubious about word order in a situation of adverb plus phrasal verb. My specific question is the following. I want to refer to an article that deals with a certain topic. That topic is not the only one covered in the article but it is the most important one.

Which of these sentences is correct?

Your article deals mainly with [TOPIC].

Your article mainly deals with [TOPIC].

Your article deals with, mainly, [TOPIC].

Your article deals with [TOPIC], mainly.

Mainly, your article deals with [TOPIC].

As a non-native speaker, all this sentences (except the second) sound more or less fine to me. Nevertheless, I'm not completely sure about their correctness. Feel free to add some more options. And please, comment about the placing of commas as I may be fooled by my mother tongue intuition(Spanish).

Thanks!

Answer

I (as a native speaker) agree with all your judgements, including your placement of commas. I suspect that "mainly" works like "only", which McCawley discusses in his textbook The Syntactic Phenomena of English. "Only" has a scope and a focus, the latter being compared or contrasted with something else (usually given special stress in the pronunciation) in that same scope. "Only" often does not occur next to its focus, but does occur within its scope, and is subject to the constraint that it immediately precede a constituent that contains the focus.

For instance, in "I only like beer that has been chilled," the scope is the entire sentence, and "only" prefixes the verb phrase "like beer that has been chilled" which contains the focus "chilled". Since the focus is also within the constituent "beer that has been chilled", "only" could have alternatively been placed before "beer".

Replace "only" in the above example with "mainly" to see the parallel.

There are complexities here which I don't understand, and I remember McCawley's description only foggily.