Which is the most appropriate verb tense and mood for this text?

Access or use of this system without authorization or in excess of authorization either express or implied may subject violators to
criminal and civil action. On top of that we would probably call you names behind your back.

What tense and mood are required for "we would call"? Maybe "future unreal conditional plus continuous"? Should it be "we will call" instead?

I think there's some implied text:

On top of that,
if you were to access,
we would call names.

Looks like it might be a future modal (conditional)?

(Also, how might I have better asked this question? I don't feel the subject is descriptive.)

grammar - Should I use "me" or "mine"?

I have the tendency to equate "mine" as something like "hers" and "his". But I am not sure if this is correct. I know I could say:

This pencil belongs to his.

But which of the following is correct if I say this:

This pencil belongs to me.

or

This pencil belongs to mine?

Which is correct? Should I use "me" or use "mine"?

Answer

The following are correct.

This pencil belongs to him. / This pencil belongs to me.

This pencil is his. / This pencil is mine.

This is his pencil. / This is my pencil.

The following are wrong.

*This pencil belongs to his. / *This pencil belongs to my.

*This pencil belongs to his. / *This pencil belongs to mine.

word choice - Should I use "his/her" or "its"?

Possible Duplicates:
Gender neutral pronoun
Is it correct to use “their” instead of “his or her”?

I am writing software documentation. I have this issue: I am talking about a generic user of the software.
Should I say “his preferences”, “his/her preferences” or “its preferences”?

Answer

The links Reg supplied are good advice, but be aware that gender-neutral language used at length can start to become clunky and unnatural to the ear. One trick I have seen to avoid that problem is to assign genders to particular use cases. In your case, you might refer to a generic user using male pronouns, while an administrator gets female pronouns. Obviously this only works when you have a reasonably good mix of cases or relative importance.

orthography - 'Histogramed' or 'histogrammed'?

The following rule (or 'rule', this being English) is sometimes quoted:

If a word has two or more syllables, double the final consonant when adding a suffix if and only if the final syllable is stressed in speech.

(There's also constraints about not doubling h, j, q, v, w, x, y (here), but that's not relevant in this case.)

So for example we have

begin \bi-ˈgin, bē-\ → beginning
prefer \pri-ˈfər\ → preferred

but

listen \ˈli-sᵊn\ → listening
happen \ˈha-pən, -pᵊm\ → happening.

By that logic, we should have

histogram \ˈhi-stə-ˌgram\ → histogramed, histograming.

The trouble is, that's mostly not what people actually do; see the google books Ngram, below. Moreover, Wiktionary says that it is histogrammed/histogramming (here)
.

Unfortunately, the major dictionaries do not list histogram as a verb; in particular, the OED doesn't. But in the sciences, people do use it—both with the doubling of the m (here) and without (here). However, the double-m version is 10-20 times more common, according to this google books Ngram:

(A very similar Ngram is obtained for histogramming,histograming.)

Questions:

1. Did I state the rule (or 'rule') about the consonant doubling correctly? Here is an example of how simple, often-repeated rules may in reality be simplified versions of more complex actual rules: the source I linked above (as well as many others) says that for single-syllable words, the final consonant is doubled if the vowel is short. But according to John Lawler (here), the actual rule is a bit more convoluted: if the vowel was short in Middle English (/ɪ ɛ æ ɔ ə/) and it uses only one vowel letter and it's in a syllable ended by a consonant, then you double the consonant in spelling. Is there a similarly more complicated rule for multi-syllable words? If so, what does it say about histogramed/histogrammed ?




2. Imagine you had to use the past tense of histogram in a text. What would you write?

(3. What was this 'histogramming craze' in the early '80s?)

Edit

The Free Dictionary has the following discussion:

Exception 1: Doubled consonants in unstressed syllables

Note that there are several words that have primary emphasis on the first syllable but have doubled consonants when taking vowel suffixes. Most of these have a secondary stress on the last syllable, which might be part of the reason why their final consonants are doubled, but this is not always the case.

The situation is made more difficult by the fact that many of these words have variant or accepted alternative spellings in which the final consonant isn’t doubled, and the preference for some of these variants often comes down to regional dialect. This leads to confusing spelling decisions such as kidnaped vs. kidnapped and worshiped vs. worshipped. Unfortunately, we just have to memorize these exceptions:

crystal \ˈkri-stᵊl\ → crystalline, crystallize (but also crystalize; crystalline has only one spelling)
input \ˈin-ˌpu̇t\ → inputted, inputting
kidnap \ˈkid-ˌnap\ → kidnapped, kidnapping (in AmE also kidnaped, kidnaping)
program \ˈprō-ˌgram, -grəm\ → programmable, programmed, programmer, programming (but also programed, programing)
worship \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-\ → worshipped, worshipper, worshipping (in AmE also worshiped, worshiper, worshiping)

Plural possessive with separate posessions

When we refer to a house that belongs to a family, we say "family's house". Pluralizing family gives us "families". Referring to the houses of several families, we say "families' houses". Forming the plural possessive in such a case is rather simple.

I encountered a more complex use of this recently - referring to a single house owned by a single family in a set of houses owned by a set of families.

We can say "the families' houses" to refer to all of the houses owned by all of the families.

We can say "one of the families' houses" to refer to one of the houses owned by one or more of the families. In this context, "one of" applies to "the families' houses".

If we were instead to apply "one of" to "the families", and want to refer to the one house owned by "one of the families", how would this be written?

My first though was "one of the families's house", taking "one of the families" as a single noun and appending 's to it. This looks (and sounds) a bit strange, though. "One of the families' house" and "one of the family's house"/"one of the family's houses" seem wrong to me, and I can't really determine the correct way to say/write this.

Is there a definitively correct way that this should be written?

EDIT: To clarify, although I think I made it clear, in this context, there are several families, and each owns one house. The goal of the sentence is to refer to one of those houses without stating which specific house. Example: "The players and their families want to celebrate their team's victory; this will likely entail a party at one of the families's house".

Answer

The construct you suggest is rather awkward as you said yourself. The best way to talk about the specific house is to rephrase the sentence and say instead: "...this will probably entail a party at the house of one of the families."

grammar - Possessive + gerund + object pronoun

I'm reading The Great Gatsby and there's one part when Tom Buchanan is arguing by phone with George Wilson about a car, and Tom says the next:

Very well, then, I won't sell you the car at all ... I'm under no

obligations to you at all ... and as for your bothering me about it at
lunch time, I won't stand that at all!

the part:

[...] and as for your bothering me [...]

has a structure like:

possessive adjective + gerund + object pronoun

I had never seen such a construction, so my question is:
Is there something elided in the sentence, and what's the meaning of the sentence?

Thank you in advance.

Answer

In school I was taught that gerunds take a possessive pronoun and that's that. But it kind of makes sense if you consider that by definition a gerund is a present participle masquerading as a noun. If we substitute an actual noun, we might get something like, "your disturbance [of] me at lunchtime." The subjective "you" would never fit in this construct, and thinking of "bothering" as a noun should help make this rule clear.

word choice - Present or Past tense to describe a past condition which is still present?

Scenario: My friend John has a personality disorder, intensely paranoid for example.

Can I say:

There were three events last year that told me John had a problem.

or can I say:

There were threee events last year that told me John has a problem.

Answer

I agree with mgkrebbs in the case of storytelling. In conversation, however, if I say:

There were three events last year that told me John had a problem.

I am implying that he had a problem last year but that the problem is no longer present. If I say:

There were three events last year that told me John has a problem.

I am implying that the problem existed last year and continues into the present.

Might I also suggest the following (assuming the problem still exists):

Three events last year told me John has a problem.

orthography - "Naïve" yet "naivety"?

I am used to spelling "naïve" thus - "naïve". I am also used to Microsoft Word automatically changing "naive" to "naïve". Hence, I was surprised when it didn't change "naivety" to "naïvety". I then decided to work around this by letting it correct "naive" to "naïve" and then tacking on "-ty". Word then underlined "naïvety" in red and suggested a correction to "naivety".

Whether this is a typical case of "it's just a quirk of spellcheck" I am not sure, hence my question.

So:

Is it incorrect to write "naïvety"?

Alternatively:

Why is "naïvety" incorrect when "naïve" is correct?

grammar - Should one hyphenate 'shoulder width' in this context?

I believe that in this context:

Place your feet shoulder-width apart.

it makes sense to hyphenate to avoid confusion. I see that apart is listed as an adverb in the dictionary and width as a noun, so it would appear shoulder is an adjective of the noun width in this context.

I see this as possibly matching one published rule for hyphenating:

Rule 2b. When writing out new, original, or unusual compound nouns, writers should hyphenate whenever doing so avoids confusion.

Is that correct? However, I feel in this example:

Place your feet apart by a shoulder width.

it should not be hyphenated. Is this correct? What are the rules that apply in these two cases? Are they really the same case?

---

I do not believe this is a duplicate of the suggested question since I'm asking about the parts of speech of the possibly hyphenated words and which if any of the hyphenation rules applies to this situation, such as the mentioned compound noun rule.

Answer

"Place your feet apart by a shoulder width" means to literally place your feet apart by the width of one shoulder. This does not seem to be the intention, and as such it is incorrect.

When you hyphenate, you combine the terms into a new adjective with a new, possibly idiomatic meaning, that is the width from the left shoulder to the right shoulder in a person.

It should also be noted 'shoulders-width' is also a common usage of this term.

word choice - Was if, is if, or were if?

Weird one, but here's a partial sentence I recently heard a coworker use:

"The only way that meeting could have been more boring, was if/is if/were if...."

I won't say which she used, as I'd like to get a general opinion on what should have been used. (If this sentence makes sense at all in general.)

terminology - What is the difference between a phrase and a clause?

What is the difference between a phrase and a clause? I tried looking this in dictionary but can not identify the difference. It would be great if I could get an example and formula of what makes a phrase and a clause.

Answer

The short answer: clauses contain a subject and its verb, while phrases do not. Note that phrases may contain nouns and verbals, but won't have the noun as the verb's actor.

The long answer: see this page from the University of Chicago which has several examples.

compounds - Is there a more detailed classification of English adjectives and their ordering?

I recently come across several particular noun phrases/compounds such as

"Automatic emergency light" (as the name of a product)

"the fourth consecutive monthly decline" (as in "Consumers paid 2.1 per cent less for food in January than they did a year earlier, the fourth consecutive monthly decline.")

"another alternative suggested order" (as in "But know that there are times when you can deviate from the order, and there is another alternative suggested order too")

My questions are that:

1/ What types of adjectives are "alternative," "consecutive," and "automatic?" They are neither opinion nor purpose adjectives, so I can't use the traditional OPSASCOMP ordering to sort them out.

2/ How do you know to add "consecutive" before "monthly"? Is it possible to write "another monthly consecutive decline"?

3/ Is there any more detailed descriptions of adjective ordering that can explain the sentences above. As far as I know the most widely known adjective order is that of OPSASCOMP.

Answer

"Automatic" and "emergency" are purpose adjectives, it seems to me. "Fourth consecutive monthly decline" conveys a lot information without extra words; you could says "another monthly consecutive decline in a series of four" or "a fourth monthly decline in the last six months" (this would suggest a couple of months here and there where there was no decline.

Alternative and suggested modify order.

punctuation - Orthography of definite-article contractions in the Yorkshire dialect

In the Yorkshire accent the definite article is shortened to just t. E.g. 'I went on the bus' becomes something that sounds like 'I went ont bus'. How does one punctuate this? Is it 'I went on t'bus', which seems logical (as the apostrophe indicates missing letters) but does not reproduce the sound that one hears? Or could it be 'I went on't bus'?

grammar - Longest sentence yet (Text Analysis). How do we decompile this sentence?

> Context:
On the other hand, Italian writers did well to draw on the Tuscan vernacular rather than the other vernaculars of Italy [1250] for the reasons that everyone knows and which we have stated pp.1246, end-47, beginning.

But it would be silly, absurd, pedantic, and ridiculous to conclude from this that only that vernacular can therefore be drawn on, that writers can only write in the manner and to the extent that that particular people speaks, that the Italian language and Italian literature wholly depend on the common people of Tuscany (when it does not even depend on the common people at all, but simply uses them when it so chooses), that in and outside of Tuscany, an Italian writer cannot create words or phrases that the Tuscan populace does not use, that, in short, someone who is not Tuscan, indeed, who is not Florentine, or not actually from the Old Market, is not Italian.

The questions would be:

1.There are two 'that' in line 3, would someone kindly explain this queer using of 'that'?

2.Is it acceptable writing in English using 'that' so many times in a single sentence? Wouldn't it be more appropriate if for example the first and second line:
'But it would be silly, absurd, pedantic, and ridiculous to conclude that only vernacular can therefore be drawn on'

3.If we decompile those 'thats' into multiple sentences, would it change the conveyed meaning?

Thank you!

present tense - What is the difference between has gone and went in this context?

A: Is Mr. Bob at home?

B: Sorry, he isn't at home. He___to Hong Kong for vacation?

A. went
B. has gone
C. is going

Which one is correct answer? and why it is not the other ones?

tenses - "I didn't know you liked her" or "I didn't know you like her"

I have a friend who insists that

"I didn't know you like her"

is more correct than

"I didn't know you liked her"

if the liking is still taking place. But to my ear, only the latter sounds correct.

Which of the above (if any) is correct and why?

Answer

I have a friend who insists that

• 1.) "I didn't know you like her"

  
  
  
  

  is more correct than




• 2.) "I didn't know you liked her"

if the liking is still taking place. But to my ear, only the latter (#2) sounds correct.

Which of the above (if any) is correct and why?

*

Trust your ear. :)

Your ear knows. As in all things dealing with today's English, we native English speakers know what sounds right and what sounds wrong -- but it can be hard to explain the grammar of the why of it all.

Generally, your version #2 is the preferred version, for it is the speaker's knowing that is foregrounded, while the info of your liking her is backgrounded. That is, previously the speaker didn't know that you liked her, but now the speaker does know. And that is what version #2 is doing, foregrounding the speaker's knowing, and backgrounding the info of your liking her by backshifting the verb "like" into "liked".

(Version #1 would be used if, for some reason, the speaker wanted to foreground the info that you like the girl. But that is rather unlikely for the example sentence in the usual context.)

.

LONG VERSION: (Note: "preterite" == a past tense form of a verb)

The preterite has three main uses:

• past time,


• modal remoteness,


• backshifting.

Your example illustrates a backshifting use. Backshifting is often used in indirect reported speech, e.g. "Jill said she had too many commitments" when Jill's original utterance was "I have too many commitments" -- notice how Jill's present-tense "have" was backshifted into the preterite "had".

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.

In your example:

• "I didn't know you like/liked her"

the matrix clause's verb is "did", which is a past tense verb form, and so, it fulfills the above #A. (The matrix clause also fulfills #B, in that the situation of the speaker not knowing was in the past time sphere.)

And so, a backshifted preterite can occur. But then there is the question of preference, and even the question of obligatory vs optional backshifting.

Your example sentence seems to me to be an illustration of where there would be a strong preference for a backshifted version. Your example seems very similar to,

• I thought it [was] mine.

which is discussed in the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum et al., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), pages 157-8:

(c) Focus on original

If the focus is on the original utterance or belief, with a contrast between 'then' and 'now', this will favor the backshifted version:

• I thought it [was] mine. -- (backshifted)

One context of this is where it has just been established that it is mine: thought would here be strongly stressed, indicating a contrast between past thinking and present knowing (of the same proposition). Another context is where it has just been established (or claimed) that it is not mine: here the contrast is between what I thought in the past and what is known/claimed in the present. In either case the past time location of the thinking is foregrounded, focused, and this favors the backshifted version, preserving the original T-o: deictic is would hardly be possible here.

capitalization - Should “Hell” be capitalized?

I am of the belief that Hell should be capitalized because real or not, it is the name of a place, and thus a proper noun. It should be capitalized correct?

I have seen it written without capitalization plenty of times, but I suspect that most of those were just due to laziness or illiteracy (it tends to be written with a lower-case ‘h’ mostly on the Internet–sigh).

Other uses, including expletives seem to use it as a place name as well:

• What [in] the Hell‽





• Go to Hell!

Google gives mixed results and checking the WikiPedia entry for Hell to get a proper definition does indicate that it is a location, but even on that same page, there are plenty of instances with a lower-case ‘h’.

Is there a situation in which it would not be capitalized? What about uses as an adjective:

that job was Hell?

Answer

"Hell" is capitalized when it is used as a proper noun. That is, you capitalize it when you are referring to it as a specific place. However, it can be perfectly legitimate to leave it uncapitalized if you are not referring to a specific place.

"That job was hell" does not refer to a specific location, but rather a nebulous concept of torture. Thus, it is not capitalized in this sentence.

prepositions - "For" or "during" the last 10 minutes?

I have some doubt if the phrases below are correct.

1) for the last 10 minutes

2) during the last 10 minutes

I suppose that 1) means that some process has been going on during a period of time,

e.g. Firefighters have been extinguishing fire for the last 10 minutes.

As for 2), I would say

There was no aircraft landing during the last 10 minutes.

meaning that "No aircraft landed within a period of 10 minutes before this moment".

Am I right?

questions - Who do you want to talk to? Whom do you want to talk to?

Who do you want to talk to?
Whom do you want to talk to?
Which one is correct sentence?

past tense - Are “Why did you do that” and “Why have you done that” interchangeable?

As I know, both Simple Past and Present Perfect can be used for an action that happened in the past. However, S.Past is used for an action which has a definite period of time whereas P.Perfect is used for an action which doesn't have a definite period of time. Am I right?

I'm confused about these two tenses. Can anyone explain the differences between them?
Let's take an example (Your friend - B, You - A)

Case (1):
A: What did you do last night? Was there any fun?
B: No, there wasn't any fun. I already broke up with my girlfriend.
A: What? Why did you do that?

Case (2): (You and your friend haven't met each other for a long time)
A: Hey, what have you been doing?
B: Everything is so boring. I have broken up with my girlfriend.
A: What? Why have you done that?

In Case 1, I use "Why did you do that" - (Simple Past) because I know that he broke up with his girlfriend last night.

However, In case 2, I use "Why have you done that" - (Present Perfect) because I don't know when he broke up with his girlfriend (Maybe yesterday or 1 week before, 2 months before,...)

What do you think? In my opinion, in most real conversation, we can use "Why did you do?" and "Why have you done?" interchangeably? Am I correct?

single word requests - What is the term for inserting that *may* lead to subsequent removal?

In terms of any sort of collection of things, where the collection is limited in the amount of members it may have. I suppose 'replacement' would be enough to describe insertion of one thing then subsequent removal of something else.

I am looking for, though, a term that describes insertion that may result in subsequent removal, but not necessarily.

grammar - Plural nouns used as adjectives

The query might return a list of selected items in a shopping cart, or posts in active forums threads, or whatever your web application needs to retrieve from your database.

active forums is functioning as an adjective here. It is obvious, of course. But what I can't get is why does it end in s making it plural? Could it be written like active forum threads? If so, what would the difference be? And I have certainly many times come across nouns ending in s used as adjectives but never really understood the reasons why there was a particular need to make them plural instead of leaving them in their singular form.

Answer

There is no need for the plural. Most likely the writer thought the singular form, active forum threads, might be misinterpreted as active threads rather than threads in active forums. But the problem is easily solved with a hyphen: active-forum threads.

nouns - "Personal Use Program" or "Personal-Use Program"?

Help me settle a discussion on this topic. Everywhere I look, within my company's internal documents as well as documents from other companies, a "personal use" program is not hyphenated. A colleague of mine believes it should be hyphenated, and is under that impression thanks to the AP Style Guide's rule on compound modifiers used as an adjective:

"When a compound modifier — two or more words that express a single
concept — precedes a noun, use hyphens to link all the words in the
compound except the adverb very and all adverbs that end in -ly: a
first-quarter touchdown, a bluish-green dress, a full-time job, a
well-known man, a better-qualified woman, a know-it-all attitude, a
very good time, an easily remembered rule."

This seems like a "substitute teacher" issue to me. "Personal" is an adjective and "use" is a noun. That would make this a compound noun and not require a hyphen, right? Or sort of right?

Can someone clear this up for me?

Is it correct to join two complete sentences with a comma without coordinating conjunction?

1) If, for whatever reason, you don’t think the quoted price is legitimate, please kindly inform us of your target price. Our sales teams would be glad to work around your budget.
2) If, for whatever reason, you don’t think the quoted price is legitimate, please kindly inform us of your target price, our sales teams would be glad to work around your budget.

Please kindly advise on the use of comma in the above two sentences. Any help appreciated.

Nested Flashback - Past perfect tense w/in present tense or Past tense w/in past tense or Past perfect tense w/in past tense

So, someone from ELL suggested that I ask my question on this forum. I do not want to know if nested flashbacks are okay. I am simply asking about tense. Thanks for the help! Question is below:

Should a flashback be written in past tense? And if so, should the flashback occurring in it be in past tense as well or past perfect tense?

Past perfect tense w/in present tense or Past tense w/in past tense or Past perfect tense w/in past tense Example below:

(Flashback 1 in present)

Samt takes hold of Judiada’s arms and says, “Ju . . . Judiada, I . . . I am hysterical.”

“I will be as forthright as possible, Samt . . .” Judiada bites his bottom lip and then folds his arms over his chest, “we have to calm the people of Tarbus. You are next in line. We’ll do an emergency coronation ceremony—”

“No!”

“Samt, we have to,” pleads Judiada.

or (flashback 1 in past tense)

“The spirit of Anaris would never give her approval,” said Samt. “No emergency coronation is to be held, Judiada. Lāza’s still out there.” Walking in circles, Samt grabbed his sun-streaked, shoulder length hair in frustration and said, “He was here getting ready. Here. I just talked to him!” He stopped and looked at Judiada. “Doi minu teelio!” Three weeks ago!” Samt took a seat and remembered his last conversation with Lāza.

Three weeks earlier . . .

(Flashback 2 past perfect tense)

Samt had grown tired of listening to the takeoff and landings of spacecrafts while standing in the control room. His anxiousness had turned into boredom while he waited to talk with his superior, Lāza Holmes. Lāza was to set off for his next voyage after their meeting.

Samt looked at the numeral box and noticed that Lāza was beyond late. Samt packed his carrying bag and then headed to the door. He decided that he’d wait to talk to Lāza after he completed his mission. Samt opened the door and before he could walk out, Lāza was walking onto the space carrier deck.

grammaticality - Should I say "there is a handful of..." or "there are a handful of...."?

I want to write that I have handful of somethings. Which of these is the correct form?

1. There is a handful of somethings.


2. There are a handful of somethings.

Are both correct?

Answer

Rimmer correctly identifies phrases like a handful of . . . and a pack of . . . as premodifying elements in a noun phrase, rather than as the subject of the clause and, for the same reason, Mustafa is right in saying that a number of . . . is followed by a plural verb. However, there is a tendency, particularly in speech, for There’s . . . rather than There are . . . to be used regardless of the number of the noun that follows, as in, for example, There’s a few people who believe my story. In the words of the ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ (the stripped-down version of the magisterial Longman Grammar),

‘in conversation . . . the verb is likely to be singular even when the
following notional subject is plural’.

And as ‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ says,

[There’s] seems to be evolving into a fixed phrase, rather like the
French C’est . . . , serving the needs of the ongoing discourse rather than

the grammar of the sentence.

possessives - Indicating Possession Between You and Another Person

Is there a good way to indicate that something belongs to you and another person when you want to mention the other person by name?

As an example, suppose some friends ask you "Where's the party at?" and the party is at the house that you and Bob share. Then

The party's at our house.

would work just fine. But what if some of the friends you wanted to invite didn't know that you lived with Bob, and you wanted to make sure they understand that Bob will be hosting the party with you?

In this situation, I've often found myself wanting to say something like

The party's at my and Bob's house.

This sounds clunky at best, but the obvious alternatives all seem slightly inappropriate to me. For example, you might propose saying

The party's at the house that belongs to Bob and me.

but I would say that seems a little stilted. Perhaps something like

You know where Bob and I live? That's where the party's at.

could work, but it certainly isn't very economical. The best option is probably something like

Bob and I will be hosting the party at our house.

but that sounds a little formal if someone just asks "Where's the party at?"

I know this situation sounds contrived, but I do run into it in various forms from time to time. I think part of the reason it sticks out to me is that there wouldn't be a problem if it was just your house or just Bob's house. You could easily say

The party's at Bob's house

or

The party's at my house

In fact, those are the responses I'd expect to "Where's the party at?" in everyday speech. But

The party's at my and Bob's house

sounds terrible.

What would you say in this situation?

Answer

"The party's at Bob's and my house."

Despite however "clunky" you think this sounds, this way is correct. There's nothing ungrammatical with this.

See the following references:

https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/possessive-pronoun.html
(scroll down to "Compound Possessive Nouns and Pronouns")

https://ontariotraining.net/grammar-tip-possession-with-compound-nouns-and-pronouns/

https://erinwrightwriting.com/compound-possessive-pronoun-strings-or-who-owns-that-dog-anyway/

Is it correct to use "punctuation outside of the quotations", or "inside?"

Or is it region specific? I was always taught that when ending a quotation, that punctuation remains inside of the quote.

I think he said, "we should go to the store."
Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store?"

As opposed to:

I think he said, "we should go to the store". Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store"?

This is just an arbitrary example off of the top of my head, and it's hard for me to come up with an example for the second usage because it looks completely wrong to me.

I actually got into a small argument with my girlfriend earlier this year because she uses something similar to the second example, and said that's how she was taught (which is why I ask if it's region-specific.)

Anyway, is there a correct usage for ending a quotation with punctuation?

Answer

In American English, commas and periods go inside the quotation marks. Semi-colons, question marks and exclamation marks go inside the quotation marks only if they're part of the quotation. E.g.,

"What time is it?" he asked.

Did he really say, "I don't care"?

So your example should be the following:

I think he said, "we should go to the store." Are you sure he said, "we should go to the store"?

meaning - What is the word or term used to describe a person who intentionally ignores a rule/regulation/order

There is a girl in my lab who, despite having been corrected numerous times in the past, continues to disregard the lab procedures regarding chain of command. She constantly goes over supervisors' heads, stepping far out of line and creating somewhat major problems.

She is a snobbish type with an aura of undeserved superiority and arrogance that borders on a personality disorder and, if I were better read, I would have a much grander metaphoric comparison for her inflated sense of self worth. She is unwilling, or simply unable, to admit her mistakes and has an excuse or response at the ready for any and every question/action/accusation that comes her way.

Anyway, she did it again this morning and I have been obsessed over finding a word that accurately describes this behavior of intentionally ignoring and disregarding her position and the rules set forth. I feel like it's on the tip of my tongue and that I know the word, but just can't remember.

Any ideas?

can the pronoun I be use alone to answer a question who?

If I am asked, who is going to the wedding? can I just say "I"?

Which are or What are

is this correct?

Which are the different methods by which you can search...

or

What are the different methods by which you can search...

grammaticality - When is "he is on the" + verb allowed as a sentence?

Why are these sentences correct:

• "He is on the move", 8 million hits on google


• "He is on the run", 3 million hits

but not these?:

• "He is on the walk", 3 hits (1 with this construct)


• "He is on the talk", 1 hit (0 with this construct)

When is it allowed to use the "on the" + verb grammatical construct?

Notes

• The last word in these sentences is not actually a verb, it is a noun created from a verb (or possibly vice-versa). The question is stated this way to be concise. A suggestion for improvement that is more correct is welcome.


• Edit 1: added this note, examples, more thoughts.

Some Thoughts

• The hits on 'walk' gives this sentence about a dog, which seems meaningful enough to me: "once he is on the walk, he doesn't attempt to bite the lead".


• The first two examples refer to a abstract sort of 'move' or 'run'. A more concrete form of the construct is also possible and maybe more common. E.g. "he is on the call" could colloquially refer to a very specific conference call. However, one of the only two google hits (NSFW, so no link) is about the abstract 'call': "... while he is on the call with his boss". So the concrete form is not common either.



• Vice-versa, the construct is clearly incorrect for verbs that cannot be used as a noun, e.g. "he is on the buy", "he is on the write".

More Examples

Common examples gathered from the comments:

• non-slang: go, mend, march, rise, decline, increase, decrease, boil, prowl


• slang: make, take, dole, prowl, nod?, hop?



• fighting/sports: attack, rebound

Not quite examples:

• fly: you cannot 'be on the fly' right?


• nod?, hop?, train: these nouns aren't based on the verbs right?

More Questions

• Why are there so few of these verb-like nouns that can be used in such a sentence?


• Why are relatively many of them slang?

More Thoughts

• Most of the sentences have a similar meaning when the -ing form of the verb is used. "He is on the take" ~ "He is taking [bribes]". But usually only figuratively, and it is the opposite for "on the dole". Maybe the 'on the' form is used when the 'ing' form already has another meaning: "he is running" vs. "he is on the run" (vs. "he runs").


• The construct is much more common in Dutch, where it is usually the best way to translate the -ing form, so maybe it is a Germanism?

grammatical number - children as adjective as opposed to child

In computer science we talk about binary trees as connections of nodes which of which have either zero or exactly two children. Furthermore we talk about "the parent node of a child", "the left child node of a parent", and "the right child of a parent". If I want to talk about both left and right, should I say "both child nodes" or "both children nodes"? As a native English speaker, "both children nodes" sounds more natural. Furthermore I'd say "both these nodes", not "both this nodes".

Another example is if I'm talking about member of a club: I'd say "This rule applies to all women members", not "This rule applies to all woman members".

My guess is that if I'm using a noun as an adjective, and the noun has an irregular plural form, that plural form can be used as an adjective. However, if I'm using a word which is an adjective only the singular form of the adjective can be used. "all women members" but "all female member" and never "all females members". Here female is really an adjective, not simply a noun being used as an adjective.

Or does it rather have to do with the fact that the "en" ending marks an irregular genitive form in Old English, and this usage as an adjective is just a vestige that old usage?

Or perhaps is this just an artifact of my particular dialect, and not standard English? Whatever that means...

Which is correct? "both child nodes" or "both children nodes"? Or do they perhaps have different meanings?

grammatical number - What is the correct syntax for a plural possessive of a word already ending in s?

Before you vote to close as a duplicate, note that these two questions deal with similar issues to this, but none of them address all three criteria of this question:

• The singular already ends with an s.


• I am dealing with multiple of the thing.


• I want the possessive of all of them in general.

The singular is class, and the plural is classes. The singular possessive is class's (as addressed here).

What is the plural possessive? Is it classes's, or classes'?

Answer

It is classes', which sounds the same as the singular class's.

I would have thought this was a general rule for plural nouns ending -s', -es' or -ies'.

pronouns - "It was he/him who/whom I voted for."

I'm not particularly a grammar pedant, but I thought of this sentence this morning and it has defied my searching skills.

It was he/him who/whom I voted for.

The question here covers something similar, but it doesn't have the disagreement where the "he" behaves like an object in the second clause and a subject in the first. Which of these sentences sounds more grammatical?

1. It was he who I voted for.


2. It was he whom I voted for.


3. It was him who I voted for.


4. It was him whom I voted for.

Oddly enough, this website seems to suggest that one should use sentences like "I chose whoever came first," despite the usual usage of "I chose him."

Answer

The traditional pedantic version of this sentence would be "It was he whom I voted for" (although a pedant who believed in avoiding stranded prepositions would instead say "It was he for whom I voted").

The object of the preposition for in the relative clause is typically analyzed as consisting only of the relative pronoun whom/who. The relative pronoun and the personal pronoun he/him refer to the same person, but they do not occupy the same position in the grammar of the sentence. The personal pronoun he/him is not part of the relative clause at all.

---

The "Let he/him who..." question has "he/him" as the object of the main clause and "who" as the subject of the relative clause. It seems comparable to your sentence, where "he/him" serves as a predicative complement in the main clause and "who/whom" serves as the object of the preposition "for" in the relative clause. In both cases, the standard prescriptivist viewpoint is that the relative pronoun should be inflected according to its role in the relative clause, and the pronoun before the relative pronoun should be inflected according to its role in the main clause.

"I chose whoever came first" is a different situation because there is no other pronoun before the relative pronoun: it is a "fused" relative. A fused relative pronoun is "supposed" to inflect according to its role in the relative clause. See this blog post: "For Whomever the Bell Tolls" (by Jonathon Owen, Arrant Pedantry). The actual, as opposed to prescribed, behavior of "fused relatives" seems to be fairly complicated: see F.E.'s answer to “Put me in touch with whomever created it”? for more details.

The verb be is not actually analyzed as taking a direct object, but a "predicative complement". Completely separately* from the issue of relative clauses, there is variation between "he" and "him" as a predicative complement: "It was him" is usual, but "it was he" has traditionally often been prescribed as a "more grammatical" form (based on the idea that the predicative complement should have the same case as the corresponding subject, which in this case is the nominative pronoun it). Sentences with nominative predicate pronouns, like "It was he", still exist to some extent as "elevated" variants of sentences with accusative predicate pronouns.

(*"Completely separately" may be a slight simplification: Barrie England's answer to "It is I who am at fault?" indicates that the use of "nominative" predicative complements may in fact be more frequent in present-day English before relative clauses that have who as the subject. But from a prescriptive point of view, there isn't supposed to be any relationship between the use of "It was he" and the presence of or case of a following relative pronoun.)

orthography - Hyphens in words with prefixes like neo-Nazism

I have a question regarding the use of hyphens in words with certain prefixes. For example,

Neo-Nazism
Neo-Confucianism
Neo-liberal

are words with a hyphen, but

Neoplatonism
Neocolonialism

are words without hyphens. I'm especially confused with neo-Confucianism and neoplatonism: one contains a hyphen and a capital letter and the other doesn't.

Is there a specific rule for hyphens in words with prefixes or is it purely arbitrary?

vocabulary - What is "opening her Caesar" referring to here?

"But, oh, Marilla, I really felt that I had tasted the bitterness of
death, as Mr. Allan said in his sermon last Sunday, when I saw Diana
go out alone," she said mournfully that night. "I thought how splendid

it would have been if Diana had only been going to study for the
Entrance, too. But we can't have things perfect in this imperfect
world, as Mrs. Lynde says. Mrs. Lynde isn't exactly a comforting
person sometimes, but there's no doubt she says a great many very true
things. And I think the Queen's class is going to be extremely
interesting. Jane and Ruby are just going to study to be teachers.
That is the height of their ambition. Ruby says she will only teach
for two years after she gets through, and then she intends to be
married. Jane says she will devote her whole life to teaching, and
never, never marry, because you are paid a salary for teaching, but a

husband won't pay you anything, and growls if you ask for a share in
the egg and butter money. I expect Jane speaks from mournful
experience, for Mrs. Lynde says that her father is a perfect old
crank, and meaner than second skimmings. Josie Pye says she is just
going to college for education's sake, because she won't have to earn
her own living; she says of course it is different with orphans who
are living on charity—THEY have to hustle. Moody Spurgeon is going to
be a minister. Mrs. Lynde says he couldn't be anything else with a
name like that to live up to. I hope it isn't wicked of me, Marilla,
but really the thought of Moody Spurgeon being a minister makes me

laugh. He's such a funny-looking boy with that big fat face, and his
little blue eyes, and his ears sticking out like flaps. But perhaps he
will be more intellectual looking when he grows up. Charlie Sloane
says he's going to go into politics and be a member of Parliament, but
Mrs. Lynde says he'll never succeed at that, because the Sloanes are
all honest people, and it's only rascals that get on in politics
nowadays."

"What is Gilbert Blythe going to be?" queried Marilla, seeing that
Anne was opening her Caesar.

"I don't happen to know what Gilbert Blythe's ambition in life is—if
he has any," said Anne scornfully.

–– L. M. Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables

Answer

I assume it means that she was opening her copy of ‘De Bello Gallico’, Julius Caesar's comentary on his campaign in Gaul.

pronouns - passive Vs active or omission of 'which is'

What is the part of speech of 'regarded' in the following?

"a quality of beauty and intensity of emotion regarded as characteristic of poems" (NOAD)

Why isn't it "... [which is] regarded ..."?

And in another case:

"a small lizard with wide feet, found especially in warm countries" (CALD)

And also:

"Words used to describe writing or speech style" (Macmillan)

In all these examples, why shouldn't the verbs be in their passive form (e.g. which is found, words that are used)?

I am a ESL learner and I am very confused by these usages!

grammar - "Today is one of my friends' birthday."or"Today is my friend's birthday."

Could you tell me which is correct to say,

"Today is one of my friends' birthday."
or
"Today is my friend's birthday."

Thank you for your advice!

etymology - "cathouse," "call house," and "sporting house" for "bordello"

All three terms appear to be euphemisms for house of prostitution and are marked as Americanisms by Robert-Collins French and English Dictionary, Ed. 1985.

cathouse being the most common one (as shown in this Ngram), I was wondering, what actually is implied by "cat"?

Is it, as stated here, because
such establishments would place a statue of a sitting cat in one
of their windows, facing outward when open
for business, and facing inward when they were closed?

Or is it on account of the now obsolete use of "cat" for "prostitute" which, according to OED, was established as
early as 1401 when the word appeared in Friar Daws Reply, a poem in
Middle English?

Although the exact meaning of the word in this poem
is debatable, the definition had been unquestionably cemented by 1670,
when an early dictionary entry for "cat" followed the word with the
phrase, "a common whore." Narkive Newsgroup Archive

cat:

As a term of contempt for a woman, from early 13c. Slang sense of "prostitute" is from at least c. 1400. Slang sense of "fellow, guy," is from 1920, originally in African-American vernacular; narrower sense of "jazz enthusiast" is recorded from 1931. Etymonline

Or, is it in relation to "cat" as a possible older slang word for female genitalia, sort of analogous to modern day "pussy"?

In addition, do the terms sporting house and call house, aside from being rare euphemisms for "brothel," have a somewhat antiquated feel to them, sort of like the word "saloon" might conjure up the picture of an Old West barroom?

sporting house: bordello; a long career as a madam in a New Orleans sporting house.

First Known Use of sporting house: 1615 M-W

According to Wentworth & Flexner, call house originally denoted any brothel and call girl any prostitute working in a call house. (Presumably call girl was in some sense an abbreviation of call house girl.) Sense Developments

That "call house girl" sense of call girl is also supported by the Oxford Dictionary of Euphemisms, which quotes:

A call girl or call-button girl was not originally someone whose attendance was requested over the telephone but a prostitute who lived in a call house, where men might visit or call.

Answer

The term cat has been used to express contempt for a human being in the past centuries. OED cites early usage examples:

• fig. a. As a term of contempt for a human being; esp. one who scratches like a cat; a spiteful or backbiting woman. spec. an itinerant worker (U.S. slang)

  
  
  
  
  
  • 1225 Ancr. R. 102 Hweðer þe cat of helle claurede euer toward hire.
  
  

from which probably the usage to refer to a prostitute.

Cathouse:

• "... according to the OED the
  now-obsolete use of the word "cat" for "prostitute" was established as
  early as 1401 when the word appeared in Friar Daws Reply, a poem in
  Middle English. Although the exact meaning of the word in this poem
  
  is debatable, the definition had been unquestionably cemented by 1670,
  when an early dictionary entry for "cat" followed the word with the
  phrase, "a common whore." ".

According the New Patridge Dictionaty of Slang the term cathouse meaning brothel in US is from 1893:

• Cathouse noun a brothel US. 1893 • She looked as if she might have worked half those years in a cat house.

Euphemisms are common to refer to a brothel mainly for cultural or legal reason. Call ( as in callhouse) may suggest the idea of paying a "visit" to someone, a nice euphemism.

• A brothel is a place where people may come to engage in sexual activity with a prostitute, sometimes referred to as a sex worker. Technically, any premises where prostitution commonly takes place qualifies as a brothel. However, for legal or cultural reasons, establishments sometimes describe themselves as massage parlors, bars, strip clubs, houses of ill repute, body rub parlours, studios or by some other description.

According to The Dictionary of American Slang, (Fourth Edition by Barbara Ann Kipfer, PhD. and Robert L. Chapman, Ph.D.):

Call house

• A brothel, esp one where a prostitute may be engaged by telephone : that call joint (1910+)

The same origin is suggested also by the The Routledge Dictionary of Moder American Slang:

• Call house (noun): a brothel from which prostitutes are procured by telephone US, 1913 •

american english - The case of "y'all"

What cases can "y'all" work in?

A prior question asks about the 'proper' usage of "y'all", but it and its answers only address nominative case (all examples are nominative).

I think that there are some cases where "y'all" doesn't work as is.

For example,

• nominative: "Y'all come back now, ya hear?"




• accusative: "I'll ring y'all up tomorrow after the fish fry."




• possessive: "Bring y'all's swimsuits. The pool will be open." (or "y'allses". yes, I find this is questionable usage)




• vocative: "Hey y'all! Where's the keg?"




• but instrumental/dative/indirect object?: nothing sounds right.

? I'll bring the BBQ over to y'all.

? This party is all for y'all.

These don't sound right to me. The alternatives that sound right to me would be:

I'll bring the BBQ over to you all.

This party is all for you all.

Can anyone confirm my usage? Has there been a study/paper on this?

I ask because most pronouns in English have forms for different cases, so it is not given that "y'all", though a synonym for "you" which only has a different form in possessive case, would or would not have a different form.

Answer

If we accept that y'all is an acceptable second person plural pronoun, they're all strictly correct (although I assume you meant "I [will] ring y'all up," and I would have to look up the rules regarding compound contractions like "y'all's").

As one raised in the Midwest by a Southern mother, they all "sound" fine to me, and I wouldn't have any problem using any of them if the situation called for it.

grammar - Should I use a comma in written instructions?

I'm writing a technical user guide for a piece of software and am not sure whether I should be using a comma or not when giving instructions. Which of the following is correct?

To add a new item click on a 'File' menu and then select 'Add'.

OR

To add a new item, click on a 'File' menu and then select 'Add'.

Answer

Yes, use the comma. It makes the sentence clearer than if there's no comma. Sometimes commas are unnecessary, and sometimes they help. In this case, I had to read the comma-less sentence twice to separate item and click. Readers don't like have to read the same thing twice to be able to understand it. If what you're saying is inherently difficult to understand, that's one thing, and the readers have to deal with their own intellectual limits. But if it's merely a matter of writing mechanics and punctuation, it's your job as a technical writer to make everything you write as clear and as easy to understand as possible. That's what I try to do all day long.

grammar - use of I and me at the beginning of a sentence

Which one is correct:

I and my father are going to the market.

Me and my father are going to the market.

Answer

The second is not grammatical.

The first is grammatical (except that it lacks the verb 'are'), but neither idiomatic, nor conforming to speech etiquette. Politeness requires that one mentions oneself second. So one would normally say:

My father and I are going to the market.

In determining whether to say 'he and I', or 'he and me', just mentally omit the 'he'. Clearly one would not say me am going to the market, so it has to be 'I'. But one would say It belongs to my father and me, since 'I' am no longer the subject of the sentence, and the accusative pronoun is called for.

Word for words that sound like the sound

In our English lesson, we talked about words that are derived from sounds.

Our teacher said they are "anamatapic", but it seems I can't get the spelling right. Even google does not provide a good suggestion for a better spelling.

So now I am looking for the word that sounds like "anamatapic" and describes the professional term for words that sound like the sound. Everything's clear?

I have tried

---

Close votes: thanks for the meta reference to good resources.

The following online resources don't help:

These will guide to correct results:

So, yeah, maybe I could have found it there.

And if you try Google now, you'll get a result from a strange website, which is not a dictionary, but some kind of Q&A style forum. Maybe we can put that one in the list of helpful resources, too :-D

Also cool: if I would have type the title of this EL&U question into Google instead of the intended word, the first hit is the correct Wikipedia article. I'll try to derive a pattern from this.

Answer

Onomatopoeia: (noun), onomatopoeic ( adj) :

The formation or use of words such as buzz or murmur that imitate the sounds associated with the objects or actions they refer to.

grammaticality - "has been" vs "have been"

I am answering an online English grammar test and encountered the following question

Where was Jack yesterday? —I don't know. He ________ seeing the doctor.

My answer is: might has been
Correct Answer is: might have been

Why not might has been? He is singular?

meaning - What does "a day's work" mean?

What does "a day's work" mean? Does it mean a full day's work?

The quote below is taken from Charles Dickens' The Haunted House

In the summertime, I often rise very early, and repair to my room to do a day’s work before breakfast.

Answer

"A day's work" typically means the amount of work one would normally do over the course of a day.

There is no objective measure of this as the amount of work would vary by person and by job.

For most people, though, it would not be possible to do "a day's work" between waking and breakfast, so in the Dickens quote the phrase is probably being used for literary effect.

In the context of the quote, it could be hyperbole. The speaker may not actually be doing the same amount of work before breakfast that he would literally do over the course of a day. Rather, he may be exaggerating to illustrate how early he rises or how productive he is in the early morning. On the other hand, it is also possible that the phrase is being used in the quote for the opposite effect -- to illustrate how little work the speaker normally does in a day, i.e. he does so little work normally that he can accomplish "a day's work" before breakfast. It's hard to determine the intent of the phrase in this quote without more context.

grammar - Countable Attributive nouns in plural context

There are a lot of topics about this question. All of them explain the form (plural, singular) of the attributive noun coupled with a main noun in the singular form, for example:

• ladies room


• steel bridge

To show the plural form, we should change the form of the main noun (right?), that is:

• ladies rooms (many rooms for ladies)


• steel bridges (many bridges)

I've discovered a pattern: in most cases, such nouns are compounded with an uncountable attributive noun. But when we try to modify the main noun with an uncountable noun, and want to show plural form, it leads to ambiguity. For instance:

subnet identifiers

In this case, subnet has several identifiers. But if I want to show that there is more than one subnet, and that each (one) of them has several identifiers, is it correct to write:

subnets identifiers

Or in such situations, should I prepositional expression, such as:

identifiers of subnets

Possible Grammar Error

I asked a friend of mine to read something (on skype), and he declined the offer.

Then he asked me to play a game, to which I replied, "I have better things to do."

Then he wrote back, "Exactly! Why I didn't read."

Then we got into a debate about whether it was grammatically correct.

I believe that if he had said "Exactly why I didn't read your text", it would have been correct or even something like "Exactly why I didn't read", but he says he is correct.

Can you tell me whether he is mistaken or I am?

pronunciation - Is there a rule for the position of the accent (stressed sound) in words ending with -ative?

For example, can declarative be pronounced similar to declaration for the accent (stressed sound)? I thought before that sometimes the position of the "accent", or the stressed sound of a word, depends on how many syllables there are in the word.

But it seems that the words declaration and declarative have the same number of syllables, but declaration is stressed at the first syllable, while declarative is stressed at the second syllable. Is there a rule for this? Does the placement of the stress depend on the variety of English? (I suppose the word declarative is not pronounced with the first syllable stressed no matter it is British or US pronunciation?)

grammaticality - "Said objects" or "The said objects"

I've always said things like "If you ate the said candy." and "If you count the said rocks."

I've also heard many people say "If you ate said candy." and "If you count said rocks."

This always sounds to me similar to "If you grab chair." It makes sense sometimes, like in instruction manuals, but you don't hear people say that in real life.

Which one is correct?

punctuation - Comma when using passive voice

Should I put commas in sentences like this?

The price of software is defined(,) based on...

The amount is calculated(,) based on...

computers(,) developed by...

approvals for advertising and marketing activities(,) related to...

If it's a complicated question, what should I read to understand the rules?

commas - If you're using a quote with a period but do not want to end the sentence, do you keep the period?

For example. If I want to quote a passage from a writing, that says

The cake is not a lie.

and my sentence is:

The book by author states that "The cake is not a lie." however studies show that the cake is a lie.

Is it OK to replace the period with a comma to make the sentence flow?

Relevant: Also what do you do with the capital "T" Are you allowed to lowercase it?

The book by author states "the cake is not a lie," however studies show that the cake is a lie.

I usually just work around this by switching up the structure of the sentence, but sometimes I really want to phrase something a particular way.

Answer

The best source for such questions is The Chicago Manual of Style. (By "best," I mean that it is most supportive of my existing prejudices.)

15th Edition, Section 11.8 permits these changes (and others) to quotations:

• The intial letter may be changed to a capital or lowercase letter


• The final period may be omitted or changed to a comma

usage - Can "it's" be used as a question?

In my experience, people say "it's" in place of "it is," but never in the form of a question. I think the question "It's?" sounds awkward, but I'd like to know if it's grammatically correct. Is it?

This question was inspired by this image on Merriam-Webster's website:

Answer

You can only contract auxiliary verbs, and never at the end of the sentence, where they would gain stress and therefore not be subject to reduction:

• He’s sleeping in today.


• I’ve got something to tell you.

However, these are not auxiliary verbs but principal ones falling at the end, and therefore may not be contracted:

• I know where he is.



• You must be wondering what I have.

The contracted forms are ungrammatical there:

• I know where *he’s.


• You must be wondering what I’ve.

phrases - "more of a"or "too much of a" in a plural sense

Using "more of a" and "too much of a" is quite common, but when it comes to pluralizing these expressions, things become more complicated. I've never seen someone use these with a plural subject – I just see people rephrasing:

"He is too much of an idiot to understand."

"They are too stupid to understand."

Something I have always wondered about is whether you can pluralize those two expressions, something like "They are too much of ... ". But I cannot think of any way it would be used in the plural.

Answer

I believe there are two things at play here. One is the fact that "too much of an" is dependent on a singular-typed characteristic, so it sounds clunky when converted directly to plural. The other is whether the phrase type is an established convention or not.

Consider these examples:

He is too much of an idiot to understand.
They are too much of idiots to understand.

While the above transmutation looks like it would fit, the problem is that the construction sounds unnatural, however could work.

The next revision suffers from something of the same:

He is too much of an idiot to understand.
They are too much of an idiot to understand.

This suffers from a singular-plural disagreement and sounds unnatural to the ear. Part of the issue is that "an idiot" applies to one person.

To resolve these two issues, some changes need to be made. In order to maintain continuity, these kinds of changes can be introduced, to allow singular-singular agreement.

He is too much of an idiot to understand.
They are (all) too much of an idiot to understand. (revision 1)
They (each) are too much of an idiot to understand. (revision 2)

Wherever the singular and the plural can both receive a singular-typed adjective, the construction tends to stay the same:

He is too much of an inconvenience for us at the moment.
They are too much of an inconvenience for us at the moment.
He is too much of a liability to the company now.
They are too much of a liability to the company now.

The most important reason why this works is because the singular-typed adjective here tends to be an abstract idea rather than a word that describes an individual that is countable.

grammar - Identifying parts of a sentence

How do the bolded sections of the sentences below function grammatically? (taken from David McCullough's John Adams)

1. Philadelphia, the provincial capital of Pennsylvania on the western bank of the Delaware River, was a true eighteenth-century metropolis, the largest, wealthiest city in British America, and the most beautiful.

   
   
   

   
   
   

   It seems to me that "most beautiful" could be tacked onto the the string of adjectives ( the "largest, wealthiest") that precede it. Is there a name for this sort of construction, wherein the last item in a string of modifiers is pulled out and moved to the end?

   
   




2. Distilleries and breweries were thriving. Adams found the local beer so much to his liking that he temporarily abandoned his usual hard cider.

   
   
   

   
   

   I'm not sure what's modifying what here. I see the main clause, "Adams found the local beer," and the subordinate clause, "that he temporarily abandoned his usual hard cider," but what's going on the middle?

   
   

pronouns - "my", "of me", "of mine" - when to use these possessive constructions

I have been encountering possessive constructions with the preposition "of" and a possessive form of pronoun frequently, but I do not fully understand what it means and when to use it. In particular, "of mine" seems to occur only in "a friend of mine".

Question 1: In how far can these forms be used interchangeably? Is "of mine" to be considered archaic?

Question 2: While it is pretty clear that "of me" means "my", is it true that "of mine" should be understood as "of my ones"?

Answer

To express a possessive you can say "my X" or you can say "X of mine". The two constructions mean pretty much the same thing. No, "of mine" is not archaic, it's routinely used. But it is far less common than the "my X" form.

Bob is my friend.

Bob is a friend of mine.

Both mean essentially the same thing.

It's not limited to "friend", though now that you mention it, that may be the most common word used there.

The red one is my chair.

The red one is a chair of mine.

That said, "X of mine" is mostly used when you want to indicate that something is one of many that you own or are associated with. If, say, you have many cars, you might point to one and say, "That is a car of mine." But if you only have one, you normally say, "That is my car." (If you have many, you could also say, "That is one of my cars.")

That is, it's almost always "an X of mine", not "the X of mine". I don't think I've ever heard someone say, "That is the car of mine" or "She is the mother of mine"; it's always "That is my car", "She is my mother", etc. "The X of mine" would be grammatically correct, but no one says it.

Arguably it should be perfectly good to say "of me", there's really no need for the word "mine". But that's just not what English-speakers say, it's always "of mine". The only time I can think of when we say "of me" is when "of" is not indicating possession but rather is being used to mean "about", like "That's the story of me." (Even then, you'd be more likely to say "of my life" or "of my job" or whatever.)

(There is the phrase, "You're not the boss of me", but I think that's deliberately incorrect for effect. If I was simply stating the fact that you are not my boss because I have been assigned to a different department or some such, I would say "You're not my boss." "You're not the boss of me" is something you yell when someone's trying to order you around and you do not recognize them as having any authority, like when your big brother tells you to shut up.)

Like any construct that is not normally used but that is grammatically correct, people sometimes say "X of mine" for emphasis or poetic effect. Like I wouldn't be surprised to see "oh wife of mine" in a love poem or a Valentine's card, but no one says that in normal conversation, it would always be "my wife".

grammar - What is the correct spelling for "These are known as the three “V’s”: veracity, voraciousness and vivacity."

What is the correct spelling and grammar for the following sentence?

These are known as the three "V's": veracity, voraciousness and
vivacity.

In particular, should the "V" be capitalized, should it have an apostrophe, should there be quotes around V's and are there any other mistakes in the sentence?

Answer

For some reason I can't get this graph to display the apostophized r's and R's here, but if you click on this chart to follow the link (where you also have to click "Search books" on that page)...

...you'll see that the capitalised versions have always been more common, but over recent decades the apostophized version the three R's has gained currency to the point where it's (just) become the most common format.

I see no reason why OP's three V's should be any different. Personally I'd never enclose the whole thing in double quotes - it doesn't add anything to the meaning, and it's positively undesirable in terms of legibility.

grammatical number - Can "what kind" be plural?

Is it correct to say, "What kind of patents are being issued in these sophisticated times?" It seems like it should be What kind of patents is being issued..., but that sounds wrong. What kind of patent is being issued... is correct and sounds right, but loses a little bit of the original meaning.

Is there something magic about what kind that allows it to be plural, or do people just misuse it a lot?

Answer

Is kind of patents ever correct?

It’s a bit informal. Kind of (plural noun) is surprisingly uncommon in formal writing, fairly uncommon even in journalism, but common in speech and fiction:

She had the kind of eyes that followed you around the room. I’d thought that happened only with paintings… (fiction)

But I don't think it faces the kind of problems, say, a Los Angeles does. (spoken)

Those kind of games tend to be tiebreakers with teams that are alike. (spoken)

Does kind of patents take a singular or plural verb?

Plural, almost always. This is like how a lot of people is plural. No one says A lot of people is upset about it. So it’s what kind of patents are, not is.

Is this the kind of thing where whatever option I choose, it’s going to sound wrong to someone?

Yes.

Then is it best to just recast the sentence entirely?

That’s up to you. I probably would, unless the context was informal.

Subject-Verb Agreement - was/were

A bag of carrots and half a tomato "was/were" sitting on the kitchen counter.

A bag of carrots and half a tomato was sitting on the kitchen counter. Is this correct?

I was informed that the main subject is "bag," so I should be using the singular verb. Also, is "of carrots and half a tomato" the prepositional phrase? or is it just "of carrots"? Is this correct as well? Please advise.

grammatical number - Plural form of titles

I've heard certain titles pluralised in apparently odd ways, such as a Secretary General being Secretaries General when plural, rather than "Secretary Generals" as I'd have guessed, and I'm wondering if there's a rule on this. For example if you were addressing two female Presidents, would is be "Madames President" (multiple females who preside over something) or "Madame Presidents" (multiple Presidents who are female)?

Answer

The general in attorney general, surgeon general, etc., is actually a postpositive adjective (i.e., an adjective that comes after the noun it modifies). The general, therefore, is the adjective general and has nothing to do with the military rank.

Edit: For the plural of Madam President, the plural would be Mesdames Presidents; one is an honorific, one is a title, and both would be pluralized.

grammaticality - I and am

I sometimes find myself writing something like this:

XXX is a project I admire and am very interested in.

The "I and am " feels strange here. It somehow sounds more natural in the third person: "He admires and is very interested in...."

Am I just imagining things – is it OK to use this construction, or should I use something completely different?

Answer

This sentence is an example of Conjunction Reduction, the syntactic rule that deletes repeated material in conjoined constituents, for example

• Bill washed the dishes and Bill swept the floor. ➝
  Bill washed the dishes and swept the floor.


• Bill washed the dishes and Bill dried the dishes. ➝
  Bill washed and dried the dishes.

The relative clause modifying project in the original sentence is the focus, so let's get it out of a subordinate clause and see what it looks like:

• I admire and am very interested in the project.

which comes from

• I admire the project and I am very interested in the project.

by a perfectly normal application of Conjunction Reduction.

There's nothing grammatically wrong with this sentence.

One thing that may make it feel wrong to some -- but not others; there's a lot of individual variation here, since everybody makes up their own internal rules, for their own reasons, about what "sounds right" -- is that the first verb of the conjoined VP (admire) is uninflected for person and number, while the second verb (am) is inflected, for first person singular present tense.

Both verbs agree of course with the same subject, but morphologically instead of syntactically, which may produce some distress to those who require more grammatical parallelism between conjoined verbs.

Another related difficulty might be that the inflected form am is so closely linked to its subject pronoun I that it is difficult to separate them, and indeed most of the time they're contracted to I'm. This makes am feel rather isolated out there.

Again, this isn't a grammatical problem per se, but it can occasion some distress in some readers.

I say "readers" because nobody would say such a sentence, of course. We'd say I'm instead of am, by repeating the subject -- and adding no new syllables, so timing isn't affected. This is allowed syntactically because Conjunction Reduction is an optional rule applied to reduce unwelcome repetition, and in any given case this repetition may simply not be unwelcome.

grammar - When would you say "I seen it."

I am not looking for explanations of why "I seen it" is wrong (though with sight there's an unfair grammatical burden that doesn't impact the other senses, whose past tense and past participle are the same - hear, heard, heard... feel, felt, felt... et cetera).

I want to know from the snoots here: in which circumstances might you actually say "I seen it."?

By way of explanation: my work sometimes takes me to places, and to people, where and to whom "I have seen it" would stand out as strange. So do I conform (let me hear you descriptivists!) or do I stand out (shout it out prescriptivists)?

---

Okay, I'm adding to my question here because there's been some negative feedback (some even calling the question "dumb"). I think it's a valid sociolinguistic question, not just one about what is said in certain dialects or which dialects use a certain expression. It's related to the issue of prestige (regular and covert), code switching, and perhaps a kind of circumstantial inversion of class aspiration.

That is, are there circumstances when you (fellow ELU members) might want to use restricted, rather than elaborated, code. Many - as evidenced by the most popular answer - flatly say "never." Others appear game to explore the idea, and there are some interesting answers that do indeed address my question.

I've chosen what I myself perceive as a fairly crass example (at least in my own speech community), one that seems to divide the educated from the uneducated. I realize this is not necessarily the case in all English-speaking regions, but it is in mine. I've chosen this because I found myself contemplating whether I myself would ever find it somehow useful to use it. To be honest, I don't think I could use it without feeling it was terribly affected.

I know it's incorrect grammatically. That doesn't mean it has no currency.

And I will not be offended if anyone considers the question crass by association (with the utterance at issue) or unenlightening and therefore chooses to simply ignore it and move on to another question.