Generally, o's at the start of a word are either short (as in 'operation') or long (as in 'open'), or related sounds. However, the word 'one' has a very different initial sound, which (as far as I can tell, from playing around with Mathematica's WordData constructs) is unique apart from related words like 'once', 'oneness' and 'oneself'.
How did this o come to be pronounced this way? Or, alternatively, how did this /wʌ/ come to be spelt with an o?
Some verbs produce unambiguous syntax when used with an indirect object.
I brought a toy to Katy. --> I brought Katy a toy.
I bought flowers for my wife. --> I bought my wife flowers.
Neither of these sentence complements can be interpreted as a single noun phrase or object complement.
But if we use a pronoun instead of a proper noun we sometimes produce ambiguous syntax.
I brought a toy to her. --> I brought her a toy.
I bought flowers for her. --> I bought her flowers.
The first sentence is not ambiguous because her a toy is not a sensible phrase, but her flowers is easily interpreted as a noun phrase (poss dt + n) that functions as the single direct object of the verb. Two possible interpretations with very different meanings.
Furthermore, BBC Learn English lists keep as a verb that can be used with OCi/OCd syntax but I can't seem to find a sentence that isn't ambiguous.
Sentences 2 & 4 produce nonsense, and sentence 3 produces ambiguous syntax, where the OCi and OCd merge into a single noun phrase. Sentence 1 seems to work but it feels very awkward to me. But all of these sentences follow the rule of having a beneficiary or recipient of the action using to or for adverbial complement in the standard form.
So what's going on here? Does keep belong on this list or not?
I am writing my bachelor dissertation and several times Microsoft Word has corrected me from "to have" to "having". One of the sentences, for instance, goes like this:
The author recommends to have ‘(...)'. Bugeja further recommends having a student blog where prospective...
Can anyone enlighten me?
These phrasal verbs have a similar meaning (please correct me if not):
Are there any nuances to choose between them? For example, I might be wrong but I mostly see run into used for meeting a person unexpectedly.
Update:
My understanding of responses so far:
Perhaps working on some concrete sentences might give a better result. For example, which one would you use for (in parentheses are my first thoughts):
Maybe I should've mentioned stumble upon too.
By the way, sorry about the length of the post. I had to expand it to clarify the context.
Answer
In my experinece you run into people and trouble:
I ran into Betty at the store today. I haven't seen her since college!
I ran into your co-worker Bob today.
Sorry I'm late; I ran into heavy traffic.
You come across objects:
I was cleaning up the kitchen and came across that phone bill you lost.
I was looking up (something) in the encylopedia and came across this interesting tidbit.
I'm not sure I'd use either when talking about a grammar error in a blog; I'd be more likely to say I found or noticed it. I don't know why that is.
There are some questions on gender-neutral pronouns both here and on Writers.
User Christine Letts writes:
In academia, there is currently a
movement toward using the feminine
pronoun at all times.
I wonder why that is. I came across several examples on papers I read, but the only one I can remember at the moment is a book: Seth Godin's Linchpin. While some might not be comfortable labeling it as part of academia, it suits my point perfectly. Every time he refers to a person, he uses the feminine pronoun.
User Senseful writes the following, potentially identifying affirmative action as the precursor for this trend.
I remember reading somewhere that it
was recommended to use the opposite of
what most people stereotype the
profession as. So, for example, when
talking about a chiropractor, you
would use "her", and when talking
about a secretary, you would use
"his".
So, where do you think this trend comes from?
Answer
This practice began round about the time of the feminist movement in the late 20th century(c.1980-c.1990)
Taken from the Free Online Dictionary:
Usage Note: Using she as a generic or gender-neutral singular pronoun is more common than might be expected, given the continuing debate regarding the parallel use of he. In a 1989 article from the Los Angeles Times, for instance, writer Dan Sullivan notes, "What's wrong with reinventing the wheel? Every artist has to do so in her search for the medium that will best express her angle of vision." Alice Walker writes in 1991, "A person's work is her only signature."
One response to this (use of generic pronoun he) was an increase in the use of generic she in academic journal
I've searched the web and "English Language & Usage", but am having problems finding the answer to the following question:
Is it appropriate to use a hyphen for compound adjectives consisting of two adjectives having the same, how do I put it, "status"? That is, grammatically speaking, they could each stand on their own instead of the compound word. Thus, I'm not talking about words like "well-mannered", but rather words like "thermomechanical/thermo-mechanical" ("thermal" + "mechanical") or
"magnetorheological/magneto-rheological" ("magnetic" + "rheological").
In short, is it "thermomechanical" or "thermo-mechanical"?
Thanks!
Stumbled along the use of the feminine pronoun for "baby". Previously, I've used it and singular they when the sex of the baby is unknown.
is it 'a usual' or 'an usual'? 'A usual' sounds more correct in my head ('Today was a usual day.') than 'an usual', but u is a vowel. Which one is correct and why?
Answer
Usual (pronounced /ˈjuː.ʒu.əl/ as in you) begins with a consonant sound and, as such, it should be preceded by a not an.
As an aside, I cannot help but point out that the sentence
Today was a usual day
is not usually heard in regular conversation.
Today was an unusual day
is what one might hear, instead!
Indeed, I rarely hear the construction a usual. The definite article is more commonly used, in my experience:
That's the usual thing.
In place of a usual, one would also be more likely to hear not an unusual:
- Today was a usual day / Today was not an unusual day
- This is a usual occurrence / This is not an unusal occurrence or This usually happens
You are right in saying that a usual sounds weird. As speakers, we tend to avoid constructions which, though correct, do not flow easily from the mouth. In sum, the following are valid and commonly used alternatives:
not [an] unusual • the usual • usually
I am looking for a word or phrase that encapsulates the following collection of nouns in the sense that they are all physical, proper entities, and that you can go inside them:
Words that apply to the concept:
Words that do not apply to the concept:
Terms that I would prefer to exclude comprise the following:
What is a word or phrase that is a generic term for a physical location that a human can enter/occupy?
Answer
If it is the physicality of the entities that you wish to underline, rather than the type of location (i.e. a type of building or place) then you are looking for a word that is the opposite of 'virtual' and synonymous with 'physical'.
The only suitable word I can think of is 'Actual', as in "Actual Locations" which could work quite well as a list title if accompanied by another list headed "Virtual Locations", but might otherwise be a bit too broad for your context. The word 'Physical' does also work well in this context.
As is often the case, context is everything when trying to determine the most suitable word, so perhaps it might be worth expanding your question to include how you expect to use this word?
The main problem is that you are not just needing to differentiate between physical and virtual "destinations" but that the physical locations must also be meaningful to your usage (e.g. not a "field"). I am not certain that a suitable word exists for the subset of physical locations that are also meaningful (and can be both nouns (a building) and a collective noun/adjective such as 'transport'). 'Physical Destinations' is the only term I can come up with that satisfies all your criteria, except for the one about it being only one word!
I believed that there is no question word in English for making a question when you want know the X in sentences like "Barack Obama is the Xth president of the US.".
*Question words are words like "what", "who", "how many" and so on.
Then I came across this word "manieth", which does not seem to be in any dictionaries I have.
Is this even a word? If it is, how acknowledged is it?
Futhermore, if there is any word or expression that means the same thing as "manieth", I would like to know what it is.
It was he who messed up everything.
It was him who messed up everything.
What is the difference between these two sentences?
Answer
Strictly speaking, proper grammar requires subject pronouns be used when they rename the subject. So the subject pronoun "he" follows the verb "to be" as follows:
Also, when the word "who" is present and refers to a personal pronoun, such as "he," it takes the verb that agrees with that pronoun.
Correct: It is I who am sorry. (I am)
Incorrect: It is I who is sorry.
Correct: It was he who messed everything up. (he messed)
HOWEVER, in informal English, many people tend to follow "to be" verbs with object pronouns like me, her, them, and him. Many English scholars tolerate this distinction between formal and casual English.
Example: It could have been them.
Technically correct: It could have been they.
Example: It was him who messed everything up.
Technically correct: It was he who messed everything up.
For source material that well establishes this, check the following page on Grammar Book: http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/pronoun.asp .
I am confused whether to place the acronym before or after the words are spelled out. For example, the first time this organisation is mentioned, which of these alternatives is more correct:
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established in 1958.
or
NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) was established in 1958.
My intuition is that the first seems more correct, but I am not sure. Any ideas? Also, if you could point me to an official style guide or similar which clarifies this, I would be very grateful.
Edit:
The website Chicago manual style online has a Q&A section where the following is found:
Q. I work for a technical magazine. I’ve always been taught that when it comes to
acronyms, the rule is you spell out the words first followed by the acronym in
parentheses, and then use the acronym for later references in the copy. If there are no
other mentions of the acronym later in the copy, then you just spell it out without the
acronym in parentheses. Is this correct? My coworker is debating this with me.
A. Yes, that’s a good system. Sometimes it’s helpful to repeat the full name in later
chapters as a reminder. Occasionally, too, it makes sense to use the
acronym first and put the full name in parentheses, if the acronym in
question is so familiar to your expected audience that it almost goes
without explication.
Source: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Abbreviations/faq0009.html
Answer
The first time you use an acronym in a document, you should it after the words, between parentheses). The second sentence is wrong.
It is what is prescribed ; personally, I don't feel it matters, and suppose the reader to be smart enough to understand anyway.
" If it were possible, and it were possible to do..."
that sounds wrong, shouldn't we have was after it?
One of the things I do is teaching people how to code and I love it. However, something I do not like, is that often (twice a week or so), people start conversations like this:
hi sir
how r u sir
sir , can u help me
can u show me how i can do dis
pls saaaar , help me 4 free
I found that most of these guys are Indians (or at least, from this geographical area). I do love Indians (and all people in general), but I really do not like this type of writing.
The closest thing I found is Indian English:
Indian English is any of the forms of English characteristic of India.
However, I'm pretty sure that Indian English does not include this unpleasant style of writing.
From my experience, the specifics are:
sir (sometimes saa...aar)chat shortcuts:
you → uare → rfor → 4this → displease → pls or plzzzzWhat I want to find out is:
sir so much used?I do not intend this to be in any way racist or something similar, but I'm just trying to understand why and how.
Answer
It's commonly referred to as textspeak, or textese, among other terms.
Language regarded as characteristic of text messages, consisting of abbreviations, acronyms, initials, emoticons, etc. (Oxford)
From Wikipedia:
SMS language or textese (also known as txt-speak, txtese, chatspeak, txt, txtspk, txtk, txto, texting language, txt lingo, SMSish, txtslang, txt talk) or "texting language" is a term for the abbreviations and slang commonly used with mobile phone text messaging, but sometimes used with other Internet-based communication such as email and instant messaging.
Three features of early mobile phone messaging encouraged users to use abbreviations: (a) Text entry was difficult, requiring multiple key presses on a small keypad to generate each letter; (b) Messages were limited to 160 characters; and (c) it made texting faster.
Once it became popular it took on a life of its own and was often used outside of its original context. At its peak, it was the cause of vigorous debate about its potentially detrimental effect on literacy, but with the advent of alphabetic keyboards on smartphones its use, and the controversies surrounding it, have receded and died off.
Emphasis mine
Most of the things you mentioned can be chalked up to textspeak, inluding the lowercase letters and the absence of proper punctuation. They are just shortcuts Indians use frequently, but this practice certainly isn't exclusive to India, and it's not considered part of Indian English as far as I know. (I'm from India.)
In my experience, some Indian netizens simply don't realize that textspeak isn't proper in formal contexts. (This also applies to select contractions, like wanna.)
The overuse of sir is another matter. This is because of the tendency of Indians to convey respect, as they would in their first languages. It's a cultural thing. Indians usually address their superiors and teachers with some sign of verbal respect, and sir fills this void in English.
The various spellings you see is how they transliterate their pronunciation (which varies greatly from state to state in India). I'm afraid I'm not sure why they do that. If I could hazard a guess, it originated as a half-joke in informal circles.
I'm writing a research paper with several classmates for school. However, there's a sentence that we, as well as others who have reviewed our paper, disagree with on how to write. Which sentence is more proper, grammatically?
Yet, alcohol usage and abuse still continue.
Yet, alcohol usage and abuse still continues.
I realize that this is probably a trivial question, but I would appreciate any help nonetheless.
Answer
My impression is that alcohol use and alcohol abuse are overlapping but hardly coextensive entities. Consequently I would revise your sentence to say something along the lines of
Yet alcohol use and abuse remain extremely common.
In making this recommendation, I don't deny that cases may arise in which a singular verb works better than a plural verb with a subject that looks plural but is understood as a unitary thing. For example,
Cutting and pasting in Word is a simple procedure.
sounds far better to me than either
Cutting and pasting in Word are a simple procedure.
or
Cutting and pasting in Word are simple procedures.
because I understand cutting and pasting to be two parts of a single procedure in Word, not two separate procedures that often occur in tandem.
I was informed earlier today that the word ago is actually a postposition and the only one of its kind in English. Is this correct? If so, why do dictionaries not use this classification and prefer to label it an adverb instead?
Answer
Some sources (see Nordquist's article, especially the reference to Allerton's work) do list ago as English's sole postposition, but there are actually quite a few other words that pattern the same way:
and the following words, and others, have senses where they follow this usage, although otherwise they are prepositions and/or adjectives:
It's interesting that these all seem to result in phrases that act as adverbs of temporal or spatial extent.
I'm used to always hearing or seeing a definite article before certain nouns. Yet on certain occasions the article is totally omitted, and it bothers me. I'm wondering what the justification for omitting the article is, especially when the definite article would seem to be required, or if it is just bad English either on the part of the individual in question or more likely by tradition.
The most frequent place I hear this is at the doctor or dentist's office. In every one I have ever visited, the receptionist or assistant always says things like "Doctor will see you shortly" instead of "The doctor will see you shortly."
The wikipedia article linked above says this: "A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener". In the case of a clinical setting, I know who the doctor is, especially if this is not my first visit. The people in the office know the doctor even better than I, so it would seem to be inappropriate to omit the article. Even the indefinite article would be incorrect. It further says, under "Zero article": "In languages having a definite article, the lack of an article specifically indicates that the noun is indefinite." Since the noun is not indefinite, why are they omitting the article?
Another place I see the article omitted is with the word "bar". Bartenders apparently don't say "I tend the bar" they say "I tend bar". Unless a bartender works in multiple bars, it would seem like an article would be required. Furthermore, "the bar" can mean any bar a person goes to, so even in a case like this question, it seems like the word "the" should be in the sentence. The only thing I can think of in this case is maybe the speaker doesn't want to confuse the listener into thinking they work in the legal field.
Is this just a bad habit, a historical corruption or tradition, or is there really a valid reason (or perhaps more than one) for these omissions?
Answer
In the first example, Doctor is being used as the name of the person; the doctor is more of a descriptive phrase. It's short for Doctor
tend bar is a set phrase, it's a synonym for being a bartender. It's also similar to the way other people describe their work: a mailman could say I deliver mail, a programmer would say I write code, a garbageman would say I collect garbage, and a composer would say I write music. These are all using the noun to refer to the general concept, rather than any specific item, so no article is needed. You would add an article when you need to be specific, e.g. I write the music in TV commercials.
I'd say Microsoft have a way of bending the rules and I know that McLaren have won the championship. While this sounds strange, I believe it is correct English (sorry, I'm not native).
But when it's a small company, would you still use it this way? Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? I.e., would you say Bakery Johnson makes fine bread or Bakery Johnson make fine bread? Is it My book seller, Woody's, have moved or is it has moved?
Answer
These company names are collective nouns. In general, in American English collective nouns almost always trigger singular verb agreement (after all, "Microsoft" is grammatically a singular noun, even if semantically it denotes an entity made up of many people). It is apparently much more common to use plural verb agreement in British English. It doesn't have anything to do with the size of the company.
Lots of good information here: Language Log on collective nouns, etc.
It's such a nice day today!
I'm interested in the usage of the indefinite article. I know this sentence is correct. We use an indefinite article in exclamations with countable nouns.
But the question is: If it's NOT an exclamation, what do we use? Let's say:
Which variant is correct?
Answer
I went for a walk because it was such a wonderful day.
is correct.
This question What is the difference between a phrase and a clause? has an answer, with no embedded examples. The link it provides is not longer active, giving a 404 page not found error. Please don't close this as a duplicate until it, at least, has some answers.
The answer to the duplicate explains the differences between clauses and phrases, but fails to answer my question, as this is the explanation given:
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.
So I am posting this question again, as my question has not been answered. Clauses and phrases were the only thing I failed when studying English at school and forever it has been difficult for me to grasp (I don't think it was explained well, as I had a similar problem with positive and negative numbers the same year, and went on the excel at high level maths).
I am looking to understand the very basics of what a clause is, what a phrase is, and by understanding these definitions it, hopefully, will be clear what the differences are.
Can anyone, please, explain this and provide embedded answers?
Answer
I was perusing the net on the hunt for reliable sources to help me understand the subjunctive mood when I came across this section and it reminded me of this question!
I'll quote it in almost its entirety because first, it's very clear and it might be of help to other users and secondly, I liked it.
I. A phrase is a collection of words that may have nouns or verbals,
but it does not have a subject doing a verb. The following are
examples of phrases:
- leaving behind the dog
- smashing into a fence
- before the first test
- after the devastation
- between ignorance and intelligence
- broken into thousands of pieces
- because of her glittering smile
In these examples above, you will find nouns (dog, fence, test, devastation, ignorance,
intelligence, thousands, pieces). You also have some verbals (leaving,
smashing), but in no case is the noun functioning as a subject doing a
predicate verb. They are all phrases.
II. A clause is a collection of words that has a subject that is
actively doing a verb. The following are examples of clauses:
- since she laughs at diffident men
- I despise individuals of low character
- when the saints go marching in
- Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid raccoon
- because she smiled at him.
In the examples above, we find either a noun or a pronoun that is a subject (bold) attached to a predicate verb (italics) in each case:
- since she laughs at diffident men
- I despise individuals of low character
- when the saints go marching in
- Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid raccoon
- because she smiled at him
III. If the clause could stand by itself, and form a complete sentence with punctuation, we call the clause an independent clause. The following are independent clauses:
- I despise individuals of low character
- Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid racoon
We could easily turn independent clauses into complete sentences by adding appropriate punctuation marks. We might say, "I despise individuals of low character." Or we might write, "Obediah Simpson is uglier than a rabid racoon!" We call them independent because these types of clauses can stand independently by themselves, without any extra words attached, and be complete sentences.
I have a question about this sentence:
The only thing he feared more than the wolves were the swirling buzzards.
I believe it to be correct, but someone suggested that the "were" should be changed to "was".
Which one is correct?
Answer
The only thing he feared more than the wolves were the swirling buzzards.
in this sentence, was would be correct auxiliary verb because the only thing is a Singular.
I've read in a book that I should "use the subjective case if the pronoun is the
complement of the linking verb to be".
That is the following sentences are correct:
They believed that the thief was I. /
Hey, it's I. /
Yes, this is she. Who's calling?
OK, a rule is a rule. I don't mind using it, but I have a question for native speakers:
Is this way to say it heard in everyday speech? Will it sound deliberate/unnatural if I use it?
If the tense change of the verb "need" to "needed" is not mandatory, then if it was changed then how would it affect the meaning in the sentences below?
If they asked for help, I would provide whatever help they need.
If they asked for help, I would provide whatever help they needed.
What's the difference between pain and ache?
I often see the two words used (almost) interchangeably. At the same time the phrase "aches and pains" is pretty common, and seems to suggest that the two words aren't exact synonyms.
The dictionary definitions I've seen ("ache is a continuous dull pain") don't really help in understanding many of the usages I've come across, such as this one from the NHS:
Back pain [...] usually feels like an ache
and also this title:
Stomach ache and abdominal pain
It would be particularly interesting to see examples where one of the two words is appropriate when describing physical suffering, and the other isn't.
I have this question on using see and refer in technical documentation especially for cross-references information.
I use see when mentioning another section in the same document, for example, for more information on xyz, see section abc on page nn-mm.
I use refer when asking the reader to see an external document or any appendices, for example, for more information on xyz, refer to the ABC Guide or for more information, refer to Appendix A.
My colleagues and I have a disagreement with this logic. They seem to prefer see for everything. As a cross-reference is more like a footnote and also acts like a footnote.
Is my logic correct?
In this sentence:
The only exception are questions that are narrow enough that they can
be reasonably answered definitively with one or two possible
solutions.
Should it be "The only exception is" because "exception" is singular, or "The only exception are" because "questions" is plural?
Answer
The default is that the verb agrees in number with its subject, so The only exception is . . .
If that sounds awkward, you can write The only exceptions are . . . , which is probably preferable anyway, given that questions is plural.
What are some other kennings in any of the major dialects of Modern Standard English? Here are a few examples in use in American English that I offer for starters:
This is a form of single-word request. I'm not looking for words with a particular meaning but a compound-noun with a particular structure.
A kenning is a compound consisting of two nouns (though sometimes adjective + noun) whose semantic relationship yields, indirectly, a nominal that is not a synonym for either of them, though one of them might be a metonym for part of the idea.
Rice-rocket, for example, is a name for 'fast Japanese motorcycle' (though I've heard it used of souped-up Japanese subcompact cars too). Rice is a metonym for Japan. Rocket yields fast-vehicle by synechdoche.
These are conversational everyday words, not restricted to poetical argot.
Your help would be very much appreciated with the following sentence:
"When I first visited Berkeley in spring 2015, I knew immediately that when I attempt an MBA, the school is going to be at the top of my list".
The main clause here being in Past Simple (I knew), it would be logical to expect the subordinate clause to be in the past as well "the school was going to be". If we eliminate extra time clauses, everything looks good: "[...] I knew immediately [...] the school was going to be at the top of my list".
However, I am confused by the "when I attempt an MBA part".
The latter obviously indicates the action in the future expressed through present tense - quite a widespread usage, I'd say (as in "When I start driving, my dad will by me a car"). In our case, however, if this part of the sentence ("when I attempt an MBA") stays in present tense, in my opinion, it does not go well together with the rest of the subordinate clause being in the past, i.e. "...that when I attempt an MBA, the school was going to be". Sounds off.
Should I use future, instead, for the "when I attempt" part, and change it to conform with the sequence of tenses? This would make for something like "I knew that when I would attempt an MBA..." This tense, in turn, seems to go better with the rest of the subordinate clause being in the past, as SoT requires.
Many thanks in advance!
For example, if I wanted to write the equivalent of
There are many automated teller machines in this city.
Would it be
There are many ATMs in this city.
or
There are many ATM's in this city.
(could get confused with possessive form or contraction).
or just
There are many ATM in this city.
(assuming the final s is included in Machines represented by M).
Maybe something else?
Answer
The Chicago Manual of Style has an interesting way to address this: They omit the apostrophe, unless there are periods in the abbreviation. So this would give you ATMs, or alternately A.T.M.'s. (A.T.M.s looks weird.) chicagomanualofstyle.org, "Plurals"
This page indicates that acronyms ending in the letter "S" get an apostrophe, something I've seen before, but can't find in a general reference. So one would write ATMs and SOS's.
This page on the North Carolina State University website references AP's rule as being to always use an apostrophe.
The 2009 AP Stylebook's "plurals" entry has no section on acronyms, but mentions "VIPs", I can't find anything addressing how to specifically pluralize acronyms. (The "abbreviations and acronyms" section is also of no help.)
Personally, I omit using apostrophes unless I can't avoid it. I do use them when talking about single letters or where it would avoid confusion. (For example, SOs for "Significant Others" looks like an incorrectly capitalized SOS.)
To paraphrase Carol Fisher Saller, the clearer usage is the correct one.
In order to help the system make a better guess of the corner locations,...
In this sentence, why is "make" not succeeded by "s"? It seems it is needed!
Answer
The construction used here is help + object + bare infinitive. Here are two more examples:
Can you help me fix my bike?
I helped my father cut the grass.
An equally grammatical equivalent to the above construction is to include the to before the bare form:
Can you help me to fix my bike?
I helped my father to cut the grass.
It is clear that the verbs fix and cut are infinitives and are therefore not determined by the number of the object (system in your example).
You could rewrite your sentence as:
In order to help the system to make a better guess of the corner
locations,...
Oxford Modern English Grammar underscores the relevance of the action/state in the present perfect to the present point of reference (the moment when you speak of it), which I take as that that action/state is still relevant/important and/or still has effects / impacts / desired/expected (be it implicit or explicit) results on the very current situation.
E.g.:
Compare the past simple in which the action/state has no relevance to the present moment (over and done with).
E.g.:
The book lists such uses of the present perfect as continuative (leading up from the past to the present - thus still somewhat relevant), of the recent past (recent - thus relevant), of result (having identifiable results now - thus relevant). The last use is experiential.
E.g.:
The latter three examples can be categorized as continuative as they denote the fact that the "shooting up" and the "seeing" are arguably considered from a present reference point and still relevant at the moment of speaking. But the first example confuses me. In what way would the "touring" be relevant to the present moment? I've also heard similar experiential examples such as "I've been to Canada", "I've been there twice". Shouldn't such experiences be over and done with as they don't really have conceivable effects on the present and may not be recent at all, and therefore be in the past simple?
All examples noted here are from the book.
Answer
The notion of "present relevance" is useful for getting a first grip on the uses of the present perfect construction, but it's hardly definitive. (Presumably everything we say using any verb form or construction is "presently relevant", or we wouldn't say it.)
So let's try to pin this down a little more precisely:
The present perfect mentions a past eventuality as the source, in some sense, of a present state
Each of the three uses you name (they have other names as well) represents a different sort of relationship between the past eventuality and the present state:
The continuative perfect (or universal perfect or perfect of persistent situation) designates a past state which persists into the present.
John has lived in Paris since 2009, and he still lives there.
The resultative perfect (or stative perfect or perfect of result) designates a past event which resulted in a state which persists into the present
John has lived in Paris since 2009, so his French is pretty good.
The existential perfect (or experiential perfect) designates a past state or event whose factuality persists as a present state.
John has lived in Paris on three different occasions since 2009.
What makes this difficult to get a handle on is the fact that when you're confronted with
John has lived in Paris, or
I've toured the Voronezh,
you have no way of knowing what sort of a perfect state the speaker intends. The bare present perfect predicate doesn't express any of these meanings; it asserts merely that there is a perfect state and leaves it to you to infer from the discourse context what that state is. ... In ordinary discourse this doesn't matter, because we don't encounter utterances outside of a context anywhere—except of course, in grammar books.
I've treated this at greater length What is the perfect, and how should I use it?, especially in §3.2 Pragmatic meaning, on ELU; or if you've a taste for technical linguistics you can go to the horses' mouths, Michaelis, "Stative by construction", Linguistics 49–6 (2011), and Nishiyama and Koenig, “What is a perfect state?”, Language 86, 3 (2010).
Does a caption to an image have an implied subject? For example, “This is an image of...”
In other words, as a caption to a picture of two people sitting at a table, can we simply write:
“Joe and I/me having a late lunch.” Which is correct “I”or “me”?
"Today is [(pro)noun] [gerund]"
Context: Some time ago, my friend and I were messaging each other and then I used this construction. He immediately said that my sentence should've been "Today [(pro)noun] is [present participle]". I replied saying that that construction changes the meaning I originally intended. I said that "Today" should be the subject, not the adverb. Then there was a back and forth of arguments. I then made up an instance in restaurant where there will be a guest singer. A manager says "Today is Madonna singing". That didn't work either. I then told him to think of it like a list (yesterday was x x-ing, today is x x-ing, tomorrow will be x x-ing). I told him to also think of "Madonna singing" as a noun phrase, not noun + verb. He asked some of his friends too and none of them have heard of this construction.
So, is this construction something that exists or is it something I made up? I don't think I made it up because I have a definite feeling I picked it up from somewhere and I have kept it because I think it's correct.
Edit 1: Another example I thought of is "Tomorrow will be him doing it" (which seems correct to me).
Edit 2: Thanks to everyone that answered! (I am not going to put the tick mark on anyone because many people helped; putting it on only one person would be unfair).
Recently, while chatting with a friend via text, my friend asked me, "Can you ask them tomorrow?"
I responded with:
I will when I go.
It occurred to me when writing this response that it would be really weird sounding to say:
I'll when I go.
However, it would have been normal sounding if I had said:
I'll ask when I go.
Is there any formal reason why the version without "ask" following "I'll" is incorrect? Or maybe it is correct, but merely awkward?
I suppose there may not be any explanation deeper than, "it just sounds weird," but any informative insights into why, ideally with examples of similar cases, would stand as an answer.
I suppose 'the number of' is followed by a singular, but what about the following sentence where they are two subjects:
Both the number of entries and exits is/are high.
I was taught that a colon never, ever follows a verb: it can follow only a complete sentence. Does anybody on this site support this type of usage? Can anybody provide links or examples of colons used after verbs? Have you ever used the colon in this manner in your writing?
I did some investigating this afternoon and unearthed some interesting information.
The Handbook of Good English and Merriam Webster's Standard American Style Manual support colons after to-be verbs. Awesome! This debunks the myth that colons cannot be used in this way. Does anybody agree with this? Two strong sources support this principle.
The Handbook of Good English by Edward D Johnson
The question was, did he like zucchini? is correct; the past tense of the question may seem to make it indirect, but it is still direct. Note that did is not capitalized; it could be, and some editors routinely capitalize in such a situation, but a capital is a surprise after a comma and in the example would give the question more independence and emphasis than the writer may want it to have. Note also the comma after was, needed to set up the question, almost as a weak colon.
We could, of course, actually use the colon and capitalize after it: The question was: Did he like zucchini? Or we could add quotation marks—which makes changing the tense desirable—and then would need no punctuation before the question The question was "Does he like zucchini?" These alternatives make the sentence rather stately, almost dramatic; the writer may prefer the smoother, more casual The question was, did he like zucchini?
Merriam Webster's Standard American Style Manual
The Interrupting Colon (as they call it)
Opinion varies regarding whether a colon should interrupt the grammatical continuity of a clause (as by coming between a verb and its objects). Although most style manuals and composition handbooks advise against this practice and recommend that a full independent clause precede the colon, the interrupting colon is common. It is especially likely to be used before a lengthy and complex list, in which case the colon serves to set the list distinctly apart from the normal flow of running text. With shorter or less complex lists, the colon is usually not used.
MWSASM Example:
Our programs to increase profitability include: continued modernization of our manufacturing facilities; consideration of distribution terminals; discontinuation of unprofitable retail outlets; and reorganization of our personnel structure, along with across-the-board staff reductions.
This may seem infantile, and it probably is a bit.
If your final line in a paragraph happens to be a quote, do you
"end it like this."
OR
"end it like this".
I'm currently in the process of revising my graduate thesis in Computer Science. One section of the thesis specifically addresses design decisions I made and changes I made based on test results. In this section I describe the actions I took in a first-person active voice.
Example:
In this chapter I present a cognitive walkthrough of the interface
based on the criteria Polson et al. originally presented. I also took
further direction from suggestions for performing cognitive
walkthoughs which the same authors later presented in the form of a
practitioner's guide(citation).
My faculty adviser has approved my draft, but one of my committee members said that he doesn't think personal pronouns should be used in technical writing. There are some cases where I can easily eliminate the personal pronouns and maintain an active voice (e.g. the first sentence in my example.) However, there are cases where I can't see how to do so without reverting to a passive voice.
Is it really bad form to use personal pronouns in technical writing? I have seen it quite often in conference papers. What alternatives do I have if I want to maintain the active voice? Is it better to use the passive voice than use personal pronouns?
I'm particularly confused because my technical writing instructor taught me that one should always describe the author as doing or presenting something rather than the paper.
Answer
As @ChrisSunami says, if a person judging or grading your paper says "this is the standard", then I'd follow that standard. You could find some authority that disagrees and argue about it, but what would you gain? Even if you forced the person to concede, he might then be annoyed with you and be looking for ways to mark you down. There's no point starting an argument that you really can't win. Just follow the rules you're given.
There are two easy ways to avoid using "I" in a paper:
One, use passive voice. "Suggestions for performing cognitive workthroughs were received ..."
Two, personify the paper. "This paper presents several algorithms for ..." rather than "I present several algorithms for ..."
Oh, a third option occurs to me. I've read technical papers where the author refers to himself by some sort of description in the third person. Like, "The researcher performed several experiments using flux capacitors ..." This is especially true when there are several authors, or one person describing the work of several people. "The researchers investigated ...", "The team considered ...", etc.
Mail : "Who will be doing the validation?"
Reply : "Myself and Sarah will be doing validation"
I believe the usage of myself is incorrect here. It should be "Sarah and I will be doing validation". Correct me if I am wrong.
Just me, a schizophrenic and a petty arsonist.
How many people are there in the above sentence? Is it ambiguous?
Answer
I could imagine anywhere from 1 to 3 people:
One:
Just me (further describing myself as a schizophrenic and arsonist)
Two:
Just me (describing myself as a schizophrenic), and another person who is an arsonist
Just me, and another person who is both a schizophrenic and arsonist
Three:
Me, a schizophrenic, and an arsonist
Most place prepositions have an instance for each of the informal preposition categories - I'll refer to them as active and passive, since I'm not familiar with the actual terms. I'm using active here to refer to prepositions which signify movement, and passive to refer to those which signify a state of staying. For example: the active into and the passive in, the active up and the passive above/upon.
Sentences:
I am going into the house.
He is in the house.
It is obvious from these examples that the two forms of the "in" preposition have different meanings - one active and one passive.
You can do the same for every place preposition, though some, like between, are the same word when either active or passive. So there is a between meaning something is between, and a between meaning something is going between.
Sentences:
I am going between the two big trees.
He is between the house and the stable.
It is obvious that in both cases the preposition remains the same, though one is active and one passive.
Basically, to find the two forms, you pick a place preposition (say into), determine whether it refers to going or just to being ("He is going into the house" - sounds right; "He is into the house" - sounds terrible; so "into" is active), then search for the form you didn't pick (passive, so what sounds right with "He is [prep] the house"? - in - "He is in the house" sounds right, so in is the passive form of into), and there you have your two forms (into - active; in - passive).
What I'm trying to figure out is where along fits in. Is it active, and if so, what is a passive counterpart?
Answer
I fear your categorization is based on unsound foundations, but let's just look at along:
The signs were on buildings along Main Street.
Passive.
He traveled along roads that were long and painted purple.
Active.
Assuming that I correctly understand how you're categorizing prepositions, then it's a preposition that can be in either state.
I am writing a Young Adult novel with narrative in the past tense however I want to include some words such as now, this, tonight, etc that indicate present but don't know if I can. However, I am reading many YA novels that do. For example,
"She lived in Seattle now." "Now, I didn't know what to think." "His appearance was so altered, now dressed in... ". "I was now in a boat.'"Tomorrow would be a nightmare." Should I remove all these references to the present to make the grammar correct. Or should I keep them as some authors are doing?
Would you capitalize the job title in the following sentence?
I am writing this letter in regard to Joe Brown who is applying for the director of teaching and learning position in the XYZ School District.
reading passage:
Ten Taiwanese film directors, producers and screenwriters have been invited to participate in a two-day workshop in Paris next week, to seek co-production opportunities with their counterparts in France.
A total of five Taiwanese film projects have been selected to join the workshop, which will take place at CNC from Jan. 15-16.
My questions:
Why was the present perfect tense used? Why not just the past simple tense?
What does the present perfect imply? Does it imply the state of something already being done?
Thank you very much!
Answer
The simple past tense (when referring to the past) means the action takes place in the past, and that this necessarily excludes the present. It is over before the moment of speaking. "I read your question 2 minutes ago." With the simple past, I am not connecting the past event of my reading to the moment of me writing that sentence.
The present perfect refers to an event or action that took place sometime in the past (before the time of speaking) that has psychological relevance at the time of speaking. It connects the past event to the present. The event or action may or may not still be happening at the moment of speaking. This largely depends on the verb.
I have read you question, and now I am going to answer it. To my mind, my reading of your question still has psychological relevance to me at the moment of writing that sentence.
The question is always: Why use the present perfect instead of the simple past?
The action of the present perfect tense verb may extend all the way to the moment of speaking:
I've studied these instructions for 2 hours and I still don't understand how to program this DVD player. I quit.
I've stood in line for three hours and I haven't received any help.
It can refer to a past action that has some relevance to the speaker at the moment of speaking:
I've finished my homework. Now can I go out and play?
I haven't seen John today (and its important to me that I see him because he owes me $100).
I've been to London, it was a glorious experience.
If there is no continuing relevance, just use the simple past:
I finished my homework.
I didn't see John today.
I went to London and came back.
The present perfect can refer to repeated or habitual past activities that have relevance at the moment of speaking:
I've tried six times to meet the mayor and I'm trying again today.
I've taught English for ten years. (And I'm still teaching it.)
Now consider:
Ten Taiwanese film directors, producers and screenwriters have been invited to participate in a two-day workshop in Paris next week,
The present perfect means the past action has relevance at the moment of speaking. Here, one could have used the past tense: were invited in the same clause. The past tense just reports on a past event. It does not indicate continuing relevance.
A total of five Taiwanese film projects have been selected to join the workshop, which will take place at CNC from Jan. 15-16.
Again the simple past could have been used in this same clause: was selected.
Both verbs have been selected and have been invited are in the present perfect passive. With actions such as select and invite the action is over when the speaker says the sentence, but the action has continuing relevance.
What that relevance is is not always easy to define. As I said, both actions could have been reported with the simple past.
In British English, the present perfect tense is used more often than in American English. This suggests that speakers of British see continuing relevance more often, at least in certain contexts. See these three resources that discuss this: a blog post written by a linguist, the Cambridge Dictionary, the TOEFL website.
If a kid is coming to the table to eat supper, in AmE it can be usual to state:
Did you wash your hands? (simple past)
In BrE, so I have read, it would almost always be
Have you washed your hands?
(The relevance obviously is ascertaining if that the kid is prepared to eat supper.)
So, "Ten film directors have been invited..." it really is the speaker or writer who sees the past action (invite) as having continuing relevance at the moment of writing.
And, "five projects have been selected..." works the same way.
The relevance may simply be to state that although they were invited / selected in the past, this is still true at the moment of speaking.
It does not necessarily have to do anything with the future; I have shown that, in American English, at least, the simple past could have easily been used in those same two sentences.
However, just like the kid having washed his hands, so he is now 'eligible' to eat..so the directors have been invited and they are now 'eligible' to attend. (They may, after all, decline the invitation.)
This is why I said the question is always why choose the present perfect instead of the simple past? Sometimes only the speaker knows, or sometimes it is just because that is the normal way to express the situation (British English).
Edit: Having seen the comment by John Lawler, I see that the present perfect is used to report "hot" or "fresh" news. A reason to do this is to imply that the news has some continuing relevance to the listener.
Have you read the news? It's "vitally important" that you do so
Did you read the news? does not have this same implication.
I’m confused about the right way of saying it. Please tell me the correct answer and why it is correct.
I'm self-studying now and I've found an exercise.
Matt ... while we were having dinner.
The correct answer is phoned. But I couldn't figure out why was phoning is not a right choice. There is some logic in this answer because Matt is doing a continuous action. Maybe there is something in usage of while I don't know yet?
Answer
Both are grammatically perfectly fine, but they mean different things. Without any context (knowing the situation that the sentence would have occurred in, if there had been one), there is no way to tell which of the meanings is the ‘correct’ one—and whatever book you're using that tells you only phoned is correct is simply wrong, as such self-learning books often are.
Matt phoned while we were having dinner.
This means that at some point during the stretch of time when we were having dinner, we received a telephone call from Matt. Here, phoned does not refer to the entire phone conversation, but to the actual ringing up. The conversation may well have gone on for an hour, by which time the dinner of the person who went to pick up the phone was cold and everyone else had long since left the table.
But the dialling and picking up happened while we were having dinner.
Matt was phoning while we were having dinner.
This means that two things took place concurrently:
The most obvious interpretation of the sentence is that it's an explanation for why Matt wasn't there at the dinner table: because he was talking on the phone in another room.
In this case, phoning does refer to the entire phone conversation, not just the dialling and picking up bit.
In formal writing, which sentence would be a better choice to imply "I appreciated that they had thought of me"?
Is there a subtle difference in the two constructions? To mean that sentence number 1 stresses on the act of thinking and sentence number 2 stresses on the people who are thinking? Or can both be used to mean the same thing?
Dictionaries say when two things are connected or linked, the prepositions to use are “to” and “with” (e.g. “This line connects point A to Point B” and “The train links Paris with London”). Would you say it is also acceptable to use “and” in place of “to” or “with” as in the following?
This line connects point A and Point B.
The train links Paris and London.
What bothers me is that these two prepositions seem to imply some sort of directionality. For example, the sentence “This line connects point A to Point B” suggests to me that the line in question extends from point A to Point B, rather than the other way around, and sometimes you want to describe lines or connections without implying any directionality.
If the use of “and” is not acceptable, how would you two turn sentences like “Point A and point B are connected by a line” into the active voice?
A linking verb is a verb which connects a subject to its predicate
without expressing an action. A linking verb is used to re-identify or
describe its subject.
Ex:
Alan is a beast.
Alan seems drunk.
But I would say that some linking verbs can be used with "continuous tenses" & other linking verbs can not, but I am not sure.
feel (linking verb) to experience a particular feeling or emotion
Ex: I’m feeling a little better today.
Do you still feel hungry?
So, feel in this meaning can be used with continuous tenses
But I would think this sentence "Do you still feel hungry?" does not make much sense because it uses "simple present tense" which expresses something that happens regularly. Noone would feel hungry regularly.
So, that sentence "you feel hungry" would mean "you always feel hungry".
feel (linking verb) (not used in the progressive tenses): to have a
particular physical quality which you become aware of by touching
The water feels warm.
Its skin feels really smooth.
This site says "Speakers sometimes use the Simple Present to express the idea that an action is happening or is not happening now. This can only be done with Non-Continuous Verbs and certain Mixed Verbs."
so, "The water feels warm." could mean "The water is always warm" (simple present expressing things that happen regularly - more or less permanent action)
But "The water feels warm." could mean "The water is warm now" (simple present with non-continuous verb expressing things that is happening now - a temporary action)
look: (linking verb) to seem; to appear
to look pale/happy/tired
That book looks interesting.
In dictionary,
appear (linking verb) (not used in the progressive tenses): to
give the impression of being or doing something
She didn't appear surprised at all.
seem (to somebody) (to be) something (not used in the progressive tenses): to give the impression of being or doing something (synonym:
appear)
You seem happy.
So, we cannot say "you are seeming happy" or "you are appearing happy".
But I am not sure I can say "You are looking good" (sounds right to my ears) or "That book is looking interesting." (doesn't sound right to my ears)
But we can say "The future’s looking good." (source)
So, some verbs has the same meaning but one can be used with "continuous" & the other can not, right?
Ex: "you are looking happy", but "you seem happy".
Q: What's the rule-of-thumb on "for which" vs. "for what" usage? I recently wrote the sentence:
"For which data is it appropriate to use method A instead of method B"
This seems right. But I can't articulate why "for what" seems wrong.
What is the origin of the personal pronouns I, you, he, she, it, we, and they?
Answer
I haven't got time to take them all the way (or to check references, so this is from memory), but yes they do go back to PIE, with the possible exception of she. But they come by different routes.
I hope somebody has time to expand my random recollections.
Consider this conversation:
"Hey, we've been seeing each other for a couple of months"
"Did you really expect to get married two weeks? I am not easy like other girls."
"It's not about other girls. It's about me and you"
Is me and you correct and why?
From The Doors, Light My Fire. The lines are:
"Try now, we can only lose
And our love become a funeral pyre."
I would never hold their lyrics up as great writing, but I have always wondered exactly what this means. My understanding is:
"Try now, we can only lose
And our love (can only) become a funeral pyre."
So using a conjunction to link a different subject and a different main verb sharing the same modal verb. Like, e.g.,
"The machine would stop and the bell ring." or
"I will go and he replace me."
Which don't sound like things anyone would say. I have, however, heard things like:
I need to nod my head and you to hit it. or
I want to eat and you to sleep.
Or is it a form of subjunctive? But it doesn't seem to fit any other example of a subjunctive.
As a native English speaker, for many years I just understood he was saying "...and our love (can only) become a funeral pyre," as in, that's the worst that could happen, which is better than not trying any sex or drugs at all. But I can't come up with a single other example of a conjunction being used to distribute a modal between two different subjects with two different main verbs.
This is NOT a question about whether they/them is acceptable as a singular pronoun. I know some of you will have to die before you give that argument a rest, but I am starting here with the presumption that them/them IS an acceptible alternative to refer to non-binary gendered people. On to the question...
I was writing about a person who prefers the pronoun "they/them":
Talk to Abigail when they are a resident.
After I wrote it, I realized (assuming here in 2016 that "they" can serve as a singular pronoun - and more so here in 2017) that technically there is a lack of subject verb agreement. More correctly, I should write:
Talk to Abigail when they is a resident.
But of course that sounds terrible and wrong to my ear.
As they/them becomes an acceptable singular pronoun, do we amend the subject-verb agreement rules to use a plural verb with this singular subject?
The mixture was added water.
This sentence, written by a non-native speaker, seems somehow odd to me, but I cannot say that I find it at all ambiguous. This example sentence is written by a speaker of Indian English. If you can provide any information on whether this issue is a standard feature of Indian English, or South-East Asian English, I would greatly appreciate that. I have to make it American English, but, if this is totally standard and acceptable Indian English, or SE Asian English, I was told, then making these changes should not be done.
Is the sentence problematic by normal prescriptive rules? If so, what is the simplest remedy? If not, why does it seem odd?
The problem seems to me that the writer is treating “add” as a double-object verb (i.e., one that takes both a direct and an indirect object, such as “give.”
Example:
The boy was given a present.
(Someone) gave the boy a present.
But, in the case of "add," that doesn't seem to work, as the required preposition "to" for the indirect object in the active (non-passive) version below shows.
The mixture was added water
(Someone) added water to the mixture.
Like many others, I commonly find myself ending a sentence with a preposition. Yes, it makes me cringe. I usually rewrite the sentence, but sometimes (in emails) I just live with it. To, with... you know who you are.
Should I keep fighting myself on this one, or is it okay in some circumstances?
Answer
A preposition is a perfectly reasonable word to end a sentence with. Admonitions against doing so are not something anyone needs pay heed to. It's the kind of made-up rule that is not based on the reality of the language and anguish over doing it is something no writer need suffer from. And if you don't believe me, look it up.
This url links to an Australian article (sourced from Reuters) about a football team. The article has the following title:
Ukraine speed to test new-look Germany defence
I understand that the word "speed" is a verb here. However, why not "speeds"? Since "Ukraine" is a singular noun, I expect it to be "Ukraine speeds".
UPD. Thanks to the detailed comments and answers below, it turns out the question is not about collective nouns, but rather about "speed" being a noun and not a verb.
UPD2. As noted in comments replying to my UPD above: Not necessarily! If the rest of the article were in American English, yes, it would clearly be a noun. But the rest of the article is clearly written in British English or similar and "Ukraine" as an identifier for the team is a plural noun in BrEng. (We know it's BrEng because it says "Ukraine... are certain to test...") So it really could be either, the only way to be sure would be to ask the author their intent.
Now I'd really like to find out from the author!
While changing direct to indirect speech, we generally back shift the tense.
Example -
"I have finished my work." (Direct speech)
He said that he had finished his work. (Indirect speech)
In this example present perfect tense is back shifted to past perfect tense.
NOTE : There is an exception to this rule : At the time of reporting, if the reported words are still true or still relevant then back shifting is optional. For example: "He said that he has lost his keys." Here present perfect tense is not back shifted because at the time of reporting situation is still relevant. By relevant I mean that the consequence of losing his key can still be seen or heard.
Now my main question(s) is:
Context: Recently an earthquake came in India and Nepal. Thousands of people have lost their lives. Rescue operation is on its way.
Now consider the example which is not an indirect speech: "The President learned that this earthquake has caused destruction all across Nepal and India."
First: tell me, here is it correct to use "has caused" under the context that situation is still relevant, i.e. the aftermath of the earthquake can still be seen?
Second: Here is back shifting optional or obligatory?
Another question:
You see, my intention of asking question is -
In sentence structure of indirect speech like - (He said +........... , He informed +....... , He claimed + .......... ), I am aware that if the situation is still relevant then back shifting of present perfect tense is optional.
But what if the sentence structure is something like - ( He learned + ........... , He noticed +.......... , He found +....... ) here also is back shifting of present perfect tense optional if the situation is still relevant ?
P.S. : My question concerns only present perfect tense.
Would you hyphenate “high touch” when used this way:
Those customer interactions are high touch.
If used immediately before a noun, you would hyphenate, right? It would be "high-touch customer interactions." But do you hyphenate this term when it appears at the end of a sentence? I’ve seen both ways.
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.
What is the correct shortening for "Goals of the Theses"?
I am confused, because Theses ends with an 's', but using the apostrophe makes it plural.
Answer
Thesis is singular, theses is plural. Thesis' is singular genitive, theses' is plural genitive. As a general rule for genitives of words ending in s, you use s', the Saxon genitive.
So, assuming you want to talk about the multiple goals in multiple theses, then you would use "theses' goals". If you want to talk about multiple goals on a single thesis, you would use "thesis' goals."
As a general rule you can translate "x of the y" into "y's x", these being the two forms of genitive in English. However, beware, there are many instances where the two are not interchangeable.
This question was spurred by some comments that sprung underneath an ELL question of mine. The comments have since been deleted.
User 1: There's nothing wrong with "Yes, I will be". (I agree that "*I'll be" is incorrect though.)
User 2: Are you sure? I don't think, "Yes, I will be" is correct. I Ngrammed "yes i will be" and got a result of zero. Also Ngrammed "yes, i will be" and "yes" got positive results, but "i will be" got zero results, too.
User 1: @_______: Yes, I'm sure. Your ngram is wrong - remember the word "I" is always capitalised; if you fix that you do get results. (Most of them are "Yes, I will be xxx", rather than just "Yes, I will be.", but if you keep searching you will find odd examples of the latter.)
User 2: Cont'd from previous comment. I checked the Ngram results for "Yes I will be" and could not find any examples. Ngram results for "Yes, I will be." and "Yes I will be." were also zero.
User 2: @______ And I realize that "I" is always capitalized. But I hadn't turned on case sensitivity, so now I'm confused why "Yes i will be" and "Yes I will be" returns different results.
In light of the various Ngram and Google Books results reported by User 1, it appears that he may be right. Is he?
In every grammar and English course book I have ever used with learners or for myself, I have never ever read the short answer: Yes, I will be. These books simply don't "teach" this type of response, the classic short answers to questions beginning with the auxiliary, will, are always given as either Yes, I will or No, I won't. The two questions which I posted were the following:
In the second question, I offered the following list of short answers:
- Yes, thank you.
- Yes, I will.
- Yes, I will be
- Yes, I will do.
An American user suggested that "Yes, I will do" was wrong. (Please refer to the linked question below, for further details)
Thank you
The ELL related questions which sparked the above discussion