meaning - What are the difference between "should open" and "should be opened" and "should be opening"?

I am preparing some document. In this document I need to mention User activity and corresponding expected results. For example

User activity : User clicks on the Submit button.

Expected Results : It should open one new popup window and this pop up window should display the the following message to the user -"Thanks for your feedback".

Can I also write something like this?

Expected Results : It should be opened one new popup window and this pop up window should be displayed the the following message to the user -"Thanks for your feedback".

or

Expected Results : It should be opening one new popup window and this pop up window should be displayed the following message to the user -"Thanks for your feedback".

So my questions are

1. What is the difference between should open and should be opened and should be opening?


2. What to use when?


3. In this case which one is more suitable?

Answer

The big difference here is active and passive voice. The original sentence is in active voice. In your suggested options, I think you're trying to use passive voice, but you need to change the order of the words.

When you say “it should be opened,” it is the object of the opening. But the object should be the window. So you want to say “One new popup window should be opened.” Note that in passive voice, you don't say who or what is doing the opening.

The same goes for the message: “the following message should be displayed.” Again, you don't say that the window is doing the displaying.

Putting it together, you could say:

One new popup window should be opened and the following message should be displayed to the user: “Thanks for your feedback.”

Note that you could use active voice for one part and passive for the other, though that is probably more awkward.

Generally, the choice of voice is determined by the style guide, or consistency with the rest of the document. So check whether someone has made a guide for these documents and if not, just pick either active or passive voice and use it throughout.

grammatical number - "Our name is" or "Our names are"?

Two women, both named Sarah, want to introduce themselves. What do they say? "Our name is Sarah"? This seems to make no sense. "Our names are Sarah"? This also can't be right. What is the correct way?

I believe the correct way would be, "Our names are Sarah and Sarah."

Any thoughts on this?

grammar - When can we omit the subject of a clause?

Is the following sentence correct?

Rob is not at school today, but said he would come tomorrow.

Notice that the version above does not have a subject before said. Should it be:

Rob is not at school today, but he said he would come tomorrow.

The first option sounds quite right to me, but I would like to know if there is any rule to decide whether or not we can omit the subject of a sentence - especially when the tenses in the sentences are not the same. I'm most interested in what the rule is, not just whether we need to put the subject in that sentence or not.

Limitations of Subordination and Nested Clauses

I'm an English teacher who often has to grapple with explaining to students the complexity of clause structure in English, and after reading an article about various 'longest sentences' in fiction, I got to wondering if anyone has ever done any research into the cognitive limitations or constraints on the amount of nesting an average reader can understand.
That's the basic question: is there any research on what our nested clause comprehension limits are?

But there are loads of related questions that might be relevant here, too, like:
How many embedded clauses can you insert in a main clause before the latter element ceases to make sense?
Is there a fixed limit on the amount of nesting we can follow?
How different are English speakers in their ability to track meaning across clauses?

Answer

Susumu Kuno has reported on this in a number of works. Here are a few references in McCawley's excellent text on the linguistic analysis of English.

syntax - What's the difference between - and -- in a phrase?

When do I put a - in a sentence? Is it a more powerful comma? With a bigger pause?

punctuation - Commas with nested subordinate clauses both of which are restrictive (essential to the meaning)

I have been grappling with the question below for a while now, so hope that you can shed some light on it.

Do we need the first comma (the one in brackets below) in the restrictive nested subordinate clause (adverbial, noun and relative clauses -- all 3) that is embedded right into another restrictive subordinate clause after a subordinating conjunction and if yes, could you please explain why?

See example sentences below (please ignore the actual sentences; I just want to understand the logic of the punctuation for the 3 types of nested subordinate clauses - so for the sake of argument, recasting or modifying these sentences is not an option):

1) This is the country where[,] if you work hard, you get rewarded. (relative clause)

2) We need to talk because[,] if we don't, we will be in trouble. (adverbial clause)

3) London is where[,] when I was young, I used to live. (noun clause)

4) Give me a call if[,] when you are at the station, it rains. (adverbial clause)

5) It is useful when[,] if it rains, you have an umbrella. (awkward adverbial clause)

6) She is the person who[,] if she is faced with difficulties, can handle them very well. (relative clause)

7) He said that[,] if all goes well, he will call. (noun clause)

The thinking here is that the first (bracketed) comma should be dropped as the embedded subordinate clause is restrictive / essential to the meaning of the main subordinate clause (e.g. in the first sentence, for instance, you only get rewarded if you work hard) and in this case treated as an introductory clause to the main subordinate clause with one following but not preceding comma (just as if the main subordinate clause was in the beginning of the sentence before the independent main clause).

If the comma is retained, however, the embedded subordinate clause is read as parenthetical / non-restrictive clause, which, for the sake of these sentences, is not intended (the clauses are intended to be restrictive on purpose).

The partial confusion lies in the fact that some style guides like Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition in 6.32 says in the cases like this:

6.32 “And if,” “that if,” and the like
When two conjunctions appear next to each other (e.g., and if, but if), they need not be separated by a comma.

They decided that if it rained, they would reschedule the game.

At the same time, many of subordinating conjunctions in the embedded subordinate clause are also relative adverbs or pronouns and fulfil either an object or subject roles in the main subordinate clause, which then makes the embedded subordinate clause interrupt object / complement - subject (sentence 1 and 3) and subject - predicate (sentence 6) relationship in the main subordinate clause, requiring commas on both ends (just as if the main subordinate clause was inserted between a subject and verb, or verb and object of the independent main clause) - in which case it conflicts with introductory clause logic and CMOS guideline above (actually, do subordinating conjunctions in sentences 2, 3 and 5 have adverbial functions, in which case the embedded subordinate clause acts as interrupter as well, in which case commas, again, are required on both ends?).

Hope this makes sense - any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

I am not really after how to punctuate these exact sentences - more just to understand the logic of punctuation (and especially, if it conflicts like sentence 7 that is similar to CMOS example vs other sentences)

Also, would be good to understand if different embedded subordinate clauses are treated differently depending on their relationship to the main subordinate clause.

Thanks,
Paul

Answer

Any expectation of a comma in the examples of the OP has very little to do with the subordinate clauses' restrictiveness, but rather, as the OP suggested, with an interruption of their natural flow. When leading a sentence with a subordinate clause, the comma does not force a "parenthetical / non-restrictive" interpretation. Simply, compare the meaning of two sentences:

• If you work hard, you get rewarded.


• You get rewarded if you work hard.

None of the embedded phrases in the examples were relative clauses, so the concern of imposing a non-restrictive interpretation is irrelevant. In every case, the embedding did put the interrupting phrases in a parenthetical position--even if they are considered "essential" to the meaning of the sentences.

The reference to section 6.32 of The Chicago Manual of Style 16th edition established a legitimate exception to a general rule of commas. If omitting an appropriate comma creates no ambiguity, omitting it becomes a matter of style opinion rather than grammar. Moreover, if we believe an appropriate comma introduces ambiguity, our best solution is to recast the sentence to remove ambiguity.

---

Considering the options for each example:

1) This is the country where[,] if you work hard, you get rewarded.
(relative clause)

The relative clause is where you get rewarded, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if you work hard, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conflict between the locative where and the conditional if might be manageable enough, but many would be more comfortable with the extra comma. If the sentence had been written: This is the country where you get rewarded if you work hard, certainly no commas would be needed.

2) We need to talk because[,] if we don't, we will be in trouble.
(adverbial clause)

The adverbial clause is because we will be in trouble, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if we don't, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. With such minuscule conflict between because and if, there is very little risk of confusion in omitting the comma. If the sentence had been written: We need to talk because we will be in trouble if we don't, certainly no commas would be needed.

3) London is where[,] when I was young, I used to live. (noun clause)

The predicative is where I used to live, and the comma would be appropriate, because the embedded adverbial phrase, when I was young, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The locative where and the temporal when are nearly irreconcilable and should probably be separated by a comma. If the sentence had been written: London is where I used to live when I was young, certainly no commas would be needed.

4) Give me a call if[,] when you are at the station, it rains.
(adverbial clause)

The conditional clause is if it rains, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded adverbial phrase, when you are at the station, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conditional if and the temporal when seem to be in deep conflict and would work better with a comma between them. If the sentence had been written: Give me a call if it rains when you are at the station, certainly no commas would be needed. The slight ambiguity could easily be eliminated by recasting the sentence to communicate the true intentions of the imperative.

5) It is useful when[,] if it rains, you have an umbrella. (awkward
adverbial clause)

The awkward adverbial clause is when you have an umbrella, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if it rains, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. This construction is awkward with or without the comma, but would probably be less confusing with the extra comma. If the sentence had been written: It is useful when you have an umbrella if it rains, certainly no commas would be needed. The overall awkwardness still suggest a need to recast the sentence.

6) She is the person who[,] if she is faced with difficulties, can
handle them very well. (relative clause)

The relative clause is who can handle them very well, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if she is faced with difficulties, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conflict between the relative who and the conditional if might be manageable without a comma, but many would find it less confusing to see the comma. If the sentence had been written: She is the person who can handle difficulties very well if she is faced with them, certainly no commas would be needed.

7) He said that[,] if all goes well, he will call. (noun clause)

The noun clause is that he will call, and the comma is appropriate, because the embedded conditional phrase, if all goes well, interrupts the natural flow of the clause. The conditional in the context of reported speech is the least awkward of the seven examples and fits the exception of The Chicago Manual of Style perfectly. If the sentence had been written: He said that he will call if all goes well, certainly no commas would be needed.

Conclusion:

The ultimate purpose of commas is clarity. Use one if it makes things more clear. Leave it out if it makes things less clear, and in my humble opinion: when in doubt, leave it out. Most importantly, recasting the way we put phrases together can eliminate most of our comma confusion.

compound possessives - Correct grammar form for two people owning the same object?

Which is correct?
Paul's and Freda's Anniversary or Paul and Freda's Anniversary?

verbs - The first and most well-known example is/are the reserves in the United States

Should the verb be is or are? I would say 'are', but a colleague says 'is'.

Can one form an adverb from any adjective?

I'm trying to form the following sentence:

...we can talk more substantiatively in the event that X occurs.

The term "substantiatively" isn't in either the computer dictionary or online at m-w.com. However, it seems to me that if something can be substantiative, then something can be done substantiatively. More generally, if something can be described as , then one can do it . Is that assertion incorrect?

grammar - Use of "and lo" in a sentence

What, if any, is the right way to use "and lo" in a sentence?

My basic structure is "[discussion about thing], and lo, [example of thing]", kind of like: There's a cliche about circus clowns being creepy and dangerous, and lo, last night I saw a clown violating a teddy bear.

Is this proper? Should there be a colon or semicolon after "lo"?

Answer

The words 'and lo' are usually followed by an exclamation mark (And lo! the majestic Himalayas, lay untrammeled before their very eyes!) , to emphasize the dramatic nature of the event that has come to pass. 'Lo and behold' is a related variant, also usually followed by an exclamation mark.

adjectives - Word for going through the motions / doing something because you are supposed to

I use perfunctorily a lot.

Then I learned I use it wrong.

I thought it meant to do something dispassionately or because you have to or to go through the motions. But actually it means

carried out with a minimum of effort or reflection. (NOAD)

Now, this isn't too different from the meaning I thought, because if you are doing something dispassionately or by obligation or are just going through the motions then you will carry it out with minimum effort or reflection, but the definition does not capture all that I thought it did.

What is the word that I want?

I fear I am not being clear. I fear that my desired definition and the real definition are too similar.

My desired definition includes "carried out with a minimum of effort or reflection" but it also includes a sense of obligation. You can do something with minimal effort because you want to do it but are just low in energy or because you are distracted or because you are hurried. The word I seek would make clear that the minimal effort is due to a lack of care—perhaps even more than a lack of care: maybe even disdain for the task.

This word would probably perfectly describe how most of us would perform tasks at a minimum wage job we have held too long. We would do it, maybe even well, but without any real care for it.

Another example. I ask this question now because I was going to write that people often pray "perfunctorily"—it is not heartfelt; it is done because people think that prayer is supposed good and important, but don't actually feel that it is.

I tried to find the word I want.

• Cursorily, briefly, hastily include an aspect of speed. The word I seek doesn't need to mean the action happened quickly; indeed the lack of desire might even mean it happens slowly.


• Dispassionately does not incorporate the sense of obligation.


• Obligatorily does not incorporate the lack of thoughtfulness. You can do something obligatorily and meticulously.


• Going through the motions is probably closest but, being a phrase, is difficult to turn into an adverb or even adjective. (Alternate, lesser answer would give me going through the motions in adverb form.)

Answer

From M-W:

perfunctory: used to describe something that is done without
energy or enthusiasm because of habit or because it is expected [emphasis added]

From Dictionary.com:

perfunctory:
performed merely as a routine duty; hasty and superficial [emphasis added]

These definitions of perfunctory fit your original sense well. You weren't using perfunctorily incorrectly.

More zero article bafflement

My frustrated Polish friends (often baffled by article usage because their own language has no articles) wanted to know why there's no definite article before the expression "picture No. 24" (as in "Could we have permission to reproduce picture No. 24?") - and I couldn't tell them!

Can anyone help?

Many thanks,

Alex

capitalization - What is the term for when one letter is lowercased when a name is in all caps?

Oftentimes when my last name is used in all caps on official documents, one of the letters is lowercased to denote that the following letter is capitalized. For example:

DeVos = DeVOS

What is the term for this? I've reviewed other questions regarding camel case and Pascal case, but I haven't been able to find an answer. Thank you very much for your help.

grammar - What is the structure of this complex sentence?

This is preface of The punishments of China:

The wisdom of the Chinese Legislature is no where more conspicuous than in its treatment of robbers, no person being doomed to suffer death for having merely deprived another of some temporal property, provided he neither uses, nor carries, any offensive weapon. This sagacious edict renders robbery unfrequent; the daring violator of the laws, hesitating to take with him those means, which might preserve his own life, or affect that of the plundered, in the event of resistance, generally confines his depredations to acts of private pilfering, and a robbery, attended with murder, is, of course, very rarely perpetrated. 

1. What kind of grammar does
   ", Hesitating..." have? What is the meaning of this sentence?


2. What is the subject of confines?

There are too many commas for me to grasp the sentence structure.
I'm totally confused. Thank you in advance.

grammatical number - Member's Price or Members Price or Member Price

I have a members only website. I want to place a price tag for "Members Price" is that correct or Member Price. It refers to the price a member pays.

articles - Is 'the' necessary when a noun is explained in a same sentence?

I know that definite article is used when a noun is already known in the context.

But I'm not sure with the usage of definite article when I described something explicitly but it hasn't been mentioned before.

So here's my example.

'I believe children are used to listening to the type of music that celebrities promote their life styles'

In the sentence, 'the type of music' was not mentioned before, however I described what type of music it is in the sentence. Also it sounds more comfortable with the article.

Is the article used right? or should it be just 'a type of music'?

Thanks for reading my question.

commas - How should I punctuate around quotes where the punctuation required by the quote interferes with the punctuation of the sentence?

The American convention in quotations is (typically) to place punctuation inside quoted text. But I always run into situations where the punctuation of the quote interferes with the punctuation of the sentence. How would you punctuate this (American, non technical)?

When my friends ask, "What do you want for your birthday?", I never know how to respond.

It seems odd to place the last comma outside the quote simply because of the question mark. Is that the preferred (i.e. most often accepted) standard?

Answer

The British put them outside the quotes, which seems much more logical.

The American style is to put the punctuation inside the quotes. The American version is often known as "Typesetter's Quotes".

As you can see, I go with the British version, at least in informal writing.

Interesting fact: They are called typesetter's quotes because when typesetters were laying out the typesetting blocks putting the small blocks for punctuation inside the quotes made the layout more stable and less prone to shift around. That's probably why it seems so illogical, it was done for mechanical reasons, not linguistic reasons.

tenses - "I didn't know you golf" vs "I didn't know you golfed"

While reading a popular author I came across:

"I left my clubs at home, so I can't play."

"Oh? I didn't know (that) you golf."

This sounds wrong, but presumably it was passed by at least one editor. To me, the past tense "golfed" would be more appropriate. But if this way works too, what sort of construct is it?

hyphenation - "Side effects", or "Side-effects"?

Merriam-Webster implies both are correct:

side effect (without hyphen)

side-effect (with hyphen)

Which is more common? My go-to litmus test, google searching both and comparing the number of results, does not work here. My specific context here is the body of a medical research paper.

To avoid debates and polling: I'm not asking which is correct (it seems both are acceptable), I'd like to know which is more common.

Answer

A great resource open to you for looking at the frequency of words or phrases is Google Ngram Viewer.
As Brian Donovan said in the comments, this Ngrams analysis answers the question quite well:

As this shows, side effect written as two words has been a lot more common throughout the past half-century with the hyphenated version used much less. That said, the recorded uses of side-effect are not negligible, some people do hyphenate.

Omitting Relative Pronoun and verb "be"

Could someone please explain, why the pronoun and the verb "be" are omitted in the following sentence?

"it allows communication even for people far away from each other"

Shouldn't this sentence be "it allows communication even for people WHO ARE far away from each other"?

grammar - Difference between 'If ..was' and 'If ...were'

Hi,

I have seen different usage of the phrase 'If..was' and 'If..were'. But I find it difficult to understand when to use which.

e.g. If I were the President of the United State, I would get the hell out of Iraq.

This looks correct. Can I use 'If I was' here?

Is there a rule?

Please explain the grammar behind these sentences

I have used these kinds of sentences in talking and writing for so long without really knowing the grammar behind them:

This resulted in my getting late

It's unfortunate that even after his trying to convince her, she didn't agree

He couldn't resist himself despite my warning him

What's the truth about the subjunctive and conditional statements, anyway?

I have generally (I would say always, but I'm not sure I always thought this) supposed that in English, uses of the subjunctive are quite limited. They include desires, judgments, etc. ("I desire that she go"), general propositions ("the very idea that he marry her"), assorted hypotheticals involving to be ("If I were mad"), and some archaic expressions that you can find in Shakespeare.

Now, in pursuing a question for someone, I find myself confronted with the possibility that many ordinary conditionals in English are in fact subjunctive-carriers. Some sources omit mention of the subjunctive; some state that it's only the "type two" conditional that takes the subjunctive ("If I got up early every morning..."); and some seem to imply that just about every conditional statement is really a subjunctive one.

My first point of concession is that, on some inspection, this so called second type might really be a subjunctive after all; if the protasis "if I were" is subjunctive, then "if I liked" must be as well.

But after this point, it gets quite murky. Do you really mean to say that a standard pluperfect conditional construction, such as "If I had gone along, I would have had fun" really contains the subjunctive mood in one or both pieces?

Now that I think about it, the indicative mood doesn't seem quite right, and surely there must be some mood happening, but the subjunctive? One thing that I am quite sure of is that in this kind of conditional, there is nothing about it that would ever differentiate it from indicative anyway: "If I had gone along" and "I had gone along" have no difference in inflection.

Does that mean that the subjunctive is imputed simply by virtue of uncertainty or doubt? That would mean that the most simple type of conditional, a present-future conditional, is subjunctive also: "If I fail, you'll hate me". The thing is, the more I inspect these fragments, the more conceivable it becomes; aren't we really saying "given that I fail", which has the look of a subjunctive to it?

However, this is where I hesitate. If mere doubt is the condition to require the subjunctive mood, that would mean that "I'm not sure if he is rich" is subjunctive, when we know that it is not, and that to try to employ it ("I'm not sure if he be rich") makes us sound like a pirate.

Maybe I have the sound of French teachers too much in my ear, telling me that the subjunctive is rarely used in English in comparison with the far more robust French equivalent. Can someone please sort this out?

apostrophe - Is "mens" a valid word?

I've been living in Ireland for almost a year now and I start noticing they use the word "mens" a lot. I can see it used in:

1. Shops, to denote the area where you can find men's clothes


2. In sport, when they talk about "mens team".

My guess is just that they are lazy about the use of quotes, so that mens should actually be men's.

However, there may be some rule I'm not aware of. So, is "mens" only limited to Irish English? When I'm allowed to use it?

Answer

Mens is sometimes used as an alternative for, you guessed it, men's. It looks invalid because it's a possessive which should have an apostrophe before the "s" but as it's caught on, it's just considered acceptable now. There's also the common noun menswear which is often used instead of men's wear.

differences - Which preposition to use with "forum"

I would hugely appreciate your help thinking through the tagline for a new online forum we are creating.

The current version reads:

A Forum on Our Economy, National Security and Sustainability.

On seems to be the most common preposition to follow forum, except when there is a gerund involved – e.g., a forum for discussing, a forum for sharing, etc.

I would really like to use about but that seems unconventional.

Also, if we said

A Forum on National Security, Sustainability, and the/our Economy,

that would seem to work. But we want Economy to be first in the list of three and we don't want to say Economics so we went with our.

past vs present - Which tense should I use when presenting a table of data?

I have a table and the description of the table as followed:

Table 7 presents the likelihood of OPT occurrences from the time

annotated sentences; V-RB refers to the sentences which contain
post-verbal adverbs and RB-V refers to the sentences which contain
pre-verbal adverbs. The OPT phenomenon manifested 68.18% of the time
when an already or yesterday adverb was present in the sentence in the
ICE-SIN.

Within the paragraphs, my tenses were inconsistent. When i present the table and how to read the table I used present tense. But when I wanted to described the phenomenon that was recorded in the data, I used the past tense.

Is the inconsistent tenses grammatical? Or should I use the past tense when I present the table and how to read the table?

Answer

When you are presenting the table, you are doing it now, i.e. in the present time. The clue is in the word PRESENTing. But the table itself contains data that has already been collected - in the past.

So you are correct in presenting the table in the present tense, but discussing the previously collected data in the past tense.

questions - why + verb+ ing form in interrogative sentences

I would like to know if this structure is correct? :
Why wearing a school uniform?

If so, what's the difference with: Why wear a school uniform?

I feel like using the ing form, but I found the second form without ing in an article.

grammaticality - Is there some rule against ending a sentence with the contraction "it's"?

I heard this lyric in a song the other day and it just sounded so wrong that I assumed it must be incorrect grammar, but I can't find any specific prohibition that applies.

That's what it's.

That rolls off your tongue with the grace of a moose in a tutu, but I can't figure out why.

There is clearly no problem with ending other sentences with a contraction. These sound fine.

I thought I could, but I can't.
Stop touching that, it will fall off if you don't.
You say that the sky is green, but it isn't.

Also, it sounds just fine if you remove the contraction:

That's what it is.

So what's up with this construction? Should it be avoided?

Answer

This is covered in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), as it turns out, in Chapter 18, “Inflection Morphology and Related Matters”, section 6, “Phonological reduction and liaison”.

The form ’s, representing either has or is, along with ’m (am), ’re (are), ’ve (have), ’ll (will), and ’d (had or would) are called clitics, and they are a variant of what are known as weak forms of words, which are pronunciations of words like a, have, from, you, etc. (about fifty in total) with a reduced vowel, such as schwa.

In the discussion of weak and strong forms, CGEL points out that there are certain grammatical contexts that require strong forms, and one of those contexts is something called stranding, where the object of a phrase is preposed (moved before the phrase). These are examples they give of stranding requiring strong forms:

a. Who did you give it [to __ ]?
b. We’ll help you if we [can __].
c. They want me to resign, but I don’t intend [to __].

In each of these cases, the word in the brackets has a weak form, but it cannot be used in this context because its object has been stranded. Of course, in written English, there is no difference between weak and strong forms—it’s only a spoken difference—but clitics are distinguished in written English, and the restriction on weak forms also extends to clitics. (There are additional restrictions on clitics, but they are not relevant to this discussion).

So, thus we can say that the second is in the sentence It is what it [is __] cannot be reduced to either a weak form or to a clitic because of the restriction to strong forms in cases of syntactic stranding.

saxon genitive - Use of the possessive apostrophe in a list

If I was to label something

The Poets and Painters' Distillery

do I only apply the possessive apostrophe after 'Painters' as in the text written above, or do I also need to apply one to 'Poets' so that it becomes

The Poets' and Painters' Distillery ?

I'm thinking the former is correct, but cannot be too sure.

grammaticality - "Not having a smartphone ... is more pros than cons." Why is this sentence wrong?

Not having a smartphone in your daily life is more pros than cons.

Should change it to

There are more pros than cons to not having a smartphone in your daily life.

But I don't understand why pros and cons can't be put at the back of a sentence. It doesn't sound wrong to me.

Please help me out, thanks!

grammaticality - Which is correct: "...she knew it was I even before..." or, "...it was me..."?

Is this sentence grammatically correct: "She knew it was I, even from a half block away"?

inflectional morphology - A Inquiry About Infinitive-To and Its Role As A Subordinator or An Auxiliary

If you're interested in grammar, as I am, I am sure you have delved into a thought process about infinitive to, and like me, you have probably questioned what it is, or what it could be defined as. My mind always wants to place it in the Eight Parts of Speech, and I know this is foolish of me to some regard, so I stray from it, but I still wish to designate it under something that can be explain it. So, this is the motivation for this post, this question: What is the infinitive to, and why?

Here are my thoughts: There are three real possibilities, going back through the times. First, we can say that it is part of the verb that comes after it (to go, to run, etc.). This could be supported by the claim that you are not supposed to "split" infinitives ("To boldly go"), but only that.

Secondly, we could consider it a subordinator. I came across this designation most recently in my studies of modern and transformational grammar. As of right now, it is still the one I accept, especially as a result of the trend of designating more phrases as clauses. It works, except it's weird. Do we call this a unique subordinator as a result of how it operates? For example, to-infinitive clauses call for non-finite verb forms, which typically have an implied subject as a part of their clause. For example, "I want to go to the store." In the infinitive clause, "I" is the implied subject, as a understand. So, again, this works. However, things get a little weird when other subordinators come into play. For example, "I'm excited for you to win the competition." Now, if I'm right, those of you will say that "for" is a preposition here, as a result of the new-grammar stuff, but I'm going to count it as a subordinator, as defined by my own beliefs and that of a lot of other grammars. So, how do the clauses work in such a sentence? According to transformational grammar, "for you to win the competition" is defined as an ordinary clause. So, does that mean that it also contains a secondary clause within itself (the infinitive clause part)? If so, how do those two clauses work in conjunction to each other when one is so integrated? "For you to win the competition" looks to just be one clause, but if that's the case, doesn't "to" have to represent something else?

This moves us on to the third way to look at things, which is to consider "to" as auxiliary verb, a defective one at that. There are a lot of things to support this, and it even allows for the split infinitive. Furthermore, it calls for a non-finite verb form to follow, like an auxiliary. But, as I said before, it's defective in the way that is all it can function as.

As I said, I still accept to as a subordinator, but I want to be proven wrong or right. Wrong by showing evidence of it being something else, or right by showing how clauses operate when it seems to be layered up.

grammaticality - Question regarding “Two kinds of”

Which of these two is correct, and why?

• two kinds of televisions


• two kinds of television

negation - Why do positive and negative variants of the same question elicit the same answer?

In common American English usage, these two questions elicit the same response:

1. Do you have a ticket?


2. Don't you have a ticket?

These are the usual answers (I was going to say "possible answers" but I can think of a whole host of situations where one could get other answers, e.g. wake up someone in the middle of the night and ask it, the answer might easily be "I don't know" or "maybe" or "hey, just let me sleep!"... but that's neither here nor there... :-)

• Positive: "Yes" or "Yes, I do".


• Negative "No" or "No, I do not".

But consider this: the questions are logically equivalent to:

1. You have a ticket, right?


2. You do not have a ticket, right?

Here I am not so sure that a "Yes, that's right" response means the same thing to each question. (One could still, however, use "Yes, I do" as @F'x answer in How to answer a negative question without ambiguity? illustrates, to remain valid and unambiguous.)

(As a side note, it is interesting to compare the same question in Chinese, where one literally asks
"Do you have/not have a ticket?" and the common answers are:

• "[I] have"


• "[I] not have"

...which also removes the ambiguity... while at the same time straying from my original question:-)

So why can I rewrite the questions so that they are essentially equivalent yet expect different answers?

articles - Do you use "a" or "an" before acronyms / initialisms?

99% of the time, I'm clear on when I should use "a" versus "an." There's one case, though, where people & references I respect disagree.

Which of the following would you precede with "a" or "an," and why?

• FAQ


• FUBAR


• SCUBA

[Note: I've read the questions "A historic..." or "An historic…"? and Use of "a" versus "an", but the rules given there don't necessarily apply here.]

---

[Edited to add]

Here's a shorter (and hopefully clearer) version of the question… In written English, which is correct (and why): "a FAQ" or "an FAQ"?

Some references with differing opinions:

Answer

It depends on whether the abbreviation is an acronym or an initialism. As "fubar" and "scuba" are usually pronounced as a word (making them acronyms), it would make sense to say "a fubar" and "a scuba diver". "FAQ" is a bit harder, because I have heard people say it like an initialism: "‹f›‹a›‹q›", while others pronounce it as an acronym /fæk/. Therefore, one should write either "a FAQ" or "an FAQ" depending on how that person pronounces it, ie, whether it is an acronym or an initialism.

writing style - Capitalizing Personal Titles as Substitutes for Names

[I am unable to write "Hello, English scholars" as the first line without it deleting it.]

There is obvious contention between style guides on the subject of capitalizing personal titles when they are used in the place of a name, such as "I heard from the Minister of Justice today". The Canadian Style Writing Guide advises this usage., and so does the British MHRA.

Assuming that this convention is being accepted, and such proper titles are capitalized in this way, I am still curious about substituting names with non-formal common titles, such as "The assistant gave it to us today". The position of assistant does not bestow a title, and so it would be lowercase preceding the name; however, in this hypothetical context, it is understood that there is only one assistant. The question is whether to capitalize "assistant" when it is being used as a name substitute, or leave it as lowercase.

For reference, all of these are correct in my setting:

• I bumped into the Professor yesterday. [Referencing a single professor, in substitute of their name.]

• You will be introduced to a professor soon. [Lowercase because of the general reference to "a" professor.]

• Hello, class. My name is Professor James. [Capitalized because it is used as a title with the name.]

• His assistant is named Julie. ["Assistant" is lowercase because of the possessive.]
(EDIT: Bad example. Here's a replacement: "I'll go ask our assistant."

• Hey, Assistant! Come over here [Capitalized because of the direct address.]

I'm hoping we might have some useful discussion on this, pulling reasons for the varying styles from guides. I am constructing a short document for my workplace to serve as a style guide on a few contentious grammar/mechanics points.

Note: Mods, please don't mark this as a duplicate. There is no other substantive post with this specific question. :)

possessive form of nouns ending in "x"

Where a noun ends with the letter x, is it proper for the possessive form of the word to end with 's or simply ' ?

Example 1:

"It is Xerox' position that it owns the patent."

vs.

"It is Xerox's position that it owns the patent."

Example 2:

"The ox's tail was short."

vs.

"The ox' tail was short."

punctuation - Usage of question and exclamation marks with quotation marks in work of fiction

I am writing a novel. I have doubts how should I use question marks and exclamation marks in conjunction with quotation marks.

I have written 5 separate sentences to illustrate this issue:

1. He asked, "Why should I do this?"


2. "Where are we going?"


3. "Let's get out of here!"


4. He yelled, "I want you to do this now!"



5. "I don't want to do this!" I screamed back

In my opinion, all question and exclamation marks should be placed inside quotation marks, because I am quoting words of the character, which include question or exclamation mark. If I put question/exclamation mark after closing quotation mark, it feels weird. So I think that all sentences written above are correct as far as punctuation goes.

However, I have a friend who says this is wrong way. He says that:

• I should put question mark outside of quotation mark ("?) if the whole sentence is a question



• I should put question mark inside of quotation mark (?") if the question is only part of the sentence

So with my friend's rules, those sentences would read as follows:

1. He asked, "Why should I do this?"


2. "Where are we going"?


3. "Let's get out of here"!



4. He yelled, "I want you to do this now!"


5. "I don't want to do this!" I screamed back

This seems wrong for me. This friend mentioned that this is correct way according to MLA style. He referenced MLA 3.2.11. as specific example. (I think he meant guideline number. When I searched for it online, I came to this document which has following guideline heading: "3.2.11. Periods, Question Marks, and Exclamation Points".) However, I see 2 issues with that:

1. As far as I know MLA guidelines only concern writing research papers, not fiction works like novels


2. Examples in 3.2.11. do not suggest, in my opinion, that his way of writing those sentences is correct, even if I wanted to apply MLA style to my novel

So my question is: which way of writing those sentences is correct way? If none is correct, what is correct way? And is there any credible source that confirms one of those versions is correct?

Side question: Should MLA style be used for works of fiction or only research/scientific papers?

Answer

Since you are writing dialog and not quoting, the rule is simple:

Make it a complete sentence.

If your punctuation in dialog is part of the sentence, therefore it goes inside the quotes.

He asked, "Why should I do this?"
"Where are we going?"
"Let's get out of here!"
He yelled, "I want you to do this now!"
"I don't want to do this," I screamed back. Note the difference here.

Now, if you're characters are quoting other characters, that's when you do it differently:

He asked, "Did she say, 'I need to know' or 'I want to know'?"

As a side note, I've never ever heard of anyone using MLA to write a work of fiction. And novelists often break the rules for narrative purposes.

vocabulary - Where do you come in your family?

I am looking for some common questions used to ask about a person's birth order in their family (to ask if he/she is first, second, third, etc. child).
Do the following questions sound natural?
Where do you come in your family?
How-manyth child are you in your family?

Are there any other alternatives?

What is the verbless clause?

I want to give some examples of a special type of clause.

1) Too tall to enter the room, he remained standing at the door.

2) Whether successful or unsuccessful, he always puts his best efforts in his work.

3) To nervous to move, she stood on the floor, trembling.

4) Laughed at, they lose heart.

5) He declares the meeting open.

This are the some examples of verbless clause. I want to know more about verbless clause. I searched in net a lot, but unfortunately what I found were not sufficient. Those were not enriched with proper description. I want to know the ways used to express verbless clauses into other way. I want to learn how these clauses are being formed. Please mention some useful links/PDF files that are related to this topic and able to fulfill my demand.

grammatical number - Apostrophes and s’s

I always forget the rule about if something is possessive put 's at the end, for example "the sailor's hat". I know some people say to remember because it has a different meaning if it's plural (e.g. "the sailors hat" would mean there's multiple sailors owning the hat) but it also doesn't make sense if 's is expanded to it is (e.g. "the sailor is hat"). Does anyone have any advice on how to remember this?

I had to look it up and found this article which claims that if something has an s at the end already it is preferable to add 's (see note on rule 2). I was taught not to. Is it better to add a second s? For example Chris's golf clubs vs Chris' golf clubs.

Answer

I’m sure this is a duplicate question, but here’s something I wrote for a friend. If your noun is singular and ends in s then whether you add another s after the apostrophe is a matter of style, not grammar.

The London Underground has a station called St. James’s Park (after the Royal Park of that name). There is a stadium in Newcastle called St. James’ Park, which is pronounced like the Underground station.

---

Apostrophes and how not to be confused

Apostrophes are easy. Here’s a short summary which your teachers could have used. There isn’t even a test at the end. Note: I’m criticising the education you were given, not you for having suffered that.

Simple plurals never have an apostrophe, even if you’re a greengrocer.

• My lists are scattered all over the house.


• All the tomatoes are green.


• I was born in the 1960s.


• All MPs are [fill in something here].

Possessives do have an apostrophe. Write the noun, with its plural “s” if it’s a plural and then put an apostrophe, and add an s if necessary. You don’t need another s if you’ve already got one.

• The car’s owner ran off. (One car, then the apostrophe, then an s because you don’t already have one)


• My MP’s expenses are entirely above board. (One MP, apostrophe and s)


• The cats’ owner fed them. (More than one cat, then the apostrophe and you don’t need another s)


• The soldiers’ CO was awarded the DSM. (More than one soldier, apostrophe and no additional s)


• James’ book was blue. (One James, then the apostrophe, and you don’t need another s although you could add one because James is singular)


• The sheep’s wool was white. (One sheep, apostrophe, s)


• The sheep’s wool was white. (Two sheep, apostrophe, s)

Possessive pronouns don’t have an apostrophe.

• Their car


• The car is theirs.


• Its wheels are chrome.


• Your car is black.



• The black car is yours.

“It’s” only has an apostrophe when it’s a contraction of “it is”, and the apostrophe indicates a letter missed out, in much the same way as “don’t” for “do not” or “you’re” for “you are”. When it is a pronoun you want to make a possessive pronoun, remember the rule that possessive pronouns don’t have an apostrophe.

• It’s a car. Its wheels are chrome.

Simples :-)

One reason given for why possessives have an apostrophe is that they are actually contractions similar to “don’t/do not”. For example, there is a 16th century dance called “Lord Salsbury his Pavan”, which became shortened to “Lord Salsbury’s Pavan” because it’s easier to say. That’s why possessive pronouns like “theirs” and “your” have no apostrophe: they’re not contractions. This may or may not be correct — evolution of language is more complex than that — but it’s a handy way of remembering.

grammar - conditionals: what's the difference between these two sentences?

There is a sentence in a paragraph from the novel 'And the Mountains Echoed':

"But these were gestures, Abdullah knew, acts of duty, drawn from a
well far shallower than the one she reached into for Iqbal. If one
night their house caught fire, Abdullah knew without doubt which
child Parwana would grab rushing out."

The scenario is described in the past tense.

But I learned that for conditional unreal things happened in the past, we can use the past perfect tense. So can I change the sentence to:

If one night their house had caught fire, Abdullah knew without
doubt which child Parwana would have grabbed rushing out.

1. Can I assume that the first sentence using the simple past tense refers to a conditional situation in the past (we don't know it happened or not) yet the second sentence using the past perfect tense refers to not only a conditional situation in the past but also something that didn't happen in the past?




2. If the paragraph used the present tense like:
   
   But these are gestures, Abdullah knows, acts of duty, draw from a well far shallower than the one she reaches into for Iqbal. If one night their house * caught * fire, Abdullah knows without doubt which child Parwana would grab rushing out.

In this case, could I assume that the "If sentence" describes something that happens now even if the simple past tense is used?

Perfect vs Perfect Continuous

I saw this sentence the other day and it struck me as awkward. I went online and saw many instances of the present perfect being used in such manner.

She has worked here since 1995

Shouldn't this be written in the perfect progressive?

She has been working here since 1995

The Ngram shows the perfect taking over. It feels wrong. Am I justified here?

^{Ngram Google Books Viewer}

I don't mean to sound defiant but the "HAS WORKED" gives me the impression that she has just been fired. I might be being over analytical and it seems that "the present perfect has become the standard" and that "the present perfect has been used / has been being used" since 1980. Wouldn't the exception be "subject + have/has + been + adjective/noun" as in "It has been the standard since".

I am adding some more sentences to the question and appreciate the help.

He has travelled to São Paulo since the beginning of the year.

He has been traveling to São Paulo since the beginning of the year.

I see it as a convention for the misuse of the verb tense.

OXFORD
the form of a verb that expresses an action done in a time period up to the present, formed in English with the present tense of have and the past participle of the verb, as in I have eaten.

CAMBRIDGE
the form of the verb used for actions or events that have been completed or that have happened in a period of time up to now:
The sentences 'She has broken her leg' and 'I have never been to Australia' are all in the present perfect.

BRITISH COUNCIL
We use the present perfect tense:
for something that started in the past and continues in the present:

WIKIPEDIA
The present perfect is a grammatical combination of the present tense and the perfect aspect, used to express a past event that has present consequences. The term is used particularly in the context of English grammar, where it refers to forms such as "I have left" and "Sue has died". These forms are present because they use the present tense of the auxiliary verb have, and perfect because they use that auxiliary in combination with the past participle of the main verb. ...
... English also has a present perfect progressive (or present perfect continuous) form, which combines present tense with both perfect aspect and progressive (continuous) aspect: "I have been eating". In this case the action is not necessarily complete; the same is true of certain uses of the basic present perfect when the verb expresses a state or a habitual action: "I have lived here for five years."

I wanna say that I stand corrected. And the evidence is here.
I will be honest with you and say that I personally disagree. Especially with "all my life" and "since"

I guess it is because I learned that the action does not continue but has implications in the present.
There is absolutely no need for the present continuous if I can manipulate the meaning of the perfect with the predicate.

Answer

Both expressions are correct and the difference in meaning between them is minimal. They both inform us when the action, to work, began and that it is ongoing.

Work is a verb which we can use in the present and present progressive tense.

• "She works in this company" describes a habitual action.
  


• "She is working at the moment" describes an action in progress but its duration is temporary.

Thus the present perfect progressive can be seen as related to the progressive and present aspect.

She has been working here since 1995

This sentence is acceptable but because the duration of the action is quite extensive, (18 years), people tend not to consider an action lasting that long to be temporary in nature.

Moreover, this response could answer one of many questions but without any specific context I can only make suppositions. My view is that the simplest, most logical and common question asked would be:

How long has she worked there?

It is important to note that the action is NOT finished. The person is still working for the same company. If not, the question ought to be like this:

• How long did she work there?

the answer would look something like this,

• She worked here for 18 years.

The action is completed and we naturally give the total number of years she worked for the company i.e. "for 18 years".

Someone who still works in the same company for 18 years (and therefore, has NOT been fired from her job) is likely to continue working there tomorrow, next month, and the year after etc. The implication being she has a steady, regular job. Therefore, the longer and the more permanent the action is, the more speakers will prefer the present perfect usage.

She has worked here since 1995.

---

Addendum

In the case of someone travelling to a place, normally we imagine someone either taking a plane, or hiking to a far-away land. In the OP's example São Paulo is the man's destination.

He has been traveling to São Paulo since the beginning of the year.

The "to" implies that the man has not yet arrived at São Paulo. The act of travelling to a place is still ongoing. Perhaps he is hitch-hiking and prefers to stop at different locations along the way. Although grammatically correct, it sounds a bit odd; normally speakers would say of people traveling in their sabbatical leave:

He's still traveling, and visiting different places before he arrives

at São Paulo.

The use of "ing" adds an element of dynamism to the sentence and implies the situation is evolving and progressing. If the intention was to say that the man is already in São Paulo, then both perfect aspects are acceptable and correct.

He has been traveling in/around São Paulo since the beginning of the year

and

He has traveled in/around São Paulo since the beginning of the year.

In this case I would prefer the ing structure (present progressive) because presumably the man at some point will return home, wherever that may be. Hence, the focus is on the temporality and dynamic aspect of the action.

---

A is for aspect http://youtu.be/NfyZOr4Gg64?t=1m16s

Born in New Zealand, Scott Thornbury, is a well-known academic in the field of English language teaching and author of many books on teacher training. Thornbury discusses the uses of present aspect in this video.

grammar - Noun clause structure "student enrolling"

There was not as many students enrolled in A as in B

Is this sentence correct?

Why it is "students enrolled", not "students enrolling"?

Indirect object? Direct object? In active voice? In passive voice?

The following sentence has an active voice verb and an indirect object (IO) me and a direct object (DO) book:

"Jeff gave me a book."

As I understand, a passive voice verb comprises (1) a form of the verb be and (2) the past participle of the main verb. That being the case,...

When the above sentence is changed to the passive voice--"A book was given me by Jeff." (where book, previously the DO, now becomes the subject and Jeff, previously the subject, now becomes the object of the preposition by)--does me still function as the IO even though there is no DO present?

Similarly, when written like this--"I was given a book by Jeff."--is book a DO even though the verb is in the passive voice?

Please explain why or why not. Thank you.

Direct to Reported Speech - a scenario of ambiguity

The question is:

How would one convert

He said, "My name is Harry"

to reported speech?

Rules do say that the converted sentence reads

He said that his name was Harry.

The factor causing discomfort is the 'was' part of it. So it means that his name 'was' Harry and nothing is said about what his name 'is'! So there is a radical change in meaning!! In that light, the converted sentence should read

He said that his name is Harry.

Isn't the latter the correct conversion?

Answer

Having looked at the site that @bigbadonk420 referred to in his answer, I disagree with that answer and interpretation of the quoted site. On my reading of that site, the two options for reported speech are (using the OP's quotation):

with backshift: He said that his name was Harry
without backshift: He says that his name is Harry

There is no suggestion that you can mix the two, which suggests that

He said that his name is Harry

is incorrect, or at least not normal usage, as also confirmed by the first Ngram mentioned by @PeterShore

grammar - How to reduce an adverbial clause

I have a sentence:

Ms.Cho relayed her concerns about the company's financial situation while she was having a meeting with the manager.

My friend reduced it:

Ms.Cho relayed her concerns about the company's financial situation having a meeting with the manager.

I think the word while cannot be omitted in this sentence, but he doesn't agree with me.
Is he right?
Please help me! thanks

pronouns - Choosing between 'I' and 'me'

Which one is grammatically correct: It was me who called you., or It was I who called you.? Similarly, which one is correct among these two: He and me were going to the forest, or He and I were going to the forest?

Answer

It was me who called you and It was I who called you are both grammatical in Standard English, with the second being more formal than the first.

He and I were going to the forest is also grammatical in Standard English. He and me were going to the forest is not, but it may be found in other dialects.

"Imperative to" + "-ing" suffix

Is it correct to write: "An agreement is imperative to tackling the problem"?

Or should it be: "An agreement is imperative to tackle the problem"?

Thanks

Answer

The following are my recommendations:

"An agreement is imperative for tackling the problem"

"An agreement is imperative (in order) to tackle the problem"

meaning - How to say the opposite of "It can be a pain"

This maybe a bit of Chinglish thinking.

For example you can say

It can be a [noun]

meaning

It's possible that this is a [noun]

Using pain as an example:

If you want to say the opposite, not sure should you say

It can not (to?) be a pain

since that feels like "It's not a pain" but not what I want to express:

It's possible that it is not a pain

I think this might be a better example:

I want to express the opposite of

You can choose this one

Which is:

You can choose not to choose this one

But I am after a shorter version of it.

I feel one way would be to say

You cannnnnnn, short pause, not to choose this one

Is this usage correct - quite literally at the eleventh hour?

I'm trying to write a sentence which is supposed to mean that something is being done at the last moment.

Sentence - The endleofan gathering was called, when something threatened the very existence of humanity, as an act of last resort,
quite literally at the eleventh hour.

While reading this, it appears that I'm saying that the meeting is occuring at 11 O'clock and not what I intend it to say - "at the last moment when no other options are left".

Is there any way I can make the sentence more clearer, to convey the intended meaning? Feel free to modify the sentence.

Using the definite article with acronyms and initialisms

I'm wondering when to use or not to use the definite article, when using acronyms or initialisms in a sentence. Is there a rule for this, or does it depend on the context?

For example, let's look at some example sentences
DDR = detailed design review.

NASA is planning to launch the final shuttle soon (no article)
The FBI shut down this website (article)
ESA is a full partner in the ISS (no article, article)
The project was cancelled at the DDR. (article)

What confuses me is that if NASA or ESA would be written in full, the article would be necessary.

Answer

Generally the article is not used with acronyms (initials that can be pronounced as a word), whereas it is with initialisms (initials where the letters themselves are pronounced). I would actually use the article with 'ESA' in the examples you gave, and so 'NASA' (acronym) doesn't get an article, but 'FBI', 'ESA', and 'DDR' (initialisms) do.

That said, there are initialisms where one wouldn't use the article either; you can usually work it out by expanding it and seeing whether you would use the article with the full sentence. Is the initialism talking about a specific thing (use the article), or a notion in general (don't use the article)? eg.

• The CPU is overheating (The Central Processing Unit is overheating).


• DRM is bad for consumers (Digital Rights Management is bad for consumers).

Acronyms don't tend to ever get an article, however (at least I can't think of any) because once they become pronounced as a name, they are treated like proper nouns, which don't receive an article (James did this; Microsoft did that; France did this; NASA did that).

etymology - How the English verb conjugation does not have different suffixes?

In all the languages I know about, including German - the cousin of the English language, all the verbs use different suffixes for conjugation. English uses a far simpler conjugation method (only add s for he/she) and has some irregular verbs.

My questions are:

Are there other languages with similar grammar for conjugation?

How this special feature of the language came to light? Is there info about the time/way/reasons it was formed?

meaning - "I went to the hotel you were staying at" vs. "you stayed at"

Is there a difference in meaning between these two sentences?

1. I went to the hotel you were staying at when you were in New York.



2. I went to the hotel you stayed  at when you were in New York.

Perhaps one reading is that they went to the hotel where their friend was (still) staying, but another is that they went to the hotel where their friend had (previously) stayed. The use of the past tense were staying at when you were in New York would seem to mean that the friend was no longer there.

With I went, which represents a definite action at a point in time, does it matter if the stay at the hotel is described with the past continuous you were staying or not? Is one more correct than the other?

Answer

Both are acceptable grammatically.

In the first, the object clause is written in the imperfect tense (past continuous). In the second it is written in the past tense.

Neither example can possibly imply that the person described as 'you' is still staying at the hotel. But the first could well imply that 'you' were still staying at the hotel at the time 'I went'. But with the 'when you were in New York' clause included, it does not seem possible that I could have gone to the hotel when you were still there.

It does not matter that the principal verb in the sentence (went) is in the past. The action of 'I went' has nothing whatever to do with the tense applicable in the object clause. One could equally well say:
'I went to the hotel where you will be staying when you are in New York', or 'I will go to the hotel where you were staying...'

I think both sentences mean almost exactly the same thing. The second is perhaps more applicable to a very short stay, where there were also stays at other hotels.

The French would always use the imperfect (imparfait) for this type of thing, but in English you have the choice.

grammar - Which part of speech should I use for a "from-to" construction?

Ignoring that the "from-to" construction in this sentence doesn't describe a true range, can someone explain whether I'd use present-tense verbs or gerunds, and why? I know what sounds right, but I can't put my finger on the rule.

The apps help you do everything from creating projects to transforming presentations.

or
The apps help you do everything from create projects to transform presentations.

Answer

The first sentence is grammatically correct because there are two prepositions (from and to) which can be used only with nouns and pronouns (the latter ones can be sometimes omitted but easily reconstructed from the context).

'Ing-form' in your case is termed the 'Gerund' or 'Verbal Noun' and is often used with the preposition.

As a part of speech
the Gerund belongs to Infinite (i.e. Impersonal) Verb Forms like the Infinitive and Participles.

possessives - "Your and my [something]" vs "Yours and my..."

Prompted by comments against this question, I'd like some help figuring out why some people (myself included) prefer yours over the apparently more logical/grammatically consistent your in this kind of sentence...

Yours and my native languages have co-existed for hundreds of years.

Google Books has Your:Yours ratios for languages:2:2, parents:9:10, houses:4:2. That's a very small sample size, admittedly - but even without anything like that, I know my own usage. So I'm not really interested in being told which is correct, except insofar as this has a bearing on my question itself - why do some people, (including some "careful speakers", which I don't necessarily claim to be) use the apparently incorrect form?

EDIT: It may be important to note (as @Gnawme guessed without it being explicitly stated in the first version of this question) that I personally would use singular language in the above. It was just too difficult to search Google Books for that particular distinction, so I said nothing about it.

Answer

The OED’s definition 3 of yours is ‘Used instead of your before another possessive, etc. qualifying the same noun. Now rare or obsolete.’ An illustrative citation is Joseph Addison’s from 1710, ‘I suppose you know, that I obeyed your's, and the Bishop of Clogher's commands.’ (Note the apostrophe, incidentally.)

As you have said, the written record tells us nothing about what occurs in speech. 'Yours and my . . .’ may occur as frequently as you suggest, but I think we're at least as likely to hear
‘my . . . and yours’ or ‘your . . . and mine’ or ‘our . . .' Or 'your and my . . .' or 'my or your . . .'

nouns - Can a preposition be before an adverb?

Ok, this site says

The preposition is almost always before the noun or pronoun and that
is why it is called a preposition

Now, this oxford dictionary says

here (adverb)

used after a verb or preposition to mean ‘in, at or to this
position or place’

I live here.

Put the box here.

Let's get out of here.

Come over here.

So, the dictionary says "here is an adverb & we can put a preposition before here"

Eg: I am in here

I would say the dictionary is not correct, "here" in "in here" is a pronoun or noun. But I am not sure.

The same thing happened to "there".

Eg: he is in there; he is up there

Can a preposition be before an adverb?

grammaticality - Why do I instinctively want to use the present tense with a conditional?

My boss is not a native speaker of English, so he often asks me to correct his writing. The problem is, he wants me to explain why I make changes, and doesn't accept "it just sounds better that way" as an answer. Usually, I come up with some likely-sounding nonsense reasoning, but this afternoon, I just couldn't articulate why I corrected his

We might be able to figure this out from the schedules you will send us.

to

We might be able to figure this out from the schedules you send us.

I know that the version with "will" is perfectly understandable, and I don't think it is ungrammatical per se; but it just sounds better without "will", and I'd like to know why.

Edit: the current highest-voted answer answers the question "why did my boss write it with a future tense". I don't care about that. That's not my question. I want to know why the present tense sounds more natural. Is there a "rule" about this? If it's not the subjunctive (since people keep downvoting the answer which says it is), what is it?

Answer

In your sentence as amended, send is without a doubt in the present indicative tense (and it is not a conditional sentence). In English, however, the present tense does rather more than express what’s going on in the present. To talk about something that’s going on right now, we generally use be + the –ing form of the verb which describes the action or state. We use the present tense, on the other hand, to refer to:

(1) a fact that is always or generally true (Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade);

(2) a repeated action (I go to church every Sunday);

(3) an event that occurs at the moment we are speaking (I promise); and

(4) fixed or planned events taking place in the future (My flight leaves early tomorrow morning).

In your example, send could express either (2) or (4), depending on the context. In either case, it is understood that the schedules are or will be sent according to a pre-arranged plan. If that were not to be the case, you would have to say We might be able to figure this out from the schedules you’ll be sending us. Perhaps that was what your boss meant. If so, he was half right, but we express the future by using will + the plain form of the verb only when we are making a prediction or when we are expressing a decision, often made at the time of speaking, about the immediate future. Neither of those cases seems likely given the first half of the sentence.

british english - Pronunciation of "lorry", "worry" and "sorry"

I have always pronounced lorry as "lur-ee" (as if to rhyme with worry), for as long as I can remember. Everyone else I know pronounces it as "lor-ee" (as if to rhyme with sorry).

Which one is correct, and why would the pronunciation of the vowel differ between sorry and worry when their spellings differ only in a consonant?

Answer

I don't do "correct", but I've never heard anybody pronounce "lorry" to rhyme with "worry".

I believe that the difference is because of the lip-rounding of the /w/. Many words starting with "w", "wh", "sw", "qu" or "squ" have different vowel sounds from similar words with a different consonant.

Eg

• watch, what vs patch, thatch, pat, that


• war, warm, swarm vs far, farm


• worth, worm vs forth, form

(There are exceptions to this rule).

pronunciation - Why the extra syllable in words like these ending in -r and -l?

First-off, I'm not a native speaker.

I've noticed that a lot of words ending in -r and -l are pronounced as if they had an extra syllable. Especially when they have a -ee- or -ai- sound.

Consider

• reap



• real


• rear

The last two are pronounced ree-ul and ree-ur. Reap is a one-syllable word. Others aren't.

More examples: beep/beer, cake/care, laid/lair

Also, words with most other sounds preceding -r don't seem to follow the pattern. Car is not caa-ur. More is not mo-ur.

So my questions are:

1. Is the extra syllable just something I'm hearing, or is it actually pronounced?


2. If it is pronounced, why do only -r and -l follow the rule?

Answer

Yes, the extra syllable is there. Like most such changes, it happens in order to simplify the pronunciation. The English long/tense vowels are diphthongs -- they end in a glide -y or -w, so when a diphthong is followed by a -l or -r in the same syllable, you're left with syllables ending in -yl, -wl, -yr, -wr, which are hard to pronounce.

In my speech, which is a Midwestern variety of Standard English, what happens to simplify the pronunciation is that either the -l or -r becomes syllabic, so you get an extra syllable (as you've observed), or else the glide -y or -w drops out, and you're left with a simple vowel preceding the -l or -r instead of a diphthong.

Personally, I make the -l syllabic in your example "real": [ɹɪjl] ==> [ɹɪj.l̩], but in "rear", instead the glide is dropped: [ɹɪjɹ] ==> [ɹɪɹ]. However, I believe syllabifying the -r and leaving the glide is also common.

I also drop the glide, making the preceding vowel a monophthong in your examples "beer", "care", and "lair", but again, I think the two syllable pronunciations are common.

verbs - Is it correct to say "I think sth important"?

I know that I can say:

I consider this idea important.
I deem this film stupid.
I regard my health as important.

But can I say:

I think money/health/love/etc. important.

Or does it have to be:

I think money/health/love/etc. is important.

Or are both okay?

Answer

Here are a few specialized constructions of this sort:

We do not think it necessary to go. ("think it A" where "A" is an adjective)

Some people do not think it important to be thrifty. (same as above)

She did not wish him to think it possible. (same as above)

I think it fair that ... (same as above)

I thought it over carefully. ("think it over" is a fixed phrasal verb)

It seems that for "think", one cannot use it with two 'objects' as in "think X Y", and only in the idiomatic construction "think it X" where "it" can only refer to a concept or idea, not physical things.

dialects - "Bring" vs. "take" in American English

English (other than American English) has a clear differentiation between the two words. Both are about translocating something. In "bring" the something of somebody is moved to where the speaker is currently situated. "Take" is used to translocate something or somebody to a place that the speaker is not currently at.

You cannot “bring” your books to school if you are currently at home. You can only take them to school. Most of the time one can get the meaning from the context of the sentence but it can get very confusing when the other party is on the telephone and you do not know their location.

Why does American English not differentiate and when did it lose the differentiation?

Answer

Take and bring in the sense of translocation do not have an exact, complementary usage bound by the location of the speaker as proposed by the question. Oxford Dictionaries defines this sense of bring simply as “Take or go with (someone or something) to a place”. Merriam-Webster defines the location binding of take as “to another place”, whereas bring is bound “toward the place from which the action is being regarded”.

The location binding of bring is not necessarily defined relative to where the speaker is currently situated. For example, in a telephone conversation, since the speaker and the hearer are not in the same location, to bring could be to the speaker's location, or it could be to another location contextually relevant to the conversation—“the place from which the action is being regarded”. You can say “bring your books to school” whether you are at school or at home, because you don’t have to actually be at school to regard an action from there. In context, you are simply imagining the action happening from the perspective of school.

Others agree. John Lawler parallels come and go with bring and take:

To summarize, both come and go mean to move, but their use is determined by their deixis, i.e, the identity and location of the speaker and addressee...

For instance, in a situation where someone has knocked on your door and you shout reassurance to them to let them know you're on your way to the door from somewhere else,... what you say is I'm coming, because you're moving toward the place your addressee is at; in English you can take either the speaker's or the addressee's position as the terminus ad quem for come, as well as the terminus a quo for go.

It's easy to see that bring and take have these stigmata, too.

I'll bring it right back.   (to you)  
I'll take it away.          (from you)  
Take this away.             (from me)  

Bring the car.              (to me)  

With this kind of fluidity..., there are lots of choices available for bring and take. If you are speaking to someone outside your office community, who will not be accompanying you tomorrow, you would be more likely to say I'll take the sausage to work tomorrow; but you could still say I'll bring it to work, because, after all, you'll be there, and it'll count as moving towards you, the speaker.

The Grammarist notes about hypothetical situations

When one is using the future tense, either of these verbs are correct because nothing has actually happened yet. Usage is based on which point of view the speaker wants to emphasize, the moving of the object or the removing of it.

meaning - Phrase Question "Be preoccupied with"

One question on meaning of the phrase "be preoccupied with", I am not a native speaker and tried to find out the accurate meaning and nuance on the web search, but could not.
I have seen that a native speaker use this phrase when he excused for a delayed response to a client as in "Sorry for my late feedback, we are preoccupied with many things in the past few weeks". I understand that this means "I have been busy for many things to do". But there is no any results relating to what I expected. Would my understanding on the meaning be correct?