How to use articles? When to use "a", "an", "the"?

Can anyone explain to me when and where to use articles? I always get confused with the usage of a, an, the.

Is "Am" instead of "I am" proper slang?

I tried to coax google into finding results for "am not preceded by I", but failed.

Now my question is: Is saying "Am" instead of "I am" valid slang?

Examples:

• Am a God. Obey.


• Am driving. Can't talk now.


• Am a cat. Food plz.

By "grammatically correct slang", I mean if it's okay to use such sentences when talking, writing signs, registering domains, et al, when the intention is to not be serious, i.e. will native speakers understand?

verb agreement - Use of "is" and "are" when referring to a singular noun or changing the grammatical number

I have seen the question Proper usage of “is” and “are” when specifying multiple nouns, but it is a different questions than what I am asking.

I have two examples (both from songs) of "is" being used that doesn't quite sound right when sung out loud. I would like to know if these songs are correct in their grammar, or not.

The first is the song "Are You Not Entertained?" by A Broken Silence. The line is question is:

Are you not entertained? Of course you is.

And the second song is "I Am Not Done" by Rob Bailey and the Hustle Standard. The line in question is:

This is not the pain talking, this is called facts.

I know these are specific examples, but they are pretty unique and I couldn't figure this out on my own.

Thanks for the help.

grammar - Is this sentence dangled or not?

When traveling by sea, knowing your exact location can mean the difference between life and death.

This is one of the sentences written in Korean high school English textbook. I spent some years in U.S. and had an opportunity to learn English grammar in a few college classes.

What I learned during class was that when we make a participle construction, the subjects of the main clause and the subordinate clause should be the same. If not, it is dangled, therefore we can't use it.

Korean English text books are usually well written, yet it seems to me, in the sentence above, the subjects of each clause are not exactly the same. I want to hear from someone who knows about the grammar rules associated with the participle construction.

grammaticality - "You're missing the posts only available to members" — should there be a "the" in there?

Consider this sentence:

You're missing posts only available to members.

I think it should actually be

You're missing the posts available only to members

or at least

You're missing the posts only available to members

The second sounds the best to me, but friends say the first one sounds best.
This is going to go on a website for the people to see. I do not know how to justify it, but I think there should be a the before posts. Does taking it out make it okay? If so, can someone please explain?

Answer

Although the modifier "only available to members" makes "posts" more specific and thus would seem to require the definite Article, it still hasn't made the Noun completely specific.

You can say "posts" is halfway from being general to being specific.

This is often confusing. Consider this other "middle" example. This is correct:

Ex. I like people who have initiative. (not all people, but still
general)

In your example, not adding an article is suitable because the Noun "posts" is specific but still general.

The alternative you're thinking of should be something like:

Ex. I want to read THE posts that WERE only available to members.

grammaticality - How do I refer to joint possession in the second person plural for "you and X’s arrival"?

I’m about to send out an email and I’m unsure whether the sentence is correct. A friend told me the word arrival needs to be possessed by a person for the sentence to be grammatically correct. The sentence I intended to use is as follows:

I am looking forward to you and the rest of the parties' arrival.

Is this correct, or is there a better wording of this sentence?

grammaticality - When tagging a picture, which statement is correct if it includes yourself and a friend? I was taught friend's name then mine

Duplicate of:
John, Valencia, and I (or me)?
“My friends and I” vs. “My friends and me” vs. “Me and my friends”
Is naming the first person last proper grammar or just proper manners?
And others.

Which statement is correct when tagging a picture of yourself and a friend? "Barbara and I" or "Me and Barbara?

american english - "If I go.." vs. "If I will go.." referring to the future

Which one is correct?

option 1: If I go there, I can meet her

or

option 2: If I will go there, I can meet her

I clearly remember, was told by English (not American) teacher that "If", "When" cannot be used with "will" in the above context. Though, I have seen few people in US saying like option 2

I do know that "If I would go there, I could meet her" is correct (or at least, think so).

Answer

This topic seems to come up with some frequency here.
Your teacher was overgeneralizing, I'm afraid.

It's not wrong to use will this way; it's just that it may not mean what you want it to mean. In the case you mention, it means that you are commenting on the possibility that you may be willing to go there, which sounds at least odd, and seems very unlikely to be what you intend to mean.

Briefly, will is not "the future tense"; will is a modal auxiliary verb. That means it's got complicated meanings.

All modal auxiliaries like will or must have two kinds of meaning -- one logical (called "epistemic") meaning having to do with truth and probability, like

• He must be the person they mentioned.

and one social (called "deontic") meaning having to do with obligation and permission, like

• He must be home by midnight.

The reason why will is often called 'the future tense' in English classes is because it normally only uses its epistemic sense of "sposta", and that's close enough. But will also has a deontic sense of "wanna" that shows up in phrases like be willing to, will power, with a will, with the best will in the world, leave a will, etc.

What happens when you use will in a hypothetical clause is that such clauses only allow the deontic sense of will, so you wind up talking not about what's sposta happen, but about who wants to do what.

So it's perfectly OK to say

• If you will hand in your homework, I will grade it.


• Whether he will attend the concert is unknown.


• I'm not certain when he will sign it.

if you mean

• If you are willing to hand in your homework, I am willing to grade it.


• Whether he is willing to attend the concert is unknown.


• I'm not certain when he's going to get around to signing it.

But only for the deontic wanna sense, not for the usual epistemic sposta sense, of will.

Edit: I forgot to point out that this is a peculiarity of the interaction of two modals - the hypothetical clause construction and the modal auxiliary will. This is like having two strong magnetic fields together; their interactions can become, um, peculiar.

In this case some logicians might say that the deontic interpretation of will in hypotheticals is forced pragmatically because the sposta happen epistemic sense is already covered by the hypothetical construction, so using it again must mean the deontic sense. Maybe so; I'm not sure, personally.

british english - 'to'-infinitive without the verb

I seem to recall reading somewhere that using a to-infinitive with the actual verb omitted (because it's clear from context) — as in

He asked me to go, but I don't want to. (1)

— is fine in American but not in British English. Brits, or so the story went, append do:

He asked me to go, but I don't want to do. (2)

I know that the above is true about American English, my native dialect: we can use (1). My question concerns British English.

Googling finds that the above (that (1) is wrong in British English) is not correct in such generality. For example, "can't be arsed to if" has fifteen-odd results, while "can't be arsed to do if" has but one, and it's not in the form of (2).

So...

Did I imagine the rule I stated above? Or is it restricted to particular sentences (or verbs or something)? Or is it correct as stated but outdated? Or what?

Answer

I find that this different in use of "do" between British and US English is more common with auxiliary verbs, not infinitives: "I didn't take the garbage out, but I (should have/should have done)." Then again, I'm not British. I may have interpreted this incorrectly.

it's/his/her vs. their in singular

An expression below embarrasses me. Why not "it's" but "their" litter?

a cat can use their litter box.

in the context we are talking about a few cats, but in this, specific, example we speak about one cat.

grammar - In this sentence "Me and you" or "You and I " is correct?

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?

articles - Difference between "a" and "the"?

I have a question regarding the usage of articles.
What is the difference between "a" and "the"?

Why do I need to use "a" in "that was a winter I"ll never forget."? Can I use "the" instead?

Also, why do I need to use "the" in "that was the winter we went to Norway"?

Thank you very much!!^^

Answer

The is used to refer to specific or particular nouns; a is used to modify non-specific or non-particular nouns.

the = definite article

a = indefinite article

For example, if I say, "Let's read the book," I mean a specific book. If I say, "Let's read a book," I mean any book rather than a specific book.

Another example, "I went to a forest. *The forest was big.". In this first forest was indefinite one, and after I said the first sentence it became definite one and used the instead.

And in your example, winter is indefinite on "that was a winter I"ll never forget." and become definite and used the in "that was the winter we went to Norway".

Reference

pronunciation - How to pronounce Abbott?

ABC presenter's pronunciation for his Prime Minister -> Abbott ;
original programme

The presenter, as do other Aussies in the programme, pronounces Abbott as /ˈɛb ət/, while dictionary.com has /ˈæb ət/. Is the dictionary wrong?

When they in Australia call their Prime Minister /ˈɛb ət/, others do /ˈæb ət/?

Or /æ/, dragged by /b/, has approached to /ɛ/?

(When people say /ɛ/ instead of /æ/ it's called broad accent in wikipedia.org, I don't believe they are using it.)

Answer

Pronunciation differs between dialects. Dictionary.com's pronunciation is most likely a General American dialect where "Abbott" would indeed be pronounced as in their example.

With regards to names, pronunciation is dictated by parents for given names and culture/tradition for surnames. If Australians typically pronounce Abbott as /ˈɛb ət/ then it would follow that their Prime Minister's name should be pronounced /ˈɛb ət/. In the end, the final authority would be Abbott himself.

syntactic analysis - Using "the book" and the title of the book in a sentence

Which one of these is the right way to include both "the book" and the title of the book in a sentence:

• The book, Wuthering Heights, is worth a read.


• The book Wuthering Heights is worth a read.

If none of them are right, what is the right way to write such a sentence. I am trying to express the idea that there is a book named Wuthering Heights and that book is worth a read.

In general, I have this problem for other types of sentences too, e.g., title of songs, movie names, etc. For example, "The song, When you say nothing at all, was written by Paul Overstreet and Don Schlitz." Is there a grammar terminology or grammar concept that deals with introducing the type of object (book, song, etc.) and the title of the object, that I can look up to learn more about construction such sentences?

word choice - Is it supposed to be a HTML or an HTML

I've seen many people who say:

This is a HTML page.

Yet I've also seen many people who say:

This is an HTML page.

Are both usages equally correct?

Or, which is the grammatically correct one?

---

Possible Duplicates:
“A” vs. “An” in writing vs. pronunciation
Do you use “a” or “an” before acronyms?

Answer

It depends on whether you say aitch or haitch.

• An aitch tee em el page


• A haitch tee em el page

grammaticality - Is it "a uniform" or "an uniform"?

On a Physics specification, it says:

6.7 Know how to use two permanent magnets to produce a uniform magnetic field pattern.

Isn't it "produce an uniform magnetic field", or is the existing "produce a uniform magnetic field pattern" correct?

Answer

The word uniform begins with a palatal approximant /j/. The palatal approximant is a consonantal sound, even though the letter itself is a vowel. Since we use the pronunciation of the word following the article to determine whether we use "a" or "an", and because it is pronounced starting with a consonant, we use "a". Thus, the original sentence is correct.

---

Just for the sake of completeness, the letter "u" can also have a vowel sound, such as in the word "umbrella", which begins with an open-mid back unrounded vowel /ʌ/.

grammar - Flipping Sentences and Verb Agreement

Is the following sentence grammatically correct in regards subject-verb agreement?

One of the main facets of the soul is the feelings humans treasure

above all: love and compassion.

The sentence seems to retain its meaning when flipped around, revealing that "the feelings" might be the true subject, and indicating that the verb form "is" could be incorrect. For example:

The feelings humans treasure above all -- love and compassion -- are one of the main facets of the soul.

Answer

Yes. What you are referring to is called subject-complement agreement. When you have a subject and complement that differ in number, the conjugation of the verb is determined by the number of the subject, not the complement.

Example 1:

• One of the things is feelings. ("One" - singular subject; "is" - third-person singular)


• Feelings are one of the things. ("Feelings" - plural subject; "are" - third-person plural)

Example 2:

• The States are the Union.


• The Union is the States.

Example 3:

• John and Jack are the first team to arrive.


• The first team to arrive is John and Jack.

grammar - What's this? What is it? but not What's it? - Why?

Can anyone give a cogent, simply described explanation of why the verb BE in:

• What is it?

... doesn't seem to be able to be contracted with the subject:

• What's it? *

Compare the sentences above with:

• What's this?


• What's that?

These are perfectly fine. In fact, the contractions here should be expected in almost all examples of spoken English.

Bounty edit note: Any answer with any references to authoritative vetted sources will be strongly favoured.

Answer

(1) The word "it" doesn't like to be stressed. (2) Normally, a sentence has its strongest stress on the last thing that can be stressed, which in a simple subject-verb-object sentence will the object, since that is the last thing.

Principles (1) and (2) interact to give the strongest stress on the verb of a sentence, in case the object is "it" -- since the stress can't go on the "it", the last eligible thing for stress is the verb. Compare "I like yoghurt" with "I like it".

(3) Stressed vowels cannot be deleted.

Putting together (1-3), we deduce that the "is" in "What is it?" will be stressed, and consequently cannot be contracted to *"What's it?", because that would require deleting the "i" of "is", which must be stressed because of the following "it".

writing - Is there a correct grammatical way to state computer model number in plural form?

For example if I said -

"I shipped ten Dell 360s this morning".

where Dell 360 is the model number and I don't want people to get confused by the "s", how should I write this?

Is it more correct to mention the word laptop?
For example :

"I shipped ten Dell 360 laptops today".

The reason I didn't do this was because I'm not sure if they are considered laptops or notebooks etc. Could an apostrophe be used?

Answer

In response to part of the original question: no, an apostrophe is not grammatically appropriate in this situation.

The generic word "systems," as mentioned previously, is really your safest bet.

Why is it usually "friend of his", but no possessive apostrophe with "friend of Peter"?

As this NGram shows, we nearly always use the possessive form of personal pronouns for friend of mine/his/ours/etc.

But when it comes to actual names, we prefer friend of Peter without the possessive apostrophe. That preference is even more marked with, say, friend of America. Not that I think the usage itself is particularly American - it's much the same with Britain.

Personally, I find friend of him grates. In general I've no strong feelings either way as to whether it's friend of Peter or friend of Peter's (though I deplore the possessive in this example), but in line with many others, I really don't like the possessive in relation to things like countries.

Why is this?

Edit: Noting an apparent "progression" (pronoun -> person -> nation) marked by reduction in use of the possessive, I checked at a finer "granularity". NGram shows that although it does occur, friend of me virtually "flatlines" against friend of mine. But the bias reduces through of you, of us, and by the time I get to of them it's much less extreme. There seems to be something "egocentric" about the double possessive.

Presumably when babies learn to speak, they soon notice that possessive pronouns, possessive apostrophes, and the word "of", all do the same job. Parents would correct a child who says "of mine's", but probably wouldn't even notice the same "redundancy" in "of Peter's". Younger speakers are unlikely to even be talking about something "of America's". Perhaps as we mature we tend to discard the "double possessive" for the more "distant" things that only adults are likely talk about, but we keep it for "closer" people because that's how we spoke when we were younger.

EDIT2 I note that I'm a great fan of him is vanishingly rare compared to ...fan of his, but with ...fan (of John) the double possessive occurs far less often than ...friend (of John's). Usage seems to be affected by the noun before "of" as well as the one after it. This is getting complicated...

Answer

To me, "Friend of Peter" and "Friend of Peter's" mean the inverse of each other.

In "Joe is a friend of Peter", Joe is the active person in the friendship - it describes Joe's active relationship to Peter. Peter is one of the people Joe expresses friendship toward.

In "Joe is a friend of Peter's", Peter is the active person in the friendship - it describes Joe as being the object of Peter's friendship. Joe is one of the people Peter expresses friendship toward.

In most contexts, nothing is being implied about the inverse relationship, although friendship is usually reciprocal. It's usually more a matter of who the speaker knows about the relationship from. So if I'm introducing you to Joe, but we both know Peter, and Peter's talked about Joe, I might tell you that Joe is a friend of Peter's.

The distinction is probably most significant in high school. ;-)

punctuation - How do you quote a passage that has used '[sic]' mistakenly?

The usage of '[sic]' is well defined for quoting a passage that you believe has an error in it: nearest to the mistake you place '[sic]' within the quotes. For example, suppose I write a letter from I to you. This last sentence of mine is counter to most norms of English writing (it's wrong), so in quoting it someone would naturally want to write:

...suppose I write a letter from I [sic] to you.

Suppose though that I do something else, suppose I write a letter from me to you. This follows accepted grammatical practice (it's correct grammar). But then further suppose that someone thinks you should use 'I' instead of 'me'. And they quote it thus:

...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you.

The '[sic]' has been mistakenly used.

But how do you quote the passage I just wrote? Would it be:

"...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]

or

"...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] [sic] to you."

or

"...suppose I write a letter from me [sic [sic]] to you."

None of these sound right to me: the first because it doesn't point out where the error is, the second because you can't tell (for either '[sic]') if you're using '[sic]' or it is part of the thing quoted, and for the third example...well, that might be a way to mark the error, but surely the mechanics of '[sic]' could have been designed better to begin with.

So which of these three, or something else entirely, should be used for quoting a passage where '[sic]' is used wrongly?

Answer

There are three authors involved here:

1. The author of the original quote


2. The author who quoted #1 and added the first "[sic]"


3. The author who is writing the final document (you)

Let's deal with the easy case: If your intent is to quote author #1, simply remove the offending '[sic]'. This omission does not change the meaning of the quoted phrase, and there is absolutely no reason to include it.

It gets more complicated if your intent is to quote author #2. I can think of five main options:

1. Ignore the offending '[sic]' entirely (this is the most sane option)

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me to you."

   
   




2. Replace the offending '[sic]' with an ellipsis

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me ... to you."

   
   





3. Add your own '[sic]' after the quoted sentence (as Serodis recommends)

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]

   
   




4. Add a footnote to clarify the situation. This can be used in several different ways. I prefer the first one, but it really comes down to a matter of style

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me ¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me to you." ¹
   "...suppose I write a letter from me ...¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic]¹ to you."
   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you." [sic]¹

   
   
   
   

   ¹: [Author #2] chose to add [sic] after the word me when quoting [Author #1]

   
   




5. Describe the offending '[sic]' in words.

   
   
   

   
   

   "...suppose I write a letter from me [sic] to you". [Author #2] thought that me was incorrect here.
   "...suppose I write a letter from me ([sic] in original) to you". (as proposed by Ariel)

   
   

The choice between these options depends on the purpose of your document. I feel that option 1 makes the most sense unless you are writing an academic or legal document that will be highly scrutinized. In those cases, I would prefer options 2 or 4, since they present much less of a mental speed-bump for the reader.

Options 3 and 5 really only make sense if you actually want to draw attention to the '[sic]' itself. This would be the case if you were critiquing author #2. Between these two, I prefer option 5 since it is the most explicit.

Note 1: Oswald points out that [sic] does not necessarily indicate an error in the quoted text, but rather that "the text appears in the source exactly as quoted".

Note 2: Both SLaks and chris propose creative solutions that use changes in typeface to differentiate between each author

Note 3: Rex Kerr has some good information regarding nested quotes

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

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

• The singular already ends with an s.


• I am dealing with multiple of the thing.


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

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

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

Answer

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

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

grammaticality - Is it acceptable to begin a declarative sentence with "Am"?

I want to know firstly if it's grammatically correct to start a declarative sentence with "Am". For example:

Am excited about the game today.

Secondly, if it is grammatically incorrect, then I wanted to ask how much "head room" there is for the above usage. I can't think of an example now, nor find one here at english.stackexchange. However I imagine there are usages of the english language that grammatically are illegal, yet have somehow become accepted as colloquial or idiomatic perhaps.

Answer

Some languages are subject-drop languages, but English is considered a subject-obligatory language. The sentence as it stands is non standard. It's the type of telegraphic language you might see in a text message.

grammaticality - How did “to wish that” come to hate the present tense in the subordinate clauses it governs, and why is it alone in this?

<sub>Inspired by this earlier
question, I've realized

that we have no canonical question addressing the stranglely one-of-a-kind special
grammatical rules demanded by the verb wish of its subordinate clauses. This question seeks to
remedy that situation.</sub>

---

The verb wish has several related grammatical “quirks” when it comes to which tenses you are allowed to use (and not use) in any subordinate clauses it governs. Notice how with the verb think you can say either of

• I think I know. ✅


• She thinks he knows. ✅

perfectly well, yet when switching to the verb wish you find that suddenly you cannot say either of

• I wish I ^_❌know. [ ᴜɴɢʀᴀᴍᴍᴀᴛɪᴄᴀʟ❗ ]


• She wishes he ^_❌knows. [ ᴜɴɢʀᴀᴍᴍᴀᴛɪᴄᴀʟ❗ ]

This shows that the verb wish has “special grammatical rules” about what tense you can put its subordinate clause into, “rules” that no other verb in common use in present-day English must adhere to.

How come?

The first mystery

For one thing, wish abhors the present tense in its subordinate clause completely.
These are both grammatically forbidden:

1. I wish that she ^_❌eats fish on Fridays. [ ᴜɴɢʀᴀᴍᴍᴀᴛɪᴄᴀʟ❗ ]


2. I wish that she ^_❌eats fish tonight. [ ᴜɴɢʀᴀᴍᴍᴀᴛɪᴄᴀʟ❗ ]

The second mystery

It’s not even too keen on the past tense, either, since although
(1) becomes legal if you switch the subordinate clause’s present tense to the past:

3. I wish that she ate fish on Fridays. ✅

Attempting this same thing with the subordinate clause in (2) still leaves the result ungrammatical:

4. I wish that she ^_❌ate fish tonight. [ ᴜɴɢʀᴀᴍᴍᴀᴛɪᴄᴀʟ❗ ]

Interestingly, (4) is even ungrammatical when we explicitly switch the
referenced time to the past:

5. I wish that she ^_❌ate fish last night. [ ᴜɴɢʀᴀᴍᴍᴀᴛɪᴄᴀʟ❗ ]

This is a further unexplained special restriction on the tense of the subordinate clause, but this time even the past tense is blocked! Why can the past tense not be used in the subordinate clauses of (4) and (5) to make those grammatical, but can be — and does so — in (3)? How are those different?

All this appears to be true for other present-tense incarnations of wish
such as I have wished that. Then when you start moving into the past
tense with I wished that and I had wished that, the rules change
but even here its rules seem to remain peculiar to wish alone. (I leave those details for the answerers.)

---

How in the world did such a common verb as wish ever come to have such uncommon

— and apparently even unique — grammatical rules governing tense use in its
subordinate clause’s verb?

Do any other verbs work in this special way? Did they ever?
Is this something new or something old? Has it
always worked this way in English even before the Conquest, or did we
get it grafted onto us by the Norman French?

I’m especially looking for answers rooted in actual historical analysis, not “just because” handwaving that doesn’t address the construction’s history. You don’t have to go back to PIE
(unless you want to :), but I’d like for us to have answers whose explanations at least require

looking at this curiosity’s historical evolution.

---

References

The OED gives as sense 1a of the verb wish::

1. a. transitive. To have or feel a wish for; to desire.

   
   
   

   ^{The ordinary word for this; now always less emphatic than the synonyms covet, crave, long (for), yearn (for); in earlier use occasionally in the sense of these. Sometimes softened by could or should (would): cf. ᴄᴀɴ v.¹ 17, ꜱʜᴀʟʟ v. 19c, ᴡɪʟʟ v.¹ 40c; or strengthened before a subordinate clause (1b, 2c) by such phrases as to God, to goodness, to heaven.}

   
   
   
   
   

   • (a) with simple object (in Old English usually in the genitive). Now dialect; superseded in standard English by wish for (see 2), or colloquial in certain contexts by want (ᴡᴀɴᴛ v. 10).

   
   

   • (b) with object clause with may or (formerly) present subjunctive, occasionally indicative: expressing a desire that the event may happen or that the fact may prove to be so, and often implying some want of confidence or fear of the opposite (now commonly expressed by hope: see ʜᴏᴘᴇ v. 3b). Also expressing a request (see 5).

   
   

   • (c) with object clause with past subjunctive (or indicative, e.g. was for were): expressing an unrealized or unrealizable desire (see also ᴡɪʟʟ v.¹ 46a), or in modern use sometimes a mild request (cf. 5). to wish to God: to wish intensely.

   
   

Here are just a few citations from sense 1a(c). The non-present-tense verbs in the subordinate clauses I have marked in bold.

• c1000 Ælfric Deut. xxxii. 29
  Ic wisce ðæt hi wiston & undergeaton..hyra ende [L. utinam saperent].


• 1362 Langland Piers Plowman A. v. 92
  Þenne I wussche hit weore myn.


• c1385 Chaucer Legend Good Women Thisbe. 755
  Thys wall they woldyn threte And wysshe to god hyt were doun ybete.


• a1616 Shakespeare Macbeth (1623) ɪ. v. 24
  That which rather thou do'st feare to doe, Then wishest should be vndone.



• 1817 Byron Let. 25 Mar. (1976) V. 188
  Heigh ho! I wish I was drunk—but I have nothing but this d—d barley-water before me.


• 1832 Tennyson New Year's Eve iv, in Poems (new ed.) 96
  I wish the snow would melt..I long to see a flower so.

Swapping in the present indicative there produces ungrammatical sentences the likes of which neither Chaucer nor Shakespeare, nor Byron or Tennyson, could ever have generated:

• ...And wish to God she ^_❌is done beaten.


• That which rather thou dost fear to do, then wishest ^_❌is undone.



• ...I wish I ^_❌am drunk.


• ...I wish the snow ^_❌melts.

Those are just as ungrammatical now as they were then. No other surviving present-ense verb still forbids the present indicative in its subordinate clause.

Sense 5 seems close to this, and also has citations showing the avoidance of the present indicative:

5. In expressions of desire for something to be done by another, thus conveying a request; hence, to request, entreat; formerly sometimes, to bid, command:

   
   
   
   
   
   • a. a thing or action (with various const. as in 1): cf. ᴅᴇꜱɪʀᴇ v. 5.
   
   
   
   
   

   
   

   
   

   1875 B. Jowett tr. Plato Dialogues (ed. 2) I. 429
   I wish that you would tell me about his death.

   
   

   
   
   

There’s also a much older, sixteenth-century citation that when rendered into modern spelling runs:

I wish rather and desire that in hope of bairns he take Margaret rather than Magdalen for his bedfellow.

That isn’t the same as the earlier examples involving would because here it takes a bare infinitive without a modal in what is sometimes called the “mandative subjunctive”, which is where a verb like demand, desire, require takes a subordinate clause whose verb is today in the bare infinitive (and used to be in the present subjunctive).

Answer

You asked quite a few questions. Here is an attempt at providing answers to a portion of them.

1. Is this something new or something old? Has it always worked this way in English even before the Conquest, or did we get it grafted onto us by the Norman French?

I am surprised you passed without comment OED's sense 1a(b) [with object clause with may or (formerly) present subjunctive, occasionally indicative], which is now pretty much obsolete but which includes such old but attested examples as I wish I suffer no prejudice by it (1661), I wish the house is not rob'd (1691), He is certainly bewitched: I wish the old hag upon the green has done him no mischief (1756), I wish we have not got King Stork, instead of King Log (1823). That's your answer to this particular set of questions: the highly specialized behavior of wish is relatively new. As recently as the first half of the 19th century, wish could take as complement a content clause in the present subjunctive or even indicative.

2. The first and second mystery.

I interpret these as asking what is the actual rule that can predict what sorts of finite complements to wish result in acceptable sentences.

As I said in the comments, and as others stated in their answers (a few said this after I did, though now I see that some have also said this before I did), the answer is that a finite complement of wish must convey modal remoteness. Grammatically, this means that a finite clause complement of wish must use ether the modal preterite or else the irrealis were (the latter is what some sources call the past subjunctive, but CGEL has an argument against that analysis, pp. 87-88). This is pretty much what CGEL says in various places. Thus, for instance, we need I wish she had eaten fish last night. In CGEL, the example [29iv] on p. 1003, ^#I wish [you passed your driving-test tomorrow], is marked (by the '#') as 'semantically or pragmatically anomalous'. CGEL says that

wish cannot be used with a 'pure' future, one where there is no present time involved: cases like this are still within the realm of hoping, so that instead of [iv] we would say I hope you pass your driving-test tomorrow.

3. Do any other verbs work in this special way?

Arguably, no. You can rephrase this as the following questions: 1. in what sorts of constructions do we find modal preterite and irrealis content clauses? 2. Are there any verbs other than wish that appear (when taking a finite clause complement) only in such constructions?

CGEL lists four kinds of constructions where we find modal preterite and irrealis content clauses (pp. 1003-1004): (a) remote conditionals, (b) complement to wish, (c) would rather/sooner/as soon (also prefer, as a marginal possibility), and (d) it be time. However, (c) allows the subjunctive (I'd rather it be sooner (source)), while (d) allows both the subjunctive (it is time he see that he has earned that right (source), it is time he submit his letter on no confidence (source)) and the present tense (It is time he enters into the twenty-first century or disappears. (source)); see also here. True, even in (c) and (d), the subjunctive and/or the present tense are much less frequently used than the modal preterite and irrealis, but they are nevertheless used at least sometimes. Thus, none of the other possibilities are as specialized as wish when it comes to what kind of finite-clause complements they can take.

hyphenation - Non-residential vs non–residential (short or long hyphen)

Should there be a short or long hyphen separating the two words?

Non-residential vs non–residential

Answer

tl;dr: Use the hyphen.

---

I'm not sure EL&U typically addresses typesetting questions, which tend to be a matter of convention, stylistic choice, and or publisher mandate (i.e. house style), but this one seems fairly clear-cut.

According to the reference @Eilia supplied to the official Translation Bureau of the Canadian Government, there are three punctuation marks to consider:

• The hyphen: -


• The en-dash or "short dash": –


• The em-dash or "long dash": —

The hyphen is the character found on the underscore key (_) on the standard American keyboard¹. In the days of typewriters the em-dash was sometimes rendered as two hyphens (--), because the character is twice as long as the en-dash (i.e. the width of a M rather than an N), and every once in a while you'll see that convention used on the internet. But by-and-large today, both the en- and em-dashes are supplied by specialized desktop publishing software.

Let's dispose of the em-dash first. The em-dash is used exclusively for emphasis: a pair of em-dashes surrounding a clause are sort of like "negative parenthesis" — they draw attention to the clause, rather than downplaying it.

By contrast, both the hyphen and the en-dash are used to form compound modifiers, which is what you're asking about here. But the en-dash is only used to form compound modifiers when one of the components itself is compound, as in "post–World War I treaty", "sodium chloride–free solution", or "New York–based writer".

It is the hyphen which is used to form standard two-word compound modifiers such as "non-residential"².

---

¹ _{aka ANSI-INCITS 154-1988 (R1999)}

² _{Note that you only use the hyphen to form the compound modifier if that modifier precedes the word it modifies, not if it follows. In other words: "on-site facilities" but "facilities on site" (no hyphen nor dash).}

grammar - Subject–Predicate Errors

The following quotes all seem to contain agreement errors between their subjects and predicates:

A total of five youths were arrested in both incidents.

Shouldn't it be "A total . . . was"? The sense is plural overall, but the subject is the singular "total." The object of the preposition is "five youths." Nonetheless, the verb should be the singular "was," agreed?

Early returns from rural areas indicated that support from the Communists remain strong.

Shouldn't it be ". . . support . . . remains strong"?

A group of neighborhood volunteers are identifying these houses and forcing owners to fix them up or tear them down.

Shouldn't it be "A group . . . is"?

The council's actions, concluding more than six hours of testimony on the matter, effectively nullifies a city hearings officer's decision.

Shouldn't it be "The council's actions . . . nullify"?

definite articles - Pretentious Language Part 2

An acquaintance of mine who was born in Long Island has taken to putting the definite article "the" in front of nouns when he speaks.

For example "I love the Google" or "In NYC I met the boyfriend" (referring to his own boyfriend)
Even though this is common in romance languages, is it proper English or an affectation?

word choice - When should I use "a" vs "an"?

In the following example, is it appropriate to use a or an as the indefinite article, and why?

He ate __ green apple.

I know that in the case of just "apple", it would be "an apple," but I've heard conflicting answers for "green apple," where the noun is separated from the article by an adjective.

Also, which is more appropriate in this case:

He ate __ enormous Pop-Tart.

Answer

The question of "a" vs "an" is always decided by the pronunciation of the word that follows the article. Thus, various geographical regions that have different pronunciation rules may use a different article for the same word.

Words that begin with a vowel sound, such as "apple", "egg", or "hour" are preceded by "an".

All other words, such as "cake", "pie", and "user" (which begins with a y sound), are preceded by "a".

Except (as lifted from @Nohat's comment below) - The rules before "h" are a little tricky, but clear: if a word begins with an "h" sound and the first syllable is stressed (like "house"), then it never takes "an". If the first syllable is not stressed (like "historical") then it is possible to use "an". Some usage authorities would say you must use "an" in those cases, but Nohat is not one of those authorities. You find both "a" and "an" used before words like "historical".

---

So to answer your actual question:

He ate a green apple.
He ate an enormous Pop-Tart.

"Green" does not begin with a vowel sound, so we use "a".
"Enormous", on the other hand, does begin with a vowel sound, so we use "an".

orthography - How many hyphens are appropriate in "Vietnam war veteran turned performing artist Joe Smith"?

How many hyphens should there be in this phrase?

Vietnam war veteran turned performing artist Joe Smith

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

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

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

or should it be:

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

Answer

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

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

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

articles - When can I omit *the* from certain prhases?

After reviewing an interesting question and answer here: Is 'at the time of writing' correct?, I'm wondering if I couldn't do something more simple:

At time of writing, this is all that has been released publicly.

Another example I hear people saying is:

In future, _____________________

But to me, this sounds strange. Maybe it's just a pet-peeve of mine, but I would never say "in future." I would always say "in the future."

Is my brain just weird like this? Am I having early symptoms of schizophrenia? It seems I have conflicting inclinations regarding when to omit "the" from certain phrases.

Are either or both forms (with/omitting "the") acceptable? Or is there no magic bullet, and we must evaluate on a phrase by phrase basis each and every time?

Answer

It's far too complicated (and varying between dialects) to have a general rule for articles, but I can address the specific cases you brought up.

I did some searches in the Corpus of Contemporary American English and got these results:

• at time of writing: 5 hits



• at the time of writing: 80 hits


• . In future ,: 14 hits


• . In the future ,: 566 hits

I'm not sure what to say about the 5 hits for "at time of writing" other than I would include the definite article. It's hard to say why there are 5 hits, since all the results (such as this one) would have had proofreaders. In any case, I think it's safe to say, based off the fact that the sole answer to the question you linked has 35 upvotes and no downvotes, that most people agree with including the definite article.

Some of the hits for "in future" are likely leaking in from British English (since it sounds really strange to my ear, as an American):

However, when it means “from now on”, there is a divide between American English and British English. An American would still say “in the future”, as in the previous case, whereas a Brit would likely say “in future” (with no article).
_{‘In the future’ vs. ‘in future’ in British and American English}

grammar - What's the proper way to refer to the form of a word that's improperly punctuated?

Example sentence:

The Adventure's of Huckleberry Finn

---

My dilemma:

I would like to convey to the writer of the example sentence that the word Adventure's, in its current _____ form, is grammatically incorrect (as opposed to its should-be plural form).

At first I started to use the word possessive to describe the form, but then I started thinking¹ that maybe, in the writer's mind, the word was in fact not written to represent possession but rather as a contraction of the words Adventure and is. In the latter case, I believe using the word contractional would be more appropriate than using the word possessive but since I don't know what the writer was (hypothetically) thinking when they wrote the word, I don't know which adjective to choose, if either.

I realize that chances are the writer just accidentally added an apostrophe where they shouldn't have, but that's neither here nor there.

---

My question:

What's the best word to use to describe the current, incorrect form of the word Adventures as described above? Is there an all-encompassing word that would be a better fit than the words possessive, contractional, or a combination thereof?

Thanks!

¹ Yes, it hurt. ;)

Answer

Apostrophize - punctuate (a word) with an apostrophe

I would like to convey to the writer of the example sentence that the
word Adventure's, in its current apostrophized form, is grammatically

incorrect (as opposed to its should-be plural form).

tenses - Present Simple instead of Present Perfect

I have come across interesting cases several times where the Present Simple is used instead of the Present Perfect. For example:

1) Lately I get the feeling that I am not so much being pulled down as I am being pushed. (from the movie - "Friends")

2) Man, have you noticed how much more time Paul spends at the gym lately? (taken from this discussion Present continuous to discuss action's frequency)

As a rule, "lately" invites the Present Perfect which means that it would be more correct in accordance with grammar rules to say:

Lately I've got the feeling...

.. have you noticed how much more time Paul has spent/been spending...

I, by no means, intend to say that this usage is not idiomatic, as these sentences were uttered by native speakers, I just would like to get some of your thoughts and explanations why it is possible to use the Present Simple here. I'd like also to know if the Present Perfect would be a good substitution. Examples illustrating this usage are very welcome.

differences - Gerund vs infinitive paraphrase

Is there any difference between these two sentences:

1. "The Democrats tend to increase taxes, discouraging rich people from voting for them"


2. "The Democrats tend to increase taxes, which discourages rich poeople from voting for them"

The first version of course sound much more formal, but are there any other (less 'obvious') differences?

relative clauses - Why does my grammar book say "whom" is more correct than "that" in this example sentence?

According to a grammar book, it is incorrect to state "The company directors realized too late that the man that they had just brought in was unsuited to do the job." They claim it is better to state: "The company directors realized too late that the man whom they had just brought in was unsuited to do the job".

Why is using "that" wrong here, when Oxford Dictionaries claims that “that” can refer to objects and humans alike (per Tragicomic's answer to How to use “who” vs. “that”)?

nouns - Why is "I" capitalized in the English language, but not "me" or "you"?

I realize that at one time a lot of nouns in English were capitalized, but I can't understand the pattern of those left. Is there a reason why I still capitalized while you and me are not? Could it have something to do with hand writing rather than the printed page?

Answer

According to Wikipedia, there is no known record of a definitive explanation from around the early period of this capitalization practice, though there is scholarly merit (and simple curiosity) to prompt the continued seeking of an explanation.

It is likely that the capitalization was prompted and spread as a result of one or more of the following (in alphabetical order):

• Changes specifically in the pronunciation of letters (introduction of long vowel sounds in Middle English, etc.)




• Other linguistic considerations (demarcation of a single-letter word, setting apart a pronoun which is significantly different from others in English, etc.)
  
  problems with legibility of the minuscule "i"



• Sociolinguistic factors (establishment of English as the official language, solidification of English identity, etc.)

There is also the possibility that the first instances of capitalization may have been happenstance. Either through chance or a sense of correctness, in the practice or the delivery, the capitalization may have spread.

grammaticality - "Julio and I" vs "I and Julio"

"Julio and I went to the schoolyard." is a valid sentence.

How about "I and Julio went to the schoolyard."?

It's impolite (putting yourself first) and awkward, but is it
grammatically incorrect?

[I realize the original lyric "see me and Julio..." is a grammatically
correct imperative sentence]

Answer

It's impolite (putting yourself first) and awkward, but it is correct grammatically.

it's/his/her vs. their in singular

An expression below embarrasses me. Why not "it's" but "their" litter?

a cat can use their litter box.

in the context we are talking about a few cats, but in this, specific, example we speak about one cat.

grammar - Punctuation for "then fine"

This is one of those colloquialisms that doesn't seem to translate to a complete sentence, but how would you properly punctuate and/or correct the following sentence?

I'd like you to keep working, but if you want to quit, then fine.

My interest is on the last phrase "then fine" which I've heard before but can't seem to figure out how to write it down properly. Is it "then fine" or "then, fine" or something else entirely?

What kind of grammatical function is it?

Answer

I believe this is a contraction of

... then it is fine with me.

or

... then it is fine by me.

and I don't think it requires any punctuation at all. It is an adjective that may be compared with "good" and "okay" in the same kind of construction:

If you want to go out, then okay.

If you want to go out, then good.

One of the meanings of fine, according to NOAD:

• used to express one's agreement with or acquiescence to something : anything you want is fine by me, Linda | he said such a solution would be fine.

meaning - I'll take you home / I'll bring you home

Being both non-natives, I had some discussion today about the following situation: suppose you're at a party and you want to take/bring your drunk buddy home.

I believe that:

• "I'll take you home" means come, I'll bring you away and then I'll go back or go to my place. This is going away from the party.


• "I'll bring you home" means come with me and we both go home. We probably both live at that place or it is our end stop. This is coming to home.

She believes that:

• "I'll take you home" means either of the above, because you're both in the same room when you ask and you're going away from.


• "I'll bring you home" is an invalid construct in that situation, or actually is always invalid. I was opposing to that that I actually remember to have heard the phrase quite often.

I know the general meaning and differences between bring and take. However, I somehow couldn't get my head around this. Any native speaker that can shed some light here? There's an extra beer at stake!

Answer

I'm not an English major, but I am a native speaker.

"I'll bring you home" is definitely not invalid; it's a perfectly fine thing to say, and I think your meaning is correct.

However, "I'll take you home" does not imply that you live at the same place, or that you're going to be staying over. I think it just implies a sort-of dominance on the role of the speaker. I would imagine this being said by a person speaking to someone who is more drunk than they are, or by a speaker who knows the way home better than the other person. Although, to be fair, it probably depends a lot more on who says it, how they say it, and exactly how they phrase it and not so much on bring versus take. For example, "I can take you to your place" has essentially the same meaning as "I'll bring you home."

I think the most natural thing to say in the case that you are both going back to the same place, or both heading home is "Let's go home."

grammatical number - What is the possessive form of a singular noun ending with a plural s?

I would tend to treat a company name as singular and would therefore write the possessive form with 's. Now, my company refers to its international operations by placing the country name behind the company name; think: "Coca Cola USA" or "Coca Cola Germany". In these examples I would write, in similar fashion, "Coca Cola Germany's workers are happy". Unfortunately, we also operate in a number of countries that have plural names; think: Netherlands and Cayman Islands. What is the possessive form in these cases? Is it "Coca Cola Netherlands' workers are happy" or "Coca Cola Netherlands's workers are happy"? I nudge towards the latter being grammatically correct, however reckon the former to be more generally accepted — or easier on the eye. I'm not a native English speaker, so I am not always entirely capable of assessing what is "accepted" or "sounds right".

subordinate clauses - Rules for pronouns

Is there a rule in English regarding whether a pronoun or the subject it refers to should appear in the subordinate clause of a complex sentence?

1. Simple example: “Whenever the little girl/she eats pizza, she/the little girl gets sick.”

Should the pronoun she or the subject the little girl appear in the subordinate clause? Is one choice wrong or is this a matter of taste and style?

2. Complex example: "In the form that the history of literature/it took as it emerged out of the historicist culture of the nineteenth century, it/the history of literature tended consciously or unconsciously to imagine series of works and cultural periods in terms of a perpetual metamorphosis or a permanent revolution."

Should the history of literature or it appear in the first clause?

3. Is there a rule about this in English? If so, how do I describe it in grammatical terms?

punctuation - Can a comma be used before 'and' here?

Is it appropriate to use a comma in these examples?

We, however, discussed ways of improving the school's standard so as to increase the admission rate of students this year, and scheduled the next meeting to be on Tuesday for proper arrangements.

He never looked for trouble (although he had a bag full of trouble for
trouble-seekers), and had a high sense of humor, which made the few

people who did not like him become his admirers.

I know that a comma can only be used before a coordinating conjunction if it connects two independent clauses. But this is not the case here. I thought of this question and wanted to know whether using a comma in these examples is correct.

Please note that example 2 is taken from a novel.

vocabulary - "Make sure" vs. "Make sure that"

Is one more correct than the other?

Make sure the part is connected to the widget.

Make sure that the part is connected to the widget.

punctuation - Comma or semicolon after "No" when responding to a question

Given this question:

Will I have any migration issues with all of the files after the upgrade?

Which of these are correct?

No, the new software can still open the old files.

or

No; the new software can still open the old files.

Is "No" being used as an interjection here?

Answer

Let's start with the interjection question. Interjections are punctuated with commas or exclamation points, which is explained at English Grammar Revolution:

Punctuating Interjections

Interjections are punctuated with an exclamation mark or a comma. Use an exclamation mark if the emotion is very strong; use a comma if the emotion is not as strong:

Wow! I won the lottery!
Wow, I have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch.

However, I don't believe you have an interjection in your sentence. As the same website says:

Beware!

Don't get fooled into thinking that all introductory words followed by an exclamation point or a comma are interjections - they're not!

Hmm... What is an interjection? Do you remember? It is a word that shows emotion. So, if the word in question does not show emotion, it is probably not an interjection.

Maria! Come and see the lion!

Names are not interjections because they do not show emotion. The tone of voice that you say them in may show emotion, but the name itself does not.

Stop! The lion will eat you!

The word stop is not an interjection. It is a verb because it shows action.

So, what part of speech is "No" in your sentence? To answer that, I'll point you toward Wikipedia, which claims that "Yes" and "No" are neither interjections nor adverbs, but parts of speech in their own right:

The words yes and no are not easily classified into any of the eight conventional parts of speech. Although sometimes classified as interjections, they do not qualify as such, and they are not adverbs. They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, sentence words, word sentences, or pro-sentences, although that category contains more than yes and no and not all linguists include them in their lists of sentence words.

That's just a brief excerpt; I strongly recommend you read the whole article. (The phrase "not all linguists" suggests a lack of consensus, and indicates this can be a thorny – and therefore interesting – problem.)

As for how to punctuate your sentence, I'd recommend a comma. Why do I say that? It looks more natural, it reads more natural, and that seems to be how I've seen it most often printed in books. A simple sample can verify that. If you click on that link, examine the search results, and use that as a guide, you'll find all of the following conventions used:

• No, the new software can still open the old files.



• No. The new software can still open the old files.


• No the new software can still open the old files.

but the first one (i.e., the comma) is by far the most prominent.

grammaticality - "Who wants ice-cream?" — Should I say "(not) I" or "(not) me"?

With the enthusiastic question of "Who wants ice-cream?", what is the more correct response?

1. (Not) I.


2. (Not) me.

Neither response is a sentence. The first response of "(not) I" sounds stuffy, like it should be followed with an indignant sniff. The second sounds like American idiom and acceptable for casual speech.

What do you say?

Answer

Generally speaking, in English, accusative (also known as “objective”) pronouns (like me) are the “default” form. That is, unless there is a specific syntactic rule requiring use of a different case, such as nominative (I), genitive (my/mine), or reflexive/intensive (myself), in English you use the accusative case.

In the syntactic context where a pronoun is not serving a role relative to an explicit verb, such as when it is the simple answer to a question, or if one is labeling something, such as a photo, accusative pronouns are standard. “Who wants to come?” “Me.” Nominative pronouns are impossible here—you cannot answer the question “Who wants to come?” with “I”, nor would anyone label a photo “I”.

This holds even if negated: “Who wants ice cream?” “Not me.”

If you want to use the highest register, most formal English, however, you should avoid the question of what case to use with pronouns standing alone, and use a complete sentence: “I do not want ice cream.”

grammatical number - Mixing plural and singular list items with a single verb

A friend wants to write,

There is no hardware to purchase, no additional software to install and no key fobs to worry about.

This is awkward because the verb "is" doesn't match up with the third item, which is plural and demands "There are" as the subject. However,

There is no hardware to purchase, no additional software to install and there are no key fobs to worry about.

sounds awkward as well.

Is there a good workaround for this problem where some list items are singular and some are plural, so they don't share a common verb?

Adjective or verb

Is: The girl looked angrily to us
Or

The girl looked angry to us
Which one is true? I think say that the second one to me is true but i have been told that the first one is true
Thanks for the help

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?

verb agreement - I don't want to be the one that "have" or "has"?

Which one of these sentences is correct?

1. I don't want to be the one that have to explain to your parents why you are not going to graduate.




2. I don't want to be the one that has to explain to your parents why you are not going to graduate.

word choice - "from where it was stopped" vs "from where it has stopped"

This question is about the usage of was and has.

Which sentence is correct?

1. The match will resume from where it was stopped.




2. The match will resume from where it has stopped.

What is the difference between was and has in this scenario?

Answer

They are very different constructions, though both are (probably) possible here.

First, note that stop, like many verbs denoting a change of state, can be used both transitively and intransitively:

The boy stopped the ball. (transitive)

The ball stopped (intransitive).

The transitive use usually implies that the stopping was caused by something external, whereas the intransitive use does not.

The transitive use, like any transitive verb, can be made passive:

The ball was stopped [by the boy]

As usual for a passive, the agent is optional; but "The ball was stopped" implies an external agent, unlike "the ball stopped".

We would not normally talk about a match stopping without an external agent:

The referee stopped the match.

but

? The match stopped.

is dubious. We'd normally used a word like "finished" or "ended"; and any other way it stopped would be from an external cause.

Now, what about "has stopped"?

"Has" + past participle is how we form the present perfect, of the active verb. So "The match has stopped" is very like "The match stopped" (intransitive), but with a perfect instead of a simple past. Perfect is used when the speaker wants to express that an event in the past has some present relevance.

I think that (leaving aside the unlikelihood of talking about a match stopping without external influence, as I discussed above), the present perfect is much less likely here than the simple past "from where it stopped"; but it is possible.

grammar - Subject in English

I'm Japanese and I am studying English, in particular, reading English books. I have some questions about the subject.

We also use pronouns in Japanese. Then, a subject usually does not change from line to line. For example, if we say the following sentence in Japanese,
"Lon wrote a letter. He sent it to Jacob. He was excited."
then the last "he" means Lon; whereas, if we say the above in English, the last "he" can mean both "Lon" and "Tom", as I studied.

In English, isn't it hesitated to change a pronoun from line to line?

Best

Why so many words in English are pronounced different from their spelling?

As a non native English speaker, I am astonished at the amount of English word pronounced different from their spelling.

For instance, 'Would' is pronounced like 'Wood', 'Whole' is pronounced like "Hole", and despite 'though', 'through', 'thorough' and 'thought' have similar spelling, their pronounciation is just vaguely similar, among many others.

I understand people pronounce words as they want regardless of spelling, but, is there a particular reason why this happens?

Thank you very much.

grammar - How to use Ordinals with Numeric Date Ranges

Given a numeric date range, such as shown below, which is the correct usage of ordinals? Should I use none, one, or two?

The event dates will be Dec 1-5
The event dates will be Dec 1-5th
The event dates will be Dec 1st-5th

---

Potentially Relevant:

• This is going on a document that has single dates, which are represented with ordinals (e.g. Dec 7th)


• The document has limited space, so using through is not an option. Furthermore, I'm not looking for alternatives, I just want to know which one is correct.

Answer

According to "Grammar Girl"

When you're writing out a date like January 1, 2016 (in the American style), the day is written as a cardinal number. So you should never write January 1st, 2016. The weird thing though is when you're speaking, even though it is written as January 1, you say, “January first” (1). So when you are reading a date that is written January 1, 2016, you say “January first, two thousand sixteen.” That's probably why a lot of people get confused about how to write it.

According to which we should write dates as cardinal number and speak dates as ordinal numbers. This suggests that Dec 1-5 is the correct choice.

commas - Proper punctuation of “John’s last words were ‘———’ ”

When attributing a quote to someone, you put a comma before the quote:

John said, "———"

But is the comma still used in the following sentence?

John's last words were, "———."

Or should there be something else instead? A colon maybe?

Answer

Many publishers still seem to use commas before quotations, as in your first example, but Larry Trask argued persuasively against doing so:

A sentence containing a quotation is punctuated exactly like any other
sentence apart from the addition of the quotation marks. You should

not insert additional punctuation marks into the sentence merely to
warn the reader that a quotation is coming up: that's what the
quotation marks are for. Hence the first two of the following are bad
style, and the third one is wrong:

*President Nixon declared, "I am not a crook."

*President Nixon declared: "I am not a crook."

*President Nixon declared:- "I am not a crook."

The comma and the colon in the first two are completely pointless,
while the startling
arsenal of punctuation in the third is grotesque. (Remember, a colon
can never be followed by a hyphen or a dash.) Here is the sentence
with proper punctuation: President Nixon declared "I am not a crook."
Adding more dots and squiggles to this perfectly clear sentence would
do absolutely nothing to improve it. No punctuation mark should be
used if it is not necessary.

‘The Cambridge Guide to English Usage’ largely endorses this approach, describing the comma before a quotation as an ‘older convention’.

There is even less of a need for a comma in your second example.

grammaticality - "Countries List" or "Country List"?

Duplicate of:
“User accounts” or “users account”
“Employee list” or “employees list”
Should a list of tokens be called a “token list” or a “tokens list”
“BookList” or “booksList?”
Is it correct to say “lesson count” or “lessons count”?
"Thing count" or "things count"
And others

Which of the following are correct?

1. Countries List


2. Country List

It is the title of a web page where users can view the list of countries and select one.

grammar - Should I use 'a' or 'an' when the following word is within parentheses?

I'm asking a question now, and I'm unsure about this:

I have an (Ruby on Rails site's) API which returns JSON data.

• 'API' starts with an 'A' so I should use 'an': an API …


• 'Ruby' (within parentheses) starts with an 'R' so I should use 'a': a (Ruby …

Must I use 'a' or 'an' in this case?

In other words, is the 'a' or 'an' only dependent on the following word not within parentheses?

grammaticality - Which is correct, "you and I" or "you and me"?

When the phrase is used as an object, why so many native speakers are saying "you and I" instead of "you and me"? I'm not a native speaker but I thought "you and me" is correct. Not sure if this falls into the same category, but "Just between you and me" sounds more natural than "Just between you and I".

Answer

This is an example of hypercorrection, which is when native speakers make an accidental error in their zeal to avoid a different error.

In this case, the error that's being avoided is the error of writing "you and me" in subject position, as in the following sentence:

You and me are going to the store.

This is formally incorrect, although it's very common in contemporary spoken English. Because they have been taught that this is incorrect, many people hypercorrect and change "you and me" to "you and I" in all positions. That is, they incorrectly learn the rule about when to use "you and I", and so produce sentences like the following:

You and I are going to the store. [Correct]

He'll come to the store with you and I. [Incorrect]

grammar - Quotation marks for nicknames

E.g. "I get called Hitler in school." or "I get called 'Hitler' in school."?

Would quotation marks be needed for 'Hitler'?
What if it was an uncommon or nonsensical word like 'A123' or 'Gaylord'. Would the capital letter alone be enough to grammatically make its usage fine? What if the nickname is made up of multiple words like "Fatty Pig Face"?

grammar - Follow vs Follow after

Is the expression "follow after", e.g; "He followed after her", grammatically incorrect or an awkward phrasing?
I use the phrase "follow after" to put an emphasis on the action, it also gives me a subtle impression of dependence, as if, the subject is following the other person either very closely or is "following at the heels" of that person, and if they had lingered in the previous room, for instance, they'd run to catch that person.

I have googled my issue, and found one site (wordreference.com) with a thread on this and with various answers. I'm also guessing that the answer technically lies in the definition of "follow". However, I kept seeing this phrase used several times in different books, and I have been using it myself.

I have seen that it might be:

• Sloppy English. Yet numerous works seem to use it? I wouldn't have picked up on it, otherwise.


• Might indicate tagging along


• Might imply following someone without their knowledge.

As you can see, I've interpreted this phrase completely differently. I have also seen that "follow" is a statement of sequence in space or time and follow after is a statement of volition, of active pursuit (which contradicts with the statement that it implies following someone without their knowledge).

Could you guys offer some clarifications and a final say on what follow/follow after actually mean/imply?

orthography - Are line references capitalised?

When I write, I treat references as though they are proper nouns; for example, Chapter 10, Section 10, Line 10, Page 10. (As opposed to chapter 10, section 10, line 10, page 10 - no capital letter.)

[My short forms would be Ch.10, s.10, l.10, p.10]

Until now, I've never been picked up on it. I wrote a piece that involved numerous references to numbered lines. Here is an example from my piece:

Ham makes further attempts to connect with the reader in Line 26, where she writes...

This was corrected to "line 26" (no capital).

I can't really explain why I think references should be capitalised, but I surely must have picked it up from somewhere.

So, my question is - if not common practice, is there anything wrong with capitalising (line) references? Are there any style guides that have a preference for capitalised references?