grammaticality - Correctness of "of my sending the picture"

Is this sentence correct?

I don’t think Linda would have approved of my sending the picture; but I did it anyway.

Specifically, is of my sending the picture correct?

What's the Subject in: 'And up here in the corner is me'

If two people are looking at a photo, and one of them pointing out the different people says:

And up here in the corner is me.

... what is the Subject of the sentence?

The phrase up here in the corner feels like a Locative Complement. It is tempting to see this as a case of subject-dependent inversion like On the corner is a cafe. However, the NP me has accusative case and the verb is third person singular. The sentence isn't:

• *And up here in the corner am me.

Also, if and only if, 'me' is not the Subject, what type of use of the verb BE is this? If me is an internal Complement of the verb, then this doesn't seem to be a specifying, ascriptive or locative use in the normal sense (me is not a description of up in the corner, neither is it a location. And the sentence does not mean "up in the corner = me").

And if, and only if, me is the Subject, why is me acceptable instead of I? Does me invariably take third person singular agreement of the verb?

word formation - Is there a rule for when contractions are not possible?

In conversing with non-native English speakers online, I saw someone type:

Do you know who ****I’m*** ?

This is obviously wrong to a native English speaker, but I don’t know why. Is there a rule that tells when contractions are not allowed?

Here are some more similar examples where the contraction doesn’t work (with the expansion of the contraction in parentheses following each):

• Can you tell who **I’m* by my voice alone? (I am)




• Please, tell me who **he’s/she’s/they’re*. (he is/she is/they are)





• If you want to go to the movie, **we’ll.* (we will)




• Will you have some? Yes, **I’ll.* (I will)




• I won’t have any, but tell me if **you’ll*. (you will)




• I didn’t have the same thing for supper as **you’d.* (you had)




• Would you like to go? Sure **I’d.* (I would)

hyphenation - Is "UTF-8-encoded" an overuse of hypens? Does "UTF-8 encoded" require a hyphen?

After reading usage of the phrase "UTF-8 encoded" ("UTF-8-encoded) at, for example, stackoverflow.com, in Howto identify UTF-8 encoded strings, and in an excerpt

...every character can be UTF-8 encoded.

from this answer, I began to question whether writing "UTF-8-encoded" is an overuse of hyphens, but a quick read over

Confusion over the general rules governing the use of the hyphen in English

When should compound words be written as one word, with hyphens, or with spaces?

indicates to me that "UTF-8-encoded" is correct usage of hyphens.

Is "UTF-8 encoded", though, correct and not require an additional hyphen? If it it is correct, why isn't the hyphen necessary?

Answer

I think it's something of a matter of personal style, or if writing for publication, the style guide of the intended publication. The name of the coding method is "UTF-8" (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8), so the hyphen between the character "F" and the character "8" is a part of the name. But looking at the first link you provide, the hyphen is not required from case 1 because the two parts, "UTF-8" and "encoded" do not have a combined meaning that differs to any significant degree from the phrase "encoded with UTF-8". It's also not required from case 2, because as pronounced, "8" ends in a consonant, and "encoded" begins with a vowel.

On the other hand, according to your link to question 889, one could argue that there should be a hyphen, but according to that site, only in the exceptional case that the phrase precedes the noun it modifies, as in "UTF-8-encoded document". But it's not clear to me that this exception applies in the absence of the following noun, for example in the construct "The document is UTF-8 encoded." And since this last statement is functionally equivalent to "The document is encoded in UTF-8.", I don't think that the hyphen is necessary. But I don't think a hard and fast rule applies here, and I can conceive of cases where I might see the construct with a hyphen between the "f" and the "8", and between the "8" and the following word might be useful.

grammaticality - When is a gerund supposed to be preceded by a possessive adjective/determiner?

I assume that the following sentences are grammatically correct:

• He resents your being more popular than he is.



• Most of the members paid their dues without my asking them.


• They objected to the youngest girl's being given the command position.


• What do you think about his buying such an expensive car?


• We were all sorry about Jane's losing her parents like that.

I'm still getting used to this possessive gerund structure. It sounded so weird to me at first.

Is the structure used in both formal and informal contexts? Are there any alternative structures that result in the same meaning and are more frequently used?

(Examples taken from http://grammartips.homestead.com/possessivewithgerund.html)

Answer

When I first heard about this usage in a grammar lesson in middle school, it sounded weird to me, too. As in the linked page in your answer, my teacher taught us that using possessive pronouns (also known as genitives) is the only grammatical way to mark subjects of gerund clauses. While that way is more traditional and formal, using object pronouns (accusatives) is also quite common.

In chapter 14, section 4.3, of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, entitled “Non-finite and verbless clauses”, the main thrust lays waste to the traditional distinction between gerund clauses and present participle clauses, by arguing they all belong to a single inflectional category; namely, gerund-participles. However, there is a paragraph explaining the use of genitives with gerunds:

There is one respect in which ‘gerund’ and ‘present participle’ clauses differ in their internal form: with ‘gerunds’ the subject may take genitive case, with plain or accusative case a less formal alternant, but with ‘present participles’ the genitive is impossible and pronouns with a nominative–accusative contrast appear in nominative case, with accusative an alternant restricted to informal style. Compare then:
[39] i. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.
       ii. We appointed Max, he/him/*his being much the best qualified of the candidates.

In other words, gerunds (as in example 39i) can take either the genitive (his) or the accusative (him) as subject, with genitive being more formal and accusative less formal. The nominative (he) is not possible as the subject of a gerund.

In participial clauses with a subject (as in example 39ii), there is a similar situation: both the nominative (he) and accusative (him) are possible, again with accusative being less formal, but the genitive (his) is not possible.

The page of “grammar tips” linked in the question confuses informal style with incorrect grammar, a common problem in grammar advice. The versions of the examples with accusative instead of genitive (e.g. What do you think about him buying such an expensive car?) are perfectly grammatical and simply a less stuffy style.

You will find many examples of gerunds with accusative subject—even in formal academic writing—so you should feel free to use whichever of the two formulations seems natural.

Singular or plural verb when referring to an individual and then a group

Which is correct?

The Mayor and City Council has...

The Mayor and City Council have...

negation - When a negative question is asked, what is the grammatically correct way to answer?

When a negative question is asked, what is the grammatically correct way to answer? If someone asks you Didn't you come by car today?, what is the correct answer?