etymology - Why are the possessive and object pronouns the same for feminine but not masculine?

Essentially, why is the pronoun the same in different uses for feminine but not masculine?

---

Feminine:

Possessive:

It is her car.

Accusative

I know her.

Masculine:

Possessive:

It is his car.

Accusative:

I know him.

hyphenation - What is the correct way to write the word "back-end"?

Back-end and front-end are common technical terms nowadays. Traditionally, they are written with a hyphen "back-end". Is there a rule in the English language that dictates this to be a correct way to write term, that signifies general single something? Or did it just "stick" that way?

Clarification 1:
The proposed answer that discusses when to hyphenate assumes back-end as a compound word. I don't think it is and this am asking this question. Compound words like on-the-fly are comprised of possible standalone words that are all required to describe the phenomenon or thing in question.

Backend is a synonym to server-side, which really is a compound word. Backend is a singularization of server-side, not a compound itself.

I understand that I may have a logical "gap" somewhere in this line, the reason why I asked is to help me clarify this.

Should perfect and progressive tenses be avoided in research papers?

Writing a research paper, I came across a remark from one of the reviewers:

"Keep it simple" […] try to stay with present simple and past simple tense.

This would discourage the use of perfect / progressive tenses.

Now, I'm not a native speaker—and neither is the reviewer—but I'm sure there are valid uses for the present perfect tense. For example:

Research has shown that […]

This effect has often been cited as […]

The authors of […] have published a database […]

This, specifically, would imply that whatever research has shown is still valid today, whereas using a past tense here would mean that the research isn't accepted at the time of writing.

Regarding that reviewer comment:

• Why should these tenses be avoided in the first place? I wouldn't say that the "keep it simple" rule literally refers to the "simple" tenses. Or does it?


• Is that a general rule or are the examples I've mentioned valid uses of the perfect tense?

grammar - object-subject-verb order

I've seen the phrase "... does not an honest man make" used, and wanted to know wheather this usage constitutes an idiom or sentance pattern.

Some example usages from the internet:

• A long resume of lies does not an honest man make.



• One good deed does not an honest man make?


• Honesty in one small area of life does not an honest man make.


• Making excuses for lying politicians does not an honest man make.

Is this just a special case of object-subject-verb word order (yodaspeak), or is it an idiomatic usage that creates special emphasis?

Answer

You are right in thinking that OSV is a construction that changes the emphasis of the sentence. To demonstrate:

1: Do you like pasta?
2: Not really.
1: How about pizza?
2: Now that I like!

This is a feature of language called "Topic-fronting" that can occur in many languages. As you can see from the example the focus of the sentence is moved to the object "that". In this case, it also stresses that the response is different from the one that preceded it. In English, it's often used this way e.g

I despise most German composers, but Mozart I like!

I'll also add that the usage of OSV in English is mostly idiomatic. Limited to certain contexts and can come across as strange if overused in ordinary language. The most common context in which I see it used are contexts in which it might be appropriate to say something like "Now you're talking!". It carries a connotation of slight oratorical flair that might not be appropriate for, say, a dreary business meeting.

I should add that your example:

Making excuses for lying politicians does not an honest man make.

Is not an example of OSV topic fronting at all. In fact, what you've got is SVOS. Your sentence has two verbs. So perhaps a different example might be in order.

Making excuses makes an honest man.

This example is simply the standard SVO. Compare:

Making excuses an honest man makes.

This is a clear example of SOV, however, I doubt it would occur anywhere asides deliberately poetic or archaic-sounding language. On the other hand, the expression:

X does not a Y make.

Is also very idiomatic in English, and its use is almost exclusively restricted to sentences involving the verbs "to do" and "to make" plus a negation, although other verbs are possible. In many ways, the SOV formation is the very opposite of OSV, as it draws attention away from the object and places it on the verb. However, similarly, SOV is sometimes used to draw attention to the fact that what was said previously is now being contradicted. e.g

1: The expensive school my children attend should ensure they grow up to be gentlemen.
2: Expensive schools do not a gentleman make.

As before, I'd be wary of overusing these phrases if you're not a native speaker. They're highly situational, and if you overuse them you risk sounding pretentious.

Commas and Coordinating Conjunctions Before Dependent Clauses

"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors, and laugh at them in our turn?" -- Jane Austen

Many famous authors and writers use coordinating conjunctions and commas in this way. Are these commas used to make it easier to parse, or are they indicating a pause, or are they indicating a tonal shift? What are the specific guidelines for commas preceding a coordinating conjunction that is between an independent clause and subsequent dependent clauses?

In the example sentence, I understand why there is a comma between "neighbors" and "and": the coordinating element contrasts the inversion of the dependent clauses. I, however, do not understand the comma between "live" and "but." "For what do we live" is an independent clause, not an introductory clause.

Here is another example from a college writing center's website.

"When connecting two independent clauses with a comma and a word like 'however' or 'therefore,' you can either divide the sentence into two sentences, or use a semicolon, which can be used to connect two independent clauses without a coordinating conjunction."

So, what do you think?

Is an article acceptable in those sentences?

Can I say : We are not in a kindergarden. Should I say : We are not in kindergarden. Does usage of 'a' refer to a bulding?

Answer

Exactly as you noted, in this case, the use of article refers to a building.

Saying "we're not in a kindergarten" you're expressing the fact that you're not in the building itself, while saying "we're not in kindergarten" generally says you don't attend kindergarten anymore.

Another example would be:

I need to go to hospital. I'm extremely sick.

versus

Go to a hospital and steal some syringes.

grammar - 'As can be seen ...'

Considering the rule that every finite clause in English must always have a subject, I was wondering what the subject of the first clause in this sentence is:

As can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

Is this sentence correct or should we say:

As it can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

And what is the subject of the whole sentence.

Answer

(1) As ____ can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

The gap '_____' in (1) is there to show that the subject is missing, and that As is not the subject. Before addressing why and how a subject is omitted from a tensed clause, I'd like to first prove that As is not the subject.

There are at least two arguments that could easily be made against calling "as" a relative pronoun or even a pronoun.

(A) The entire as-clause is "mobile" (as @BillJ correctly commented):

Thus, sentence (1) means the same thing as these sentences:

(2) The number of first year students, as ____ can be seen from the figures, decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(3) The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, as ____ can be seen from the figures.

In contrast, a relative clause can only be used after its antecedent; therefore, the following sentence doesn't work:

(1') *Which can be seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

Adding the relative clause right after the subject is possible, but the relative pronoun does not refer to the same thing as the gap '_____' refers to in (2).

(2') The number of first year students, which can be seen from the figures, decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(Note here that there's no gap in the relative clause, because which is the subject of the relative clause, and that which here corresponds to the gap in (2).)

Here, which refers to the noun phrase (The number of first year students), but the gap '_____' in (2) refers to the entire main clause (The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years).

Now, adding the relative clause at the end is also possible:

(3') The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, which can be seen from the figures.

At first glance, (3) and (3') seem to mean the same thing, but they actually don't. In (3) the as-clause is used to confirm what is already known, whereas in (3') the relative clause is used to introduce new information.

This is why (4) doesn't work whereas (4') does:

(4) *The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, as shows that our student recruitment strategies need revising.

(4') The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, which shows that our student recruitment strategies need revising.

(B) Auxiliary verbs can be can be omitted as well as the subject from the as-clause (no pun intended):

(1'') As _____ seen from the figures, the number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(2'') The number of first year students, as _____ seen from the figures, decreased dramatically in the last five years.

(3'') The number of first year students decreased dramatically in the last five years, as _____ seen from the figures.

Here, the gap is not just the subject but the subject and can be. Although the meaning of these sentences is slightly different from that of (1)-(3), the omission of can be is entirely possible or even preferable, as shown in this Ngram.

This omission is impossible in (2') or (3'), because a relative clause has to be a finite clause.

From the second argument above, we now know that not only the subject but also the subject and auxiliary verbs can be omitted. So it's not a case of omitting a subject but rather a case of omitting anything that's unnecessary in a subordinate clause. In the OP, what's unnecessary just happens to be the subject of a subordinate clause, specifically a comparative clause.

Generally, a subject and any other complement of a tensed verb can be omitted in a subordinate clause such as a relative clause and a comparative clause. It's only in the content clause that a subject cannot be omitted.