I have a question that baffled me for a while now, and I'd be a happier person for an answer.
Why in sentences such as
It's not that big a deal.
And
He was as nice a friend as you were.
Or
Your awesome of a father, told me that.
does the article position itself between the adjective and the noun instead of the usual start of the phrase:
I have a big house to play in.
Much obliged.
When talking about "one and a half" of any object, do we use the subsequent noun in plural or just singular? I'm aware that "A minute and a half" is also correct but I'm looking for the specific "One and a half"-construction here.
So for example, which of the below phrases is correct?
You're one and a half minutes late!
or
You're one and a half minute late!
Is there any difference when using the phrase as an adjective like so: "One-and-a-half-minute recipe"?
Answer
When you say "one and a half" you are referencing more than one minute, so you must use the plural form "minutes".
The blog post here uses the title
“Isn’t this just the cutest thing you
ever did see?”
I am sure this is correct, but my question is, but what difference it would have made had he used the following version instead:
“Isn’t this just the cutest thing you
ever saw?”
Answer
There is a formulaic expression in English, going back quite a while, that goes "the xxxxxest xxxx you ever did see. From Google books:
1666: the finest pile I ever did see — from Samuel Pepys' diary
1792: strangest reason perhaps you ever did or will hear
1799: the ugliest old creature I ever did see
1832: the highest tree prehaps you ever did see
1832: the drollest varmint perhaps you ever did see
1835: the primest piece you ever did see
1836: the most knowing-looking little bit of a horse you ever did see
1836: most genial islands you ever did see
1851: the greatest muss you ever did see
1866: we have got one of the gratis olde raskells for a Captain you ever did see
1884: the sickest little shaver you ever did see
1920: the best bunch of man-hunters you ever did see
1968: the biggest lock you ever did see
1973: the cutest thing that I ever did see
2000: the happiest child you ever did see
A substantial fraction of the Google hits for "you ever did see" follow this formula. My answer would be: there's no significant difference in meaning here; it's just an instance of this formula.
From Google books search, it appears to have increased in usage fairly abruptly in the 1830s. Did it really, and if so, where did this come from? The only thing that I can think of is the children's song. But there's no evidence this dates back to the 1830s.
You can say, "I have a question."
You can say, "I have had a question for a long time." Right?
But what about, "I have had had a question ..."? Optional side question: how do you punctuate the previous sentence? Is "have had had" grammatically correct? If so, what does it mean? Also, is it then correct to use "have had had had had had had," and does each use with a different number of hads mean something different? Do these tenses have a name? Would you only use these tenses in unique time travel scenarios?
"I have had had a question," sounds weird but not necessarily wrong. "Having had had a question, I asked it," sounds okay. Or something like "Having had been a person..."
EDIT
So it seems that "Having" in "having had had" does not necessarily have anything to do with the tense? It still seems grammatically correct and not completely unusual to say "having had had" or even "having have had" for that matter.
Bob: I had had a question, but I never got a chance to ask it.
Bill: Having had had a question that was never asked, I understand how you feel.
I also found a few (very few) examples of "having have" by googling. I don't know if they're grammatically correct, but here's some:
"24.6% reported having have been injured due to excessive consumption of alcohol."
If these uses of "having have" are okay, then doesn't that mean that "having" at the beginning of such a sentence is different than "have" when used in the present perfect.
But sometimes, doesn't "Having" in similar-looking sentences have something to do with tense?
Answer
I have a question.
Present tense. Right now I have a question.
I have had a question
Perfect tense. At one point, I had a question. It may or may not be true that I still have it now (might be made clear from the rest of the sentence).
I had had a question.
Pluperfect. At one point it was true that at an earlier point it was true, that I had a question. "I had had a question for some time, but I never got a chance to ask it".
Now, in each of these the verb have is used once in the sense of "to possess" or "to hold" and in each of the second two it is used as an auxiliary to modify that other have.
You propose.
?I have had had a question.
Which we would presumably have to interpret as some sort of super-perfect stating that at some point it was true that at an earlier point it was true that at an earlier point it was true, that you had a question. It's not clear what you are saying about the current state.
As such, you've just created a non-standard variant of either the perfect or the pluperfect, but you leave us confused as to which - and imply that you are confused about the matter yourself.
You suggest it might be better as:
?Having had had a question, I asked it.
But this presumably would mean that it being true that at one point it was true that at one point you had a question. Again, it's not clear just what this is supposed to mean, and one possible interpretation has this as impossible (because one way of untying the knots leaves us with the suggestion that you no longer had a question at the time you said it).
In all, this reminds me of some comic nonsense writing that has been done - sometimes well - but were the whole point of it is that it was not good English. Barring that goal, none of this makes any sense.
You talk about "unique time travel situations", and I could see someone deliberately engaging in this sort of abuse of auxiliaries to describe that. Still, the implication is "this time travel has so messed with the logic of causality that English grammar can no longer work to express the resultant mess". Once you're doing that then you've deliberately thrown the rules of grammar away for effect anyway, so asking if it's grammatical is not just besides the point, but counter to it.
Really though, this is not grammatical English. Nor is it a useful construct to anyone who perceives time and causality as being related things.
Is this kind of conditional sentence grammatically correct?
If x weren't y, I couldn't -insert verb- z but I can -insert verb- z, therefore x is y.
As requested, here is an example for complete sentence:
If I weren't rich, I couldn't afford this house but I can afford this house; therefore, I am rich.
I have one more question: Is the italic part of example sentence necessary?
Answer
It is grammatically correct, except that you probably need a full stop before but. At the very least you need a semicolon there. Was there anything specific that you thought might be ungrammatical about your sentence? The italicised part is not necessary (but it is perfectly fine).
It is not, however, correct in formal logic.
If it weren't raining, there wouldn't be a puddle. But there is a puddle; therefore it is raining.
In formal logic, that conclusion is invalid, because one cannot draw any conclusions based on the consequence; only from the antecedent can one draw conclusions, and only if it is true (then the consequent must also be true). Purely as an illustration: if this example were in the real world, there could be a puddle but without any raining (it could be a garden hose).
However, there is in real language a very strong implication that antecedent and consequence correlate. So your implication is perfectly fine in a normal context (outside formal logic).
In general, a statement can be syntactically correct but logically incorrect, or even nonsense. Consider Chomsky's famous sentence:
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. [syntactically perfect, but nonsense]
*Furiously sleep ideas green colorless. [syntactically flawed, and equally nonsensical]
Where should I put the comma and the quotes in such a sentence?
The comments were significantly focused on my being “engaging, patient and extremely helpful,” “very coherent and easy-to-understand,” or "clear and straight to the point".
My question is whether I can do something like this "bla," "bla" - meaning, a simple space between two quotes and the comma before the first one.
Thanks!
Can someone explain why this sentence is considered passive voice. Also convert it to active voice.
"The recruits are tested and qualified for the finals".
Answer
There is Passive Voice in this sentence because:
1. The predicate of the sentence is in the Present Simple Passive (to be + Participle II).
2. The subject of the sentence is the logical object (the recruits).
3. The sentence can be reconstructed into the Active Voice (with the subject naming the performers of testing and qualifying):
They (i.e., the recruiters) test and qualify the recruits for the finals.