The choice between the gerund and the infinitive in a certain construction

I am pretty much sure that for native speakers the issue I am going to bring up might look as an uncalled question as they can easily figure out which form of a verbal part of speech should be used, be it a gerund, an infinitive, or a bare infinitive. However, it can be pretty much misleading for a foreigner because the same construction works differently with different words and I don’t see a logical explanation. For example:

1. The purpose of this article is to analyze the issue…



2. My hobby is reading.

   
   
   
   

   One may assume, and many foreigners really come to this conclusion, that it’s OK to switch the “gerund” and “infinitive” as the meaning will stay the same, that is:




3. The purpose of this article is analyzing the issue… (same as 1 above)



4. My hobby is to read. (same as 2 above)

However, as I was told, this assumption is erroneous.

Another example:
His task was watching after them. (not good)
His task was to watch after them.

Is there any principle which governs the choice of the right form in such cases?

grammaticality - Which tense is (more) correct in this sentence, the present perfect or past simple?

The sentence is: "These investigations have seen several officials arrested."

I'm not sure which tense I should use, the present perfect here seems more natural to me but I can't seem to find a rule that confirms it, maybe someone here can help me out.

Thanks in advance to whoever tells me the answer to this.

hyphenation - Should I use a hyphen with a phrase involving "then"?

In this sentence: "before migrating to lower SoHo, and the then still fringe neighborhood of Chelsea," I feel like "then-still" should be hyphenated, but I can't find a rule in the Chicago Manual of Style about it. Any ideas?

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 - Why are certain single word compound nouns pluralized in the middle

Hypothesis: compound nouns that are unhyphenated single words can be pluralized by adding an “s” to the noun root only when they consist of a noun + preposition.

This is a follow-up to an earlier question

Numerous examples are given in the Answers to that Question listing compound nouns that pluralize in the middle by adding an “s” to the head or root noun, such as sons-in-law and secretaries general.

However, other than passersby, (the word posed in the question and the word that got me thinking, before I found that question), and standersby (for which I cannot find an online definition), all of the examples in that Q&A, and those that I can think of or find, are either hyphenated or written as an unhyphenated noun phrase.

Virtually all of these spaced or hyphenated examples are either noun + adjective or noun + prepositional phrase. The only exception in the examples from the earlier Question is spoonsful, but this seems to be a less favored variant of spoonfuls (although Microsoft considers spoonfuls incorrect and spoonsful correct).

There are other single word, unhyphenated compound constructions that serve as nouns which consist of a verb form + preposition which pluralize the usual way, such as

shutouts

takeovers

flybys

Is it possible that the reason for the passersby type construction (plural noun root, no space, no hyphen) is the particular combination of noun + preposition? This appears to be a rather rare construction.

I have reviewed word lists in onelook.com for any construction with a [word]+s+preposition by searching *sby and other *s[preposition] combinations. (I could not search *s+in because of the volume.)

The only other examples I have found are strikesthrough and sneaksby. The only reference to strikesthrough is a Wiktionary entry which considers the overall word to be a verb, but several of the listed cites appear to be typos. Sneaksby is actually a singular form.

One or two examples are a poor way to make a rule, but could it be that this particular plural form is limited to this particular parts-of-speech structure?

Answer

In English there's no such thing as a plural form for an adjective or a preposition. So if you have a compound noun, like "court martial", to make it plural you should pluralize the noun and not the adjective. Hence, "courts martial". There aren't two martials; there are two courts.

Similarly, "passersby" make sense because there are two "passers", not two "byes". "Two spoonsful" because there are two spoons that are full, not two fulls that are spoon. Etc.

But "flyby" is in a different category. It is a noun formed by combining a verb and a preposition. There are not two "byes", but neither are there two "flies". Similarly with "takeover" and "shutout". There is no "inner noun" in these cases to pluralize. So it is the combined word as a whole that is a noun, and it makes sense to pluralize it as a whole word and not as a compound.

american english - Does modifying a collective noun with a number make the subject plural?

The word dozen is a collective noun, i.e., singular when we think of them as groups and plural when we think of the individuals acting within the whole. So we might say:

Talking about eggs: "A dozen is probably not enough."
Talking about a party with friends: "A dozen are coming over this afternoon."

So, a dozen roses would likely be considered singular (like a bouquet). We might say, "A dozen roses costs ten rupees," as per subject-verb agreement.

1) However, since we have six dozen, does the modification of the noun by a number change the subject to plural, resulting in cost? Or is it all moot because of the plural roses?

In American English, collective nouns tend to be singular while in British English they may be both. That said, I've seen the suggestion that cost be used, which would be straightforward to me if dozens (plural) were used. From an American perspective, I feel the subject should remain singular when modified by a number: "Three dozen is enough to feed an army," or "Two dozen pizzas is/are too much" (the be verb is interchangeable in the 2nd example).

2) Is sticking with singular in the case above purely my American usage side showing, or is it a shared phenomenon?

Wikipedia states:

When modified by a number, the plural is not inflected, that is, has no -s added.

3) (Main Question) Does this have any bearing on whether the subject is treated as a plural? That is, since a plural is not inflected, could the subject remain singular, or is this irrelevant?

Note this is not a duplicate, since that question is vague and about to be closed and my suggested edit, which is the basis of this question, was rejected.

Answer

Looking at the effective interaction with the dozens, I suggest that the singular is appropriate. You are paying one price for the lot. As such six dozens is being treated as a single collective unit.

Six dozen roses costs 60 rupees. [You are buying one thing]

If you were quoting a price for each dozen, you probably would say

Six dozen roses cost 10 rupees per dozen. [You are buying six things]

adjectives - Iced Grande Latte or Grande Iced Latte

I want to order a Grande-sized cup of iced latte. Should I order "Iced Grande Latte" or "Grande Iced Latte" ?

I looked up for adjective order. The first result from Google says

1. Quantity or number


2. Quality or opinion


3. Size


4. Age


5. Shape


6. Color


7. Proper adjective (often nationality, other place of origin, or material)


8. Purpose or qualifier.

So according to the list, "iced grande latte" seems to be the correct one. Somehow I remember that I have heard both of them, although "iced grande latte" comes more often.

EDIT: Now that I am aware of What is the rule for adjective order? (thanks to @TimLymington for giving me the pointer), it is still a bit unclear to me as to which one is the correct answer. Or does it even make sense to ask about the correct ordering here? Because after reading the post, adjective ordering seems like a topic that we have not fully understood yet. Lots of discussions are still ongoing.

The thing is that I always order "grande iced latte". But the barista almost always says "iced grande latte". After I come to think about it more deeply, it may be because with different sizes of cups (tall, grande, venti, etc.) they add different amount of espresso shots (1, 2, 3, etc.) and that ice cubes are the last things they put into the cup.

Then different sizes of cups should generally contain different amount of espresso shots. Because of this the barista then needs to know first which size to prepare (i.e., how many shots to get from the machine). So in general, when ordering coffee from a cafe, it seems to make more sense to say "iced grande latte", doesn't it?

Answer

The list of adjective order applies in the absence of other factors that would dictate the order. In this case, there are a number of factors that would define the order.

• Is one of the adjectives part of the item's name? If the menu lists "iced latte", that's the product name. Choosing the serving size doesn't change the product name, so it would be "grande iced latte" in that case.




• If the menu simply lists "latte", does one of the adjectives define an aspect that leads people to perceive it as a different beverage? Size doesn't do that, but "Iced" might refer to a variation that gives it a very different character and drinker experience. In that case, it should be the modifier closest to the word, "grande iced latte".




• Next on the list would be if one of the adjectives refers to a substantive preparation process and the other doesn't, in which case it should be the closest modifier. Dispensing into cups of different sizes is a trivial difference. "Iced" may involve a non-trivial preparation process (i.e., more that dropping a few ice cubes into the cup of latte right before serving).




• The last factor, in the absence of anything else, might be the preparation sequence. If iced latte is prepared and then dispensed into a large cup, it would be "grande iced latte". If latte is prepared, dispensed into a large cup, and then ice is added, it would be "iced grande latte".