idioms - God save the Queen

I was wondering why this expression is not “God saves the Queen”. According to my very first English teacher, when the subject is he, she or it, “to save” is conjugated “he/she/it saves”.

Is it an exception?

Answer

It is not an exception. This is the subjunctive mood, being used to express a wish. See “Third person requests with a main-clause subjunctive” in the Wikipedia article on “English subjunctive”, which gives “God save our gracious Queen” as a specific example.

You may think of it as short for “May God save the Queen” or “Let God save the Queen” if that helps you parse it better.

definite articles - "The" with labelled nouns

Practical English Usage 142.20 reads

We usually leave out articles in abbreviated styles:

numbering and labelling

• Go through door A



• Control to Car 27: can you hear me?


• Turn to page 26.

What can be considered labels? For example, "on page 10" and "in Chapter 2" are clear. But do the following need "the"?

• The/_ name 'John' is popular.


• We suggest use the/_ method Y...



• ...as the/_ variable x grows...


• The/_ words "evokeo cvec" do not mean anything.

In other words, can "the" be omitted in every noun + its label/name phrase?

Can we use a bare infinitive after the copula freely?

But all he'd tried to do (as he shouted at Uncle Vernon through the
locked door of his cupboard) was jump behind the big trash cans
outside the kitchen doors. Harry supposed that the wind must have
caught him in mid- jump. (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone)

A great thing to do is dance the night away. (English Syntax and
Argumentation, Bas Aarts)

As long as there is a to-infinitive in the subject just like the two examples, can we use a bare infinitive after the copular? (I want to know if there are some regulations in using bare infinitives: for example, the subject has to have ‘all, what, anything, etc’)

Answer

EDIT FOLLOWING A MORE ATTENTIVE READING OF THE QUESTION
The short answer is ‘No’ A marked infinitive is obligatory, as may be seen from counter-examples:

^✲What we plan is take the train to New York.
^✲Caesar’s objective was break the power of the Druids.

The question then becomes, Why is the bare infinitive acceptable in your two examples?

I note that in these examples, the construction with a marked infinitive is equally acceptable as without:

All he’d tried to do was to jump behind the trash cans.
A great thing to do is to dance the night away.

or

All he’d tried to do was jump behind the trash cans.
A great thing to do is dance the night away.

But if we invert the predication, the marked infinitive is required:

To jump behind the trash cans was all he’d tried to do.
To dance the night away is a great thing to do.

These two facts lead me to believe that what we have here is not bare infinitives but ellipses: the marker is allowed to be dropped because in each case it is preceded by a (somewhat parallel) marked infinitive, to do. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that if we delete those to dos, the resultant unmarked infinitives are no longer acceptable:

^✲All he had tried was jump behind the trash cans.
^✲A great thing is dance the night away.

grammar - "Both a" vs "a both"

I'm unsure about the grammatically correct use of the word "both" in the following sentence.

The text currently reads:

This is a both natural and powerful thing

Which sounds weird to me. I think that:

This is both a natural and powerful thing

sounds better, but I'm not a 100% sure and as such hesitant to change the sentence.

Which is the correct version? Or are both sentences grammatically valid? If so, are there any subtle differences in their semantics (like in e.g., "fine with me" vs. "fine for me")?

grammatical number - “Is on” or “are on”?

• The family is on a tour


• The family are on a tour

Which one is correct and why?

Answer

1. The family is on a tour




2. The family are on a tour

Both are correct, as the collective noun family can both be treated as singular or plural. However, one is less likely to hear the second sentence in the US, for collective nouns are usually treated as singular in American English, while they can be treated as both singular and plural in British English. See the note on collective noun concord at Oxford Dictionaries Online.

---

You may want also want to consider a related answer here.

Tense simplification in subordinate clauses - past perfect instead of would have

in Michael Swan's "Practical English Usage" he states in entry 580.6 ("past instead of would ..."): "would, like will, is avoided in subordinate clauses; instead, we generally use past verbs". He also gives the following example:

-Would you follow me wherever I went?

However, if I wanted to refer to an unreal past situation in a subordinate clause (and by that, I mean not only an if-clause), would it be correct to use a past perfect form. For example, if I modified Michael Swan's example so that it refers to an unreal past situation, would this sentence be correct?

-Would you have followed me wherever I had gone?

My point is, Michel Swan just talks about using past verbs instead of would in subordinate clauses, but he doesn't mention anything about using past perfect forms instead of "would have".

I really appreciate every answer. Thank you in advance

grammaticality - "If I asked, would she say it were/was time?" Past Vs. Subjunctive

Is there any reason to use the subjunctive mood in the question "If I asked, would she say it were/was time?" There's an air of uncertainty about "were" when compared to the past tense "was," but is it grammatical to use the subjunctive? Archaic?