grammar - Follow vs Follow after

Is the expression "follow after", e.g; "He followed after her", grammatically incorrect or an awkward phrasing?
I use the phrase "follow after" to put an emphasis on the action, it also gives me a subtle impression of dependence, as if, the subject is following the other person either very closely or is "following at the heels" of that person, and if they had lingered in the previous room, for instance, they'd run to catch that person.

I have googled my issue, and found one site (wordreference.com) with a thread on this and with various answers. I'm also guessing that the answer technically lies in the definition of "follow". However, I kept seeing this phrase used several times in different books, and I have been using it myself.

I have seen that it might be:

• Sloppy English. Yet numerous works seem to use it? I wouldn't have picked up on it, otherwise.


• Might indicate tagging along


• Might imply following someone without their knowledge.

As you can see, I've interpreted this phrase completely differently. I have also seen that "follow" is a statement of sequence in space or time and follow after is a statement of volition, of active pursuit (which contradicts with the statement that it implies following someone without their knowledge).

Could you guys offer some clarifications and a final say on what follow/follow after actually mean/imply?

orthography - Are line references capitalised?

When I write, I treat references as though they are proper nouns; for example, Chapter 10, Section 10, Line 10, Page 10. (As opposed to chapter 10, section 10, line 10, page 10 - no capital letter.)

[My short forms would be Ch.10, s.10, l.10, p.10]

Until now, I've never been picked up on it. I wrote a piece that involved numerous references to numbered lines. Here is an example from my piece:

Ham makes further attempts to connect with the reader in Line 26, where she writes...

This was corrected to "line 26" (no capital).

I can't really explain why I think references should be capitalised, but I surely must have picked it up from somewhere.

So, my question is - if not common practice, is there anything wrong with capitalising (line) references? Are there any style guides that have a preference for capitalised references?

grammatical number - Which is correct, "sales price" or "sale price"?

I have a list of items with their details such as item name, quantity, purchase price, sales price/sale price, etc. What is more correct to write in the heading, sales price or sale price?

Answer

Acoording to Ngram they are both common definitions, but have different meaning as shown below. In your specific case 'sales price' is the correct expression if you are referring to regular, non-discount sales.

Sale price :

• The discounted price of an item from the regular selling price.

Sales price:

• Alternative term for price.

Source: http://www.businessdictionary.com

How to use fully qualified acronyms

Which is proper/acceptable?

Take for instance this sentence:

We would like to use IBM machines.

Now consider that I needed to fully qualify IBM... How do I make this not read strangely?

We would like to use IBM (International Business Machines) machines.

or

We would like to use International Business Machines (IBM) machines.

(Please note that IBM is not the real acronym but it's similar to what I need to pull off)

EDIT:

I should add that part of my question is that if it's incorrect or less correct to put [Fully qualified name] (Acronym) or [Acronym] (Fully qualified name)

Answer

When using acronyms in writing, the APA Style Guide recommends:

When you do use abbreviations, always give the full name the first time you use it: The Modern Humanities Research Association (MHRA) -- unless it is commonly used as a word (AIDs, IQ, URL). Write out the complete name, and then give the abbreviation you will use (as illustrated above), unless the abbreviation is widely recognized (CIA).

IBM is a fairly well-recognized acronym. If you must write out the fully qualified name, however, then the most proper sentence would be:

We would like to use International Business Machines (IBM) machines.

As @Randolf mentioned, though, you might want to avoid calling them "IBM machines" because of the redundancy.

possessives - Should an apostrophe be used with a z at the end of a word?

I know that if a word ends with an s then it should be made plural or possessive by use of an apostrophe with no extra s (e.g. "Thomas Harris' book was a riveting read." as opposed to "Gary Barlow's voice is so distracting.")

What about if the word ends with a z. For example, would it be Gomez' album or Gomez's album?

Answer

There are various views regarding proper nouns ending in s.

The Times Style and Usage Guide (2011):

apostrophes with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, [...] where the final 's' is soft, use the 's' apostrophe, eg, Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency

The Guardian Style Guide (2007):

The possessive in words and names ending in S normally takes an
apostrophe followed by a second S (Jones's, James's), but be guided by
pronunciation and use the plural apostrophe where it helps:
Mephistopheles', Waters', Hedges' rather than Mephistopheles's,
Waters's, Hedges's.

In both guides pronunciation has an impact on the use of s after the apostrophe. These guides, however, only consider names ending in s. I suspect, given the guiding principles stated in the guides, that these rules could be extended to names ending in z when the z is pronounced s.

In any case, I would write Gomez's as this is not difficult to pronounce.

grammar - Usage of 'Could' and 'Would' in non-past tense sentense

Could someone explain me why we should use "Could"and "Would" in this sentence? can we use "Can" and "Will" instead?

"Is this report something that your team could handle for me? Please review the attached and let me know. I can’t imagine it would take more than 10 minutes a week".

Thanks

santhosha

Answer

The conditional tense is being used as a form of politeness. By expressing a modicum of doubt about the outcome, the respondent is offered the opportunity to refuse politely.

"Is this report something that your team can handle for me?"

"Nope, we're too busy."

versus

"Is this report something that your team could handle for me?"

"We would help you but unfortunately the team is very busy.

Plural of numbers (as nouns)

I really tried to find an answer in Internet but turns out I've found two different answers for the same question: how do you say the plural of a number (used as noun)?

Let me elaborate:

Suppose I'm explaining to a child how to add (in Math). I'd say:

Four twos make an eight.

Or I could say:

Four two's make an eight.

On one webpage I found the first one to be correct. I asked to an online tutor about this and she told me the second one is correct. So, which one is correct? Is that a general rule? If the second one is correct, would that mean it applies to all numbers?

Answer

The first is correct:

Four twos make an eight.

It is good and right to say and write, "twos," in a situation like this, as with any number—following all the normal rules of adding "s" to make a noun plural... "fives", "twenties" (y -> i, +es), et cetera.

The apostrophe...

two's

...indicates a possessive, not a plural. That would be a different situation, such as if you were talking about the font the two was written in, "The two's serifs are larger in the Tex Gyre Schola font." Or, in Math, "The two's quotient can only be a one or a two if it is to be a whole number."

---

Links (Grammarly):