I'm writing a sentence that uses a plugged list of words into my main phrase. I think I picked this up from reading stuff that used a similar construction(?) but I'm not sure if it's formally/academically correct. You may recognize what it is referring to.
"Those with gold in their bodies are meant to be rulers; those with silver, auxiliaries; those with iron and bronze, craftsmen."
1) Is this correct/advised? (in AmE)
2) Does this thing have a name?
The ’s can be used as a contraction representing a weak, unstressed word that is not pronounced. It allegedly cannot occur in sentence final position.
- She is not ready, but he is.
- She’s not ready, but he is.
- She’s not ready, but *he’s.
The last one is not grammatical there.
Similarly, here the last one is not grammatical:
- He has not started yet, but she has.
- He’s not started yet, but she has.
- He’s not started yet, but *she’s.
This answer claims this is because you cannot end a sentence with a weak form. It backs up its point with reasonably scholarly documentation.
However, this does not seem to be invariably true.
- Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let us go.
- Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let’s go.
- Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let’s.
Unlike the third example in the first two sets, here in this case the third example is indeed grammatical, despite ending with a weak form.
Is this an exception to the rule, or is there another rule at work here?
Answer
No.
It's been well demonstrated in the linguistic literature that natural human languages, including English, cannot be captured in a context-free grammar.
Here's a link for you (PDF): Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language
How do I say (a friend of Bob’s)’s house?
It’s like a double possesive. Bob’s friends are a class of people. Tom, a friend of Bob’s denotes that he is one among Bob’s friends.
Now what if I want to specify the friend’s name is Tom?
Which of these (if any) applies:
What’s the correct punctuation and such?
Answer
"a friend of Bob's" means "one of Bob's friends". Therefore, you can say
"I've been to Tom's, one of Bob's friends.
/or/
I've been to Tom's, a friend of Bob's.
You can omit the word "house". It's implicit.
I am confused if a question which is placed like a taunt can be taken like a question or like a taunt.
Examples:
- Are you saying so because you built it?
- Is it too much to ask for?
These are grammatically correct questions, but do they sound provoking? Are these necessarily questions, not just grammatically but the way they sound?
Answer
Punctuate taunting questions as questions. To do otherwise would be odd and unclear. The rhetorical, taunting meaning comes through loud and clear.
The most important assets are people vs are the people
Could you help, please
I'm writing a paper in which I refer to "natural-language-controlled robots" about thirty times. I'm curious about this phrase's hyphenation.
I would write
robots controlled by natural language
without hyphens, but when I turn the phrase around to avoid ambiguity, it turns into
natural language controlled robots
which seems to need hyphens all-upons! The robots are not controlled robots of the language variety, so I need a hyphen between language and controlled. They are similarly not language-controlled robots of the natural variety, so it seems I need hyphens between all three words.
However,
natural-language-controlled robots
feels unwieldy, which brings me here. Is this really how this phrase should be punctuated?
The alternative I've come up with is applying a partial initialism, yielding
NL-controlled wheelchairs
which seems better, but prompts similar problems; do I really want a hyphen attached to an initialism? That looks wrong. But the sentence seems semantically wrong without it!
I'm sure I'm overthinking this.
Answer
There is a degree of flexibility in this, though as with other cases where there's a degree of flexibility, a given style guide may have a firm rule that you should follow rather than what anyone says here.
When creating a compound where one or more of your elements are itself compounds (in this case natural language or natural-language depending on whether you decide to hyphenate that as discussed further below), then many favour using an en-dash (–) over a hyphen, especially if the compound is open (with a space rather than a hyphen). I would strongly advise on following this style as a rule unless you've a guide that insists against it, as it adds a heirarchy of "levels" to your compounds. So the choice is between natural-language–controlled and natural language–controlled.
Now, I've already given my opinion here on the general question of when to hyphenate and I won't repeat it all there especially since some (but not all) of it is a matter of personal style.
I would say that in this case if I'd expect people that would be reading the piece to be familiar with the phrase natural language, then I'd favour the open form:
natural language–controlled
Because I would expect such readers to "pick up on" the phrase natural language as a unit.
If I would expect a large number of readers to not be familiar with the phrase, then I'd favour the closed form:
natural-language–controlled
Because such readers would be more likely to mis-read "language–controlled" as a unit that is modified by natural, even with the en-dash (after all the difference between - and –, is a subtle one).
Personally, I'd prefer to read the first of my two suggestions, but attention must be paid to likely audiences, so I'd go against my own preference if it was for a very wide audience including many unfamiliar with the term natural language.