Using an apostrophe; Centres or Centre's?

My sentence says:

Coventry city centre's main transport links.

but there is a red line under "centre's" in MS word. Is it "centres" or "centre's"? I thought that you use an apostrophe for belonging.

Thanks in advance.

grammaticality - Past Simple + Present Simple

I'd like to know which of the following sentences is correct and, if possible, why one is correct and other isn't.

1. He taught me how the world works.


2. He taught me how the world worked.

word choice - "And" or "with" when comparing

If one were to try and compare mixed food with food and a side which would you use? For example, what is the difference between "Green Salad with Dressing" and "Green Salad and Dressing" and which one would you use to imply the dressing was on the side?

Answer

Depending on the type of salad and the competence/preferences of whoever prepared it, the dressing might already be mixed or not. In the case of a "green salad", for example, I think it would be straightforward incompetence to serve this mixed. But I don't think it's meaningful to distinguish between with and and in this context. Neither word implies anything about how it would actually be served.

If you really didn't want them mixed, you'd be safest actually specifying that, for example:

Salad with a dressing served separately

syntactic analysis - Missing subject in the sentence

Original sentence:

Inform John that you have completed the tutorial and need your assigned mentor.

Is that grammatically correct, or it's misses an additional you:

Inform John that you have completed the tutorial and you need your assigned mentor.

Answer

This is called conjunction reduction, where the conjunction (and) allows the sentence fragments identified by the noun clause (that you) to be reduced.

The unreduced form is:

Inform John that you (have completed the tutorial) and that you (need your assigned mentor).

and the reduced form is:

Inform John that you (have completed the tutorial and need your assigned mentor).

Both of these are grammatically correct.

grammatical number - Singular verb after two noun phrases joined by "and" that can be thought of as a single thing

I am having trouble with the following sentence:

"The complexity and diversity of the new platforms is worrying us."

If "complexity" and "diversity" constitute two subjects, then the verb should presumably be "are"; however, the sentence feels more natural with "is". Is this correct? Is there a linguistic term for this occurrence?

---

The following questions address the general topic of compound subjects, but not specific cases like this:

[Singular] Is/Are [Plural]?
Singular or plural following a list

And the following question seems to have somewhat inconclusive answers:

Verb agreement in “Where is the Messiah and his Kingdom?”

So this question is not really a duplicate of these three.

Answer

Yes, it is just fine. Compare:

• “My lord and husband is come home.”


• “Peanut butter and jelly is the best sandwich of all.”


• “Simon and Garfunkel sounds really mellow right now.”


• “Tide and time waits for no man.”



• “Our President and CEO is Joe Schmoe.”


• “Running and jumping is all I want to do today.”


• “The master and commander has not yet returned.”


• “Yesterday is gone; today is fleeting as we speak; tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow is all that remains to us.”

It happens when the subject is thought of as one thing. Sometimes it is two things that are so fused as to be thought of together. Sometimes it is two names for the same thing.

Do not let that little and make you think that a plural verb must necessarily follow. It does not have to, and sometimes should not.

grammar - "in order to" vs. "for the sake of"

These two phrases seem to be interchangeable in most cases.

But I found one case where it seems that "in order to" works, and "for the sake of" sounds like it's not as good a choice of words.

Example:

1. I've probably continued to sing in order to write these words.


2. I've probably continued to sing for the sake of writing these words.

To me, in order to seems to be a better choice. For the sake of doesn't seem to be as good a choice, because it doesn't seem to be a good choice in general for things that you're going to do in the future. For the sake of seems to be more appropriate for things that already exist, not actions that are going to take place in the future. For actions that are going to take place in the future, in order to sounds sort of more appropriate.

Am I right? Is there anything to what I'm saying?

Answer

The phrase in order to connotes enabling

I work in order to have the means of survival.

The phrasing is fairly stiff in most cases, and the same concept can usually be expressed with to

I work to have the means of survival

The phrase for the sake of indicates benefit or support

I made my comments for the sake of harmony.

My comments won't necessarily cause harmony, but should help.

There are cases where either construction might work, but there are at least subtle differences. I don't think that there is a temporal distinction.

adverbs - "Still" versus "Yet"

In the following sentence, is using of yet correct?

Inserts settlement in a duty that needs it, in the most suitable yet available place.

It seems to me that I must use still instead of yet but at the same time the sentence with still does not sound right.