On another stackexchange site, I used the following phrasing:
I want to do X. It seems I can only do so when Y.
Someone edited the second sentence:
It seems
thatI can only do so when Y.
This made me realise that the edited form is perhaps more common -- but is my original phrasing grammatically incorrect? What role does "that" play in the second variation?
Which of the following is correct?
What he is looking for are books written by Jane Austin.
What he is looking for is books written by Jane Austin.
Is it are to agree with the object books or is to agree with the subject he?
Answer
I believe either one is actually correct, since the thing that determines the verb's case is the noun that comes first in the predicate nominative expression (on the left side of the imaginary equals sign). In this sentence, that first noun is what, which is technically a pronoun, but stands in for the noun that comes later. But of course, at this point in the sentence, it has not yet been determined whether the predicate noun that what is referring to is singular or plural, so the verb is essentially given the benefit of the doubt and is allowed to take either case, regardless of what the predicate noun turns out to be. This flexibility really only arises out of the fact that what is naturally ambiguous in number. If the sentence had begun The things he is looking for..., the predicate would have had to have been are books. Similarly, if the sentence had begun The thing he is looking for..., the predicate would have been singular - is books.
I would like to know if there is a difference in usage between these 2 structures.
In other words what situations might suit one and not the other?
Answer
It is about time (about an event or action) is used when saying that it is past the time when something should have happened: it’s about time she got a job; it's about time you shaved.
It is [only] a matter of time before (or until) something happens is used to express that something is sure to happen at some time in the future, but we are not sure exactly when. The house is burning, and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. If you keep swearing in the office, it is only a matter of time until you are dismissed. If you continue to torment the dog, it is only a matter of time before he bites you.
I saw this sentence online and it has been bothering me:
"Tomorrow is me and my girlfriend's anniversary."
I immediately had an aversion to this sentence after reading it but then I quickly had an aversion to my own corrections in my head:
"My girlfriend's and my anniversary is tomorrow."
"The anniversary of my girlfriend and me is tomorrow."
The original author's sentence plus my two corrections all "sound" incorrect despite one having a better chance at being grammatically correct.
The original author I think confused the adverb "Tomorrow" as being the subject since he or she (I don't want to assume the author is heterosexual) chose to begin the sentence with it. However, in my estimation the subject of a sentence will remain so no matter where it's placed within the sentence; thus, "tomorrow" cannot be the subject but rather "anniversary" is which led me to use the options I listed above. Which of these "corrections" is correct and why? Both? Neither?
Thank You
Edit: Thank you all for the replies. Basically, I'm having a crisis of what sounds good to the ear and is standard versus what can
sound incorrect/complex/clumsy to the ear but still be viewed as
grammatically viable. Yes, adding a verb to describe what the couple
would do on their anniversary and/or replacing "me and my girlfriend"
with a standard possessive adjective "our" would easily solve the
issue. But I guess my question was more about how irritatingly close
can a speaker get to "bad grammar" or "broken English" without it
being so? That's why I tried to use the OA's words at my disposal.
In what cases does one have to use all with a definite article?
Some examples:
All the people in this world...
Could you also please give a link to a reputable source that one can cite?
PCAs are usually assigned to an individual with a physical, mental, behavioral, or emotional handicap; whom they work with throughout the year.
Is this sentence grammatically correct? I know that semicolons are sometimes used when you have a list at the beginning of the sentence, to prevent confusion. Is that accurate?
Also, would "who" or "whom" be proper in this usage? I thought it would be "whom" because it's referring to the person who is helped, not the person who is helping, but I am not completely sure.
Answer
No, you don’t want a semi-colon there. A comma will do. Whom is grammatical, but so, too, would who be in an informal context.
My gut feeling tells me that sentences such as
Own mistakes have to be dealt with first.
Own experience matters the most.
We present own results.
are not correct, and I would supplement "own" with, for example, "your" or "my".
Is the above use of "own" just unusual, or is there a general rule saying that "own" always requires the possessive of a noun or a possessive pronoun?
The Oxford dictionary at least suggests that "own" cannot be used after an article:
Own cannot be used after an article:
I need my own room. (Not: I need an own room.)
It's good to have your own room. (Not: It's good to have the own room.)
Are there other words for which that is also the case?
("own" without a pronoun is often found in English texts written by German native speakers, because in German it is perfectly fine to say "Eigene Fehler ...".)
Answer
According to the CaGEL, the adjective own is unique amongst adjective because it only occurs with a genitive subject-determiner.
A genitive subject-determiner is either:
There are a very few exception to this rule, but they all occur in fixed phrases such as an own goal.
In short we cannot use the adjective own without a preceding noun.
[CaGEL is The Cambridge grammar of the English language Huddleston and Pullum, 2002]