questions - Meaning of negation in embedded yes/no interrogatives

I suppose we can say that the meaning of

I asked him if he likes beer

is essentially identical to

I asked him: "Do you like beer?".

But what if I say:

I asked him if he didn't like beer

Is this question even grammatical and does it make sense at all? If yes then what direct question would it entail? Is it

I asked him: "Don't you like beer?"

Or

I asked him: "You don't like beer, do you?"

Answer

The basic form of the direct question would be

"Don't you like beer?"

and, while

"You don't like beer, do you?"

is semantically identical, we use it in a different context. The first question is one of surprise (if she seems not to) or affirmation (if you believe she does). The second question is looking for confirmation of your belief that the other person doesn't like beer, either personally or because you feel beer is just awful and all right-thinking people avoid it.

Pace @MaddieS. you should never answer a negative question with a one-word answer. It's completely ambiguous whether that means you're negating the question or affirming it. You'll spend the next minute or two of the conversation in needless loop trying to figure out what was intended, which can be offputting when someone expects their logic or phrasing should have been straightforward. Instead, just answer the whole thing: "No, I don't", or "Yes, I don't like beer at all".

grammar - Dependent clause tense inheritance

Is it right to tell

1. Five years ago he already knew that two plus two equals four.

or

2. Five years ago he already knew that two plus two equaled four.

?

On English classes (I live in not English speaking country) we have learnt that if present clause is dependent to past one than it turns into past. However, I did not fully agree with it and gave (the top sentence above as) an example. It caused a lot of confusion.

In my country's official pre-university English exams (one of the previous years' variants) there is a text with tasks. One of the sentences is:

Nurse believed that fresh air and food ____ very important in fighting soldiers' diseases.
A. are
B. were
...

I was really surprised when I discovered that the right answer is B. were.

My logic is: when nurse dies, it won't become unimportant. That's why A. are should be right.

Could someone please help figuring it out?

Answer

If the condition expressed in the that-clause is still true, especially if it is a "general truth", it is okay to retain the present tense.

Five years ago he already knew that two plus two equals four

As of January 17, 2015, two plus two equals four, so I would see nothing wrong with this sentence.

Let me quote from Capital Community College Foundation's The Guide to Grammar and Writing's page on Sequence of Tenses:

As long as the main clause's verb is in neither the past nor the past perfect tense, the verb of the subordinate clause can be in any tense that conveys meaning accurately. When the main clause verb is in the past or past perfect, however, the verb in the subordinate clause must be in the past or past perfect. The exception to this rule is when the subordinate clause expresses what is commonly known as a general truth:

1. In the 1950s, English teachers still believed that a background in Latin is essential for an understanding of English.


2. Columbus somehow knew that the world is round.


3. Slaveowners widely understood that literacy among oppressed people is a dangerous thing.

Thinking that a background in Latin is essential for an understanding of English was considered a general truth in the 1950, although it is not considered as such in these days.

grammar - do anything vs do something

Which is correct?

Please let us know if we need to do anything about it.

or

Please let us know if we need to do something about it.

"No" when replying to a question

Say I'm having a conversation and somebody besides me asks "you didn't go to the movie", so usually I would say "no" even though they are correct.

Is there a name for this?
Any more information?

I'm in the USA if that helps

nouns - Joule Pronounced "Jowl"

In Linus Pauling's book, "General Chemistry", in one of the annotations in the first chapter, he writes the following about the word "joule": " Usually pronounced to rhyme with howl." I have not found any evidence to support this claim as every dictionary and reference I have found so far claims that joule is pronounced like "jewel". Is there any evidence to support Linus Pauling's pronunciation of joule as " Jowl" or was it some sort of jestful annotation used to add humor to his otherwise strictly factual book?

Edit: At the request of user @sumelic, I will append my question with another one. Was "Jowl" the colloquially accepted pronunciation in Linus Pauling's time, or was this the common pronunciation only in the scientific community of Pauling's time? Perhaps even a brief history of the etymology of joule might help shed light on this strange discrepancy in pronunciation.

Answer

A 1943 letter to the editor of the journal Nature suggests that the anglicized pronunciation of joule was accepted not only by many in the public, but by authorities for some time:

A century has passed since Joule read his paper on the relation between heat and work at the meeting of the British Association at Cork on August 26, 1843. It is unfortunate that a difference of opinion has arisen about the correct pronunciation of his name….

The “Oxford English Dictionary” gives dzaul as the pronunciation of the unit, where au represents the sound in the word loud. In “Webster’s New International Dictionary” (1911) is found the statement:

“The proper name is pronounced joul (ou as in out) and this is the correct pronunciation for the unit; but the incorrect jool [oo as in food] is very common especially in the United States”.

In “Chambers’s Technical Dictionary” (first published 1940) we find the contradictory statements

joule, jool (Phys.). A unit of energy equal to 107 ergs. (Named after F. [sic] P. Joule, 1918–89 ; name pronounced jowl.)

Kenyon & Scott's A Pronouncing Dictionary of American English, published a few years later, provides multiple pronunciations:

Joule: dʒaʊl, dʒul, dʒol | joule dʒaʊl, dʒul

As Pauling was born in 1901, it seems plausible that he learned to pronounce joule to rhyme with jowl, and that this pronunciation would have been accepted in some quarters— if not by all. People tend to pronounce names and terms as they learn then, without revisiting them, and that is true of scientists as much as anyone else.

A 2008 paper by JR Schwyter, Setting a standard: Early BBC language policy and the Advisory Committee on Spoken English, reports that "the Committee received 27 letters relating to the pronunciation of the last name Joule, as in James Prescott Joule, the scientist (19 January 1933)… In the light of such correspondence, the Committee (30 November 1933) decided on the pronunciation… ‘JOOL’*.

Over the course of the twentieth century, it seems the "jewel" pronunciation came to predominate. Perhaps the BBC Radio influence helped. Perhaps it rose because it was the more prevalent American pronunciation (per Webster's as quoted above), and American physicists rose in both numbers and preeminence, especially in the nuclear age. Perhaps it is because, related to this, the American postwar tendency is not to anglicize pronunciations, and the fact that Joule was an Englishman may be lost on the public. It is hard to attribute shifts in pronunciation to any one cause or moment in history.

The current OED entry notes

Although some people of this name call themselves /dʒaʊl/ and others /dʒəʊl/ (D. Jones Everyman's Eng. Pronouncing Dict. (ed. 11, 1956), G. M. Miller BBC Pronouncing Dict. British Names (1971)), it is almost certain that J. P. Joule (and some at least of his relatives) used /dʒuːl/ . For evidence on this point see Nature (1943) CLII. 354, 418, 479, 602.

For what it's worth, this was the pronunciation given in its first edition—

Joule (dʒaul)

— immediately after the entry for Joul(e, obs. form of JOWL.

Use of definite article before "authority"

I cannot find the rule for using the definitive article with the word "authority", is it always necessary and what is the grammar rule that I need to know?

Are both these sentences OK or just the second sentence? And what difference does it make. The more I look, the more confused I become.

The teacher has authority to change the data
or

The teacher has the authority to change the data

grammar - "IS" or 'ARE' ? in this sentence

Please have a look at this sentence.

"Troy University International Partners is not accredited by SACS Commission on Colleges and the accreditation of Troy University does not extend to or include partner institutions or their students. "

"IS" or 'ARE' ?

I think ARE is correct because it is "Partners" , or partner.

Answer

Both are valid depending on how you classify the entity. If considered as a homologous, all enveloping group that contains all its constituents or is used in such a manner for being considered as a whole, then it can be classed as a singular entity, therefore "is" can be used.

On the other hand if it is more of an umbrella term encompassing members, which are disparate in location, functions etcetera, then the plural "are" can be used.

I was going to assume that the term partners is irrelevant like FumbleFingers commented, however, in this case it seems to refer to actual international partners so "are" is appropriate as my second paragraph points out.