Jose Carillo's Forum

YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

Jose Carillo’s English Forum invites members to post their grammar and usage questions directly on the Forum's discussion boards. I will make an effort to reply to every question and post the reply here in this discussion board or elsewhere in the Forum depending on the subject matter.

Can gerunds be modified by adverbs?

Question by Rezassp (December 28, 2012):

Please let me know what the role is of the word “abroad” in this sentence: “Living abroad can be an educational experience.”

It seems that the adverb “abroad” modifies the gerund noun “living”? If that’s correct, can we say that gerunds can be modified by adverbs?

Please let me know of any grammar reference book that explains this.

Thanks!

My reply to Rezassp:

You are correct in your assessment that in the sentence “Living abroad can be an educational experience,” the word “living” is a gerund—a verb turned into a noun—that functions as the subject of the sentence. But in this particular construction, the word “abroad”—meaning beyond the boundaries of one’s country— functions not as an adverb but as an adjective in modifying the gerund “living.” Why adjective? It’s because “abroad” modifies “living” to denote extent or state or to distinguish it from other ways of “living,” in the same way that “home” modifies “living” in this sentence: “In my country, living home isn’t much of a choice for many people seeking gainful employment.”  Recall that by definition, an adjective is a word that serves as a modifier of a noun “to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else.” In contrast, an adverb “typically serves as a modifier of a verb, an adjective, another adverb, a preposition, a phrase, a clause, or a sentence, expressing some relation of manner or quality, place, time, degree, number, cause, opposition…” (These definitions are from Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.)

This brings us to your next question: Can a gerund, being a noun form, be also modified by an adverb? Definitely yes, particularly when the modification denotes the manner of the action—the verb aspect—contained in the gerund. Consider this sentence: “Living ostentatiously can ruin one’s finances.” Here, “ostentatiously” is obviously functioning as an adverb to denote the manner or way that the act of “living” is done. Even adverbs that don’t end in “-ly” can do such a modifying job for a gerund, as the adverb “far” does in this sentence: “Living far isn’t a palatable idea for working people.”

We can generalize on this by saying that a gerund can be modified either by an adjective or adverb depending on which of its dual aspect—the noun aspect or the action aspect—is to be modified.

SOME SUGGESTED READINGS ON GERUNDS:
“The Gerund,” H.W. Fowler, The King’s English, 2nd ed.  1908.
Pearson Learning Solutions - Chapter 43: “Gerunds, Infinitives, and Participles”
Gerunds and Infinitives: Their Noun Roles

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Can superlative attributes apply to any number of comparables?

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (December 18, 2012):

I always have doubted the accuracy of sentences like “This is one of the most beautiful girls in our class,” or “They are two of the most respected elderly men in our neighborhood” and many other similar sentences. My sense is that a superlative should only be applied to express one noun that is the 'most' or the 'least' of all others in a given class of things or people as in “This is the most beautiful girl in our class” or “He is the most respected elderly man in our neighborhood.” But the first two sentences seem to violate this by showing that in a given group of things or people, we can well have even more than three things or people that exceed others in a certain aspect. So don't you think the strength of a superlative is diminished by distributing it to more than one thing in a group of compared things or people.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Let me first clarify the concept of the superlative before answering your question.

The superlative is the highest extent or degree of something. In English, to express which of more than two items has the highest degree of the quality expressed by the adjective, we append the suffix “-est” to certain short adjectives (like “newest” for “new”) or put the adverb “most” before longer adjectives (like “most reliable” for “reliable”). Superlatives can be either objective or subjective in character. 

Objective superlatives are those that express comparisons of facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. The comparative measure is factual or numerically demonstrable, so the validity of the superlative statement can be accepted without question, as in these statements: “The 2.16-km San Juanico Bridge between the islands of Samar and Leyte is the longest bridge in the Philippines.” “Jupiter, with a mass two and a half times that of all the other planets combined, isthe biggest planet in our solar system.” 

Let’s see what happens when we apply the objective superlative to more than one in a group of things: “The 2.16-km San Juanico Bridge between the islands of Samar and Leyte and the 1.098-km Buntun Bridge over the Cagayan River between Cagayan Province and Apayao Province are the two longest bridges in the Philippines.” “Jupiter and Saturn are the two biggest planets in our solar system.” 

In the two sentences above, is the strength of the objective superlative diminished by applying it to more than one in the group of things being compared? Not at all. Clearly, there’s no grammatical or logical impediment to applying the superlative to more than one of the comparables.

Now let’s consider subjective superlatives, which are those that express comparisons as conditioned by a personal mindset or state. They are value judgments—opinions—and it would be difficult to determine or dispute their accuracy, truthfulness, or reliability. These two sentences that you presented are superlatives of that kind: “This is one of the most beautiful girls in our class.” “They are two of the most respected elderly men in our neighborhood.” 

Is the strength of a subjective superlative in the two sentences above diminished by applying it to more than person in the group? Again, the answer is clearly no. In fact, we can apply the superlative in such sentences to even more people and neither the strength nor validity of the superlative would be diminished: “They are five of the most beautiful girls in our class.” “They are the ten most respected elderly men in our neighborhood.”

Undoubtedly then, whether objective or subjective, superlative attributes can be applied to any number of things being compared without detracting from the strength of the comparison and the correctness of its grammar and semantics.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Ideas for a forum-like assignment on “English: The Global Front”

Question by lglnet84, new Forum member (November 28, 2012):

Hi, I am a university undergrad and my assignment for this sem is a forum-like assignment. The title is “English—the Global Front.”

Any idea on how and what to write in this forum?

My reply to lglnet84:

If you can find time to go over the huge database accumulated in the discussion boards of Jose Carillo’s English Forum during the past three years, you’d be able to come up with lots of interesting ideas for your undergraduate assignment. You’d find discussions of practically every aspect of English grammar and usage between members from various countries that use English as a first, second, or third language. Just make a short list of, say, four or five ideas from the discussions that catch your fancy and you’d be off to a good start with your forum.

Good luck!

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

When form is correct, “is/are + past tense of the verb”?

Question by happywifey, new Forum member (November 21, 2012):

In technical documentation, I always encounter the following usage:

“is + past tense of verb”
“are + past tense of verb”

Is this correct or acceptable?

For example:
1. Click the Add button. The user is added to the group.
1. Click the Add button. The user was added to the group.

The following sections are modified:
The following sections were modified:

My reply to happywifey:

Ordinarily, the grammatically correct versions of the sentences you presented are as follows:

“The user was added to the group.” (Not “The user is added to the group.”)
“The following sections were modified:” (Not “The following sections are modified:)”

Because the action was done and completed in the past, the passive-voice past tense of the verb (“was added,” “were modified”) is used instead of the active-voice present tense form (“is added,” “are modified”).

However, the linking verb can be used in the present tense (“is,” “are”) if we modify the passive-voice sentence into one denoting a state or condition, as in the following:

“The user is an added element to the group.” 
“The following sections are modified versions of the original.” 

In such constructions, the phrase that follows the linking verb functions as an adjective describing the subject. There is no action involved in the sentence.

Now the question is: Wouldn't it be possible to use the active-voice, present-tense constructions at all?

Yes, there's a special case. It is when the speaker or writer is making the statement at the very moment of utterance or the act of writing as part of a set of instructions. For instance,

TV TALK SHOW HOST: “This is how e-groups is organized. First, the provider team is formed. Then the user is added to the group...” 

or:

A FIRST-PERSON WRITTEN NARRATIVE USING THE PRESENT TENSE:
“Let me describe to you how e-groups are organized in Alpha Company. First, the provider team is formed. Then the user is added to the group...”

This, of course, is precisely the nature of the technical documentation statements that you provided. They are online instructions in real time, so the present-tense, active-voice construction is perfectly acceptable—in fact is the scrupulously correct usage—in each case.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Is it correct or acceptable to use “therefor” instead of “therefore”?

Question by clementejak, forum member (October 17, 2012):

Hi Joe,

Good morning!

I am a member of the Board of Trustees of our association and the one drafting board resolutions. I always use the word “therefor” not “therefore,” am I right?

Thank you.

My reply to clementejak:

The usage of “therefor” looks trite and legalistic to me, but it's an acceptable spelling for “therefore.” You can go on writing “therefor” if you're really comfortable with it, but you’ve got to be consistent. Don’t allow the members of your association’s Board of Trustees to catch you inadvertently spelling it “therefore” one day, for they might think that you’ve been using “therefor” simply as a manifestation of your contrarian or lawyerly streak on matters of English usage.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Dealing with the grammar of equative constructions

Question posted by mcdv, new Forum member, in my Personal Messages box:

Hi, Mr. Carillo.

I’ve always been a fan, and I’ve always wondered how you got to be what you are today—a notable grammarian. Well, anyway, I just wanted to ask you a few questions on equative comparisons. Below are my questions on the subject:

1.  Which of the following sentences are correct?

     1.1 Mario is as much a thinker as a believer.
     1.2 Mario is as much a thinker as he is a believer.

2.  How do you make the sentence below work for a plural subject?

     2.1 A mother is as much a manager as a worker.
     2.2 Mothers are as much...
     
Thank you for your time, and an advance Merry Christmas to you!

My reply to mcdv:

 Both of the following sentences you presented are grammatically correct:

     1.1 “Mario is as much a thinker as a believer.”
     1.2 “Mario is as much a thinker as he is a believer.”

Version 1.2 is the full-blown, scrupulously correct equative construction, making the structures “Mario is… a thinker” and “he is a believer” as equal, balanced, and parallel as possible in the grammatical equation.

On the other hand, Version 1.1 is the elided version of Version 1.2, which is the omission (“elision” is the term in linguistics for this) of a grammatical element in the second coordinate clause—in this case the pronoun “he” in “he is a believer”—without adversely affecting the sense and grammatical integrity of the sentence.

As to your second question, here’s one way for the sentence “A mother is as much a manager as a worker” to work when the subject “mother” is made plural:

“Mothers are as much managers as workers.”

There’s a smoother way, though. It is to make that sentence notionally plural but grammatically singular by preceding the noun “mother” with the adjective “every”:

“Every mother is as much a manager as a worker.”

I’m not really a believer in extremely advanced Christmas greetings—heck, it’s only October 15!—but since you’ve already made the greeting, it would be impolite of me not to wish you the same in return: “Merry Christmas!”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The usage of the article “the” in serially enumerative sentences

Question by Pipes, Forum member (October 3, 2012):

I would just like to ask if it is really necessary to put the article “the” before every musical instrument, as in: “Mary can play the piano and the drums, but she can’t play the saxophone and the xylophone.” Can I just put “the” before the first noun for brevity’s sake? For instance, “Mary can play the piano and drums, but she can’t play the saxophone and xylophone.”

Hope you could enlighten me on this.

My reply to Pipes:

Yes, both grammatically and stylistically as well as for euphony’s sake, it’s necessary to put the article “the” before the name of every musical instrument when it’s a stand-alone item in a sentence. This is why it’s proper and idiomatic to say “Mary can play the piano,” “Mary can play the drums,” “Mary can’t play the saxophone,” and “Mary can’t play the xylophone.” The grammar rule that applies here is that the definite article “the” is needed because the name of the musical instrument is a specific or particular name; “the” signals to the listener or reader that the noun representing the musical instrument is definite. Not to use “the” before the name of the musical instrument will send the wrong, improper signal that the noun referred to is a proper noun—“Mary can play Piano,” “Mary can play Drums,” “Mary can’t play Saxophone,” and “Mary can’t play the Xylophone”—in much the same way as saying “Mary can play Chopin” or “Mary can play Ryan Cayabyab,” which, of course, isn’t the case at all in such grammatical situations. 

When the names of two or more musical instruments are serially enumerated in a sentence, it's grammatically acceptable to use the article “the” only once—it has to be positioned right before the first item in the list—to signal that the names in the list are definite nouns. (In general, for brevity’s sake, English gives us this alternative in dealing with serial enumeration of singular-form nouns in sentences.) We can therefore say “Mary can play the piano, saxophone, and xylophone” without blinking an eyelash or feeling guilty of grammatical misuse. There will seem to be a grammatical and uneuphonic glitch, though, when one of the musical instruments listed is plural in form, as “drums” in “Mary can play the piano, drums, saxophone, and xylophone.” In such instances, to preclude any criticism that the speaker or writer is grammatically clueless or tonally deaf, it would be prudent to individually precede each and every item in the enumeration with the definite article “the”: “Mary can play the piano, the drums, the saxophone, and the xylophone.”

For a very comprehensive discussion of the usage of the definite article “the” and also of the indefinite articles “a” and “an,” check out the Purdue Online Writing Lab by clicking the indicated link. I’m sure that once you’ve internalized the formal prescriptions for their usage in sentences, you’ll never be in doubt ever again in using the correct articles for every conceivable type of noun.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The proper way of forming negative sentences

Question from Squelch, new Forum member (September 14, 2012):

I’m confused. Which of these two should I use: “We did not participate” or “We did not participated”?

My reply to Squelch:

When you posted your grammar question last September 14, I was incredulous at first and decided not to answer it. The question being so basic and the answer apparently so self-evident, I thought you were simply being facetious about it. While riding taxicabs these the past two weeks, however, I twice or thrice overheard conversations over the radio in which the anchor or the guest didn’t know either how to form negative sentences correctly.

This not-so-rare incidence of grammatical misuse has convinced me that there’s indeed a need to clarify the negative usage of verbs for your benefit and for others who are similarly confused or unsure about it.
 
We all know that the very common verb “do” can be used as either a main verb or an auxiliary verb. This is aside from its other roles in emphasizing the action denoted by a verb and in forming interrogative sentences.

As a main verb, of course, “do” means to carry out, perform, execute, or commit, as in “We will do the project as planned” and “Many politicians do violence to the Constitution’s anti-dynasty provision by brazenly fielding their own family members as candidates.”

To form negative sentences, “do,” in tandem with the main verb, works as an auxiliary verb or dummy operator, as in “The Supreme Court did not issue a temporary restraining order against the widely assailed cybercrime law.” Note that in such negative constructions, it’s always the auxiliary verb “do” that takes the tense, never the main verb. 

This, then, is my answer to your question: The correct construction of that sentence of yours is “We did not participate,” not “We did not participated.” Again, let me repeat the rule in such negative sentences: It’s always the auxiliary verb “do” that takes the tense, never the main verb.

Now, in emphatic sentence constructions, we will recall that the auxiliary verb “do” is used with the bare infinitive—the infinitive minus the “to”—to emphasize the action of the verb in both the present and past tenses, as in “They do believe that some politicians have no sense of shame” and “The felons did think that they can get away with murder.” Note that in such emphatic sentence constructions, it’s also the auxiliary verb “do” that takes the tense, not the main verb. 

Finally, we will recall that to form interrogative sentences, the auxiliary verb “do” works with the main verb in an inverted order to form questions, as in “Did you know that the cybercrime law is now in effect?” or “Do you realize the implications of the cybercrime law to Internet communication?” We must likewise take note that in interrogative constructions, it’s also the auxiliary verb “do” that takes the tense, not the main verb. (We must therefore perpetually banish from our mind the inane question “What did you did?” even as a joke.)

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Which is correct—“Age goes with wisdom” or “Wisdom goes with age”?

Question from melvinhate, Forum member (September 22, 2012):

Which is correct—“Age goes with wisdom” or “Wisdom goes with age”?

My reply to melvinhate:

I think the play of words—the syntax—in both “Age goes with wisdom” and “Wisdom goes with age” is semantically slippery to the point of being illogical. This is evidently due to the misuse of the verb “goes” in the sense of “moves along in a specified manner.” The verb “comes” in the sense of “arrives” might do a better job than “goes” in those two sentences. 

If we take “Age goes with wisdom” at its face value, the sense would be that people exhibit more and more wisdom in direct correlation with their chronological age. This is certainly not borne out by human experience. Basic discernment and good sense—or the lack of them—are inherent in a person, whether young or old, so that wisdom isn’t automatically a deficiency in the young nor a monopoly of the old. Indeed, there are toddlers wise beyond their unripe age and shockingly unwise people from supposedly better-seasoned or better-reasoned adults. Just a cursory look at some of the major protagonists in today’s political, business, and social theater will inevitably lead us to this unpleasant conclusion. 
 
“Wisdom goes with age” doesn’t cut it semantically better either. There may be some rare exceptions, of course, but experience tells us that the class goat or village idiot at age 13 to 20 will remain so at age 30 till old age or deathbed.

Truer to human experience, I think, are these three better-worded adages, “With age comes wisdom” and “Wisdom comes with age.” As with most sayings, though, these two can wilt when subjected to unmerciful logical analysis, but they come much closer to the essence of what it takes to attain wisdom when one is imbued by nature and nurture with a more or less fixed level of intelligence and emotional quotient.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Can you end my lingering confusion about sentential adverbs?

Question from Mwita Chacha, Forum member (August 5, 2012):

I read somewhere them being called sentential adverbs, and I find getting the grasp of them so crucial to my writing skills improvement. Since I’ve tried vainly to perfectly employ them in my prose, I’m asking about them here so you can bring my lingering confusion regarding their usage to an end. Not all of them, of course, I find difficult to apply perfectly. But here are those that remain elusive no matter how hard I try to learn and practise them: “certainly,” “indeed,” “at least,” “assuredly,” “on the whole,” and “naturally.” If you’ve already discussed them in one of your past postings, you just show me the link to it and I will follow it.

Follow up question from Mwita Chacha (September 6, 2012):

I will be pleased, sir, if you can find time to attend to this particular question of mine that you’ve apparently left in limbo. If it’s because the question is too unreasonable to be answered, I will similarly be pleased to know about that so I can start to be extra careful when posting questions on the Forum. I couldn’t help making this follow-up because the Forum has indeed been of much help to me and it has always been my sole recourse when it comes to seeking clarification on grammar matters.

My belated reply to Mwita Chacha:

Sorry for the oversight! I totally missed reading this posting of yours.

I haven’t discussed sentential adverbs at all in the Forum; in fact, you’re the very first to ask about them. 

As I’m sure you already know, a sentential adverb is a rhetorical device consisting of a single word or short phrase that usually interrupts normal syntax to give emphasis to certain words proximate to the adverb. As examples, the phrases “in truth,” “indeed,” and “of course” function as sentential adverbs in the following sentences:

“We have, in truth, not taken breakfast yet.”
“She’s a ravishingly beautiful woman indeed!”
“Your presence is, of course, a must in the opening ceremonies.” 

It does take some doing to get the hang of using sentential adverbs; with enough practice, however, they should soon become second nature to your English. To get started in earnest, click this link to the “Virtual Salt” website of Robert A. Harris. He does a very comprehensive discussion of the uses of sentential adverbs and the various forms and positions they can take in a sentence.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Sometimes, nouns inseparable in usage become notionally singular

Question by Clementejack, Forum member (August 27, 2012):

Hi there, Mr. Carillo!

Please confirm which one of these sentences is correct.

1. “Bread and butter is my favorite breakfast.”
2. “Bread and butter is sold in the grocery store.”
3. “Bread and butter are sold in the grocery store.”

My reply to Clementejak:

Sentences 1 and 3 are grammatically correct; Sentence 2 is grammatically wrong.

In Sentence 1, “Bread and butter is my favorite breakfast,” the use of the singular form “is” despite its having “bread and butter” as an apparently plural subject is an exception to the usual subject-verb agreement rule. This is because “bread and butter” belongs to the category of compound expressions whose component nouns have become so inseparable in usage as to be taken as a single unit, thus making them notionally singular and allowing the verb to take the singular form. As I explained in the chapter on “Nouns and Verbs in Conflict” in my book English Plain and Simple, “bread and butter” is idiomatically a singular subject in the same way as the phrase “the long and short of it” in this sentence: “The long and short of it is that we have already discussed subject-verb agreement enough and must now stop.”

In Sentence 2, “Bread and butter is sold in the grocery store,” the nouns “bread” and “butter” are being used normally in the sense of two separate entities added together as a compound subject, so the use of the singular form “is” is grammatically incorrect. That verb should be in the plural form “are” instead: “Bread and butter are sold in the grocery store.” This corrected version is, of course, the same as Sentence 3.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Dealing with collective singular nouns and plural count nouns

Question by Clementejak, Forum member (August 24, 2012):

Please elaborate on the correct usage of “is” or “are” in the following sentence form:

“Three gallons of ice cream (is, are) not enough for our party.”

My reasoning is the ice cream could just be in only one container, so the verb should be the singular “is.”

My reply to Clementejak:

You’re right; the verb should be in the singular form: “Three gallons of ice cream is not enough for our party.” The noun phrase “three gallons of ice cream” is a volume measure or quantity, so it should be treated as a collective singular noun. Even if the ice cream is in several containers, that noun phrase should still be treated as singular for as long as we are talking of the ice cream contained in them. Of course, when we are making a count of the containers of the ice cream, the verb should take the plural form: “Three gallon containers of ice cream are not enough for our party.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The usage differences between the conjunctions “if” and “whether”

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (August 28, 2012):

Please help me on how to correctly use subordinating conjunctions “if” and “whether” in saying or writing indirect questions. I believe, for instance, that there’s a substantial meaning dissimilarity between “She asked me if I could accompany her to her brother’s birthday party” and “She asked me whether I could accompany her to her brother's birthday party.” Isn’t there?

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

The conjunction “if” has the same sense as “whether” when used in an indirect question that doesn’t provide a stated or implied alternative, as in your sentence “She asked me if I could accompany her to her brother’s birthday party.” When the indirect question provides a stated of implied alternative, however, the conjunction “whether” can be used but usually with the correlative “or,” as in this version of that sentence: “She asked me whether or not I could accompany her to her brother’s birthday party.” In polite or comradely society, though, it’s not advisable—indeed it might sound abrasive or be perceived as abrasive—to use “or not” in requests of that kind, so it’s idiomatic to drop “or not” altogether: “She asked me whether I could accompany her to her brother’s birthday party.” It’s in this sense that “if” becomes interchangeable with “whether.”

Rejoinder by Mwita Chacha (August 28, 2012):

I don’t understand the statement that “if” is used in indirect questions that don’t provide a stated or implied alternative. In my sentence, isn’t the act of refusing to accompany the original speaker to the birthday party of her brother the alternative itself? Because isn’t it that there are apparently two possible expected results in this statement, “She asked me if I could accompany her to her brother’s birthday party”—one the accepting of the request and the other (the alternative) the refusal to grant that request?

My clarification regarding Mwita Chacha’s rejoinder:

The function of indirect questions is precisely to avoid stating or even implying alternatives. It’s really a language rather than a grammar thing—a matter of social graces. When I tell you, “It’s windy so it will be nice if you close the window,” no alternative is stated or implied, but it’s semantically clear that you have the option of granting my request or not. This is entirely different from my saying “It’s windy so I wonder whether you will close the window or not” or “It’s windy so do you mind if you close the window?” This time, whether stated or implied, the alternatives stare us in the face.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

“Help! The English tenses are driving me insane!”

Question by spelling, Forum member (July 26, 2012):

Hello sir,

I am studying the tenses through English Page.com. They have some nice exercises, but the tenses are driving me insane! I need to ask you the following questions:

1. In the sentence: “My best friend and I have known each other for over fifteen years.  We still get together once a week.” Does “have known” indicate the present perfect? On the English Page site, under Present Perfect, it says that you cannot use the PP with specific time expressions. So, is “fifteen years” a time expression? If this sentence is in the PP, then under which usage heading in English Page for present perfect should it fall?

2. “Stinson is a fantastic writer. He has written ten very creative short stories in the last year.  One day, he’ll be as famous as Hemingway.” “Has written”—is it in the present perfect, considering that according to the sentence, Stinson is expected to write more stories? So, on English Page, under PP, should it will fall under the heading “An uncompleted action you are expecting”?

3. “I have not had this much fun since I was a kid.” Is it in the present perfect? And if so, is it for the same reason as sentence 2?

Thank you.

My reply to spelling:

Let’s analyze the tenses of the sentence constructions in the EnglishPage.com webpage. (Click this link to its “Verb Tenses Tutorial.”) that are bothering you: 

1. “My best friend and I have known each other for over fifteen years. We still get together once a week.”

The first sentence in the construction above is indeed in the present perfect. It is in the present perfect because the verb phrase “have known each other” conveys the idea that the action has subsisted or continued up to the moment of speaking, and the adverbial modifier “for over fifteen years” is actually not a specific time of occurrence of the action—this is the element that shouldn’t be in the present perfect form—but a period or duration. In contrast, when the time of occurrence of the action is specified (“yesterday,” “last week,” or “five years ago,” etc.), what’s needed is the simple past tense instead, as in this sentence: “My best friend and I first met in a bookstore five years ago.” Of course, when an action or condition has subsisted since five years ago up to the present, the present perfect is called for, as in this sentence: “Clara and I have been friends since we met in a bookstore five years ago.” 

2. “Stinson is a fantastic writer. He has written ten very creative short stories in the last year.  One day, he’ll be as famous as Hemingway.” 

I think the tense of the second sentence above is faulty. Since the action of writing the ten very creative short stories took place in a definite time in the past (“last year”), it shouldn’t be in the present perfect “has written” but in the simple past tense “wrote” instead, as follows: “He wrote ten very creative short stories last year.” This should be the case even if the writing of the stories was spread out over the entire year; the important consideration for establishing the tense here is that all of the writing is now over for those ten short stories.

That statement should therefore be corrected to read as follows:

“Stinson is a fantastic writer. He wrote ten very creative short stories last year. One day, he’ll be as famous as Hemingway.” 

Alternatively, we can use the present perfect instead for that statement in a construction like the following:

“Stinson is a fantastic writer who has written ten very creative short stories, doing them last year over a period of only twelve months. One day, he’ll be as famous as Hemingway.”

The use of the present perfect is called for only if the action in the sentence has continued from some time in the past up to the present or at the moment of speaking. An expectation expressed in a separate sentence that action will or might continue in the future—in this particular case, the writing of more short stories to the point of the writer probably becoming “as famous as Hemingway”—has nothing or little to do with the determination of the tense in a preceding sentence. Generally, the tense to use in a particular sentence is independently determined on the basis of the verb describing the action, the time of its occurrence, and the duration of that action. So as not to confuse the reader, however, the good writer sees to it that the proper sequence of tenses in a narrative or exposition is scrupulously observed. (Click this link in the Forum for a discussion of “How to use the normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech.”)

3. “I have not had this much fun since I was a kid.”

The sentence above is clearly in the negative form of the present perfect, describing a situation that has not happened from the time that the speaker was a child up to the present or the moment of speaking, when it finally did happen. It may come as a surprise to some, but the operative verb phrase in that sentence is “have had fun,” with “not” and “this much” as its adverbial modifiers. The main verb in that phrase is actually “had,” which is the past participle of “have,” which then uses the auxiliary verb “have” to form the present perfect “have had.”

And in answer to your last question, yes, Sentence 3 here is in the present perfect for the same reason as Sentence 2—except that Sentence 3 is in the negative sense of the present perfect while Sentence 2 is in its usual positive sense.

Comments by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (July 29, 2012):

I have understood that the problem generated by the phrase “in the last year” in the sentence “He has written ten very creative short stories in the last year” is merely from the standpoint of semantics, not grammar; that is, since the writing of those stories appears to be a completed action that took place over the last 12 months, the perfect tense is evidently not called for. I hope the same problem will not be caused by “in the last week” in the following construction: “I have done a great deal of office work in the last week assigned to me by my bosses. I expect I will have finished all my assignments by Tuesday.” The sentences clearly show that my doing of work is an action that was started in the past, continues in the present, and will be over some day in the future.

Also, I have to sort of say that the rule present perfect is only called for if the action in a sentence has continued from the past up to the present is not cast in stone. For instance, someone who phoned his friend three hours ago may tell another person “'I have been talking to my friend on the telephone and he says he will pay us a visit next summer.” The sentence has used a perfect progressive tense even though its action was completed sometime back and therefore doesn’t continue at the moment of speaking. So it seems insufficient to define the use of perfect tenses by basing on one explanation only.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Your use of the present perfect in the first sentence below is incorrect:

“I have done a great deal of office work in the last week assigned to me by my bosses.”

The time when the great deal of office work was done, “in the last week,” is in an indefinite time in the past; what’s called for in that first sentence then is the past perfect, as follows:

“I had done a great deal of office work in the last week assigned to me by my bosses.”

Your use of the future perfect in the second sentence of the statement is correct, but it’s a tad too formal and unidiomatic:

“I expect I will have finished all my assignments by Tuesday.”

When talking about expected outcomes, using the “the verb ‘expect’ + infinitive form of the verb” is better and more idiomatic:

“I expect to finish all my assignments by Tuesday.”

The full statement should then read as follows:

“I had done a great deal of office work in the last week assigned to me by my bosses. I expect to finish all my assignments by Tuesday.”

But I’m sure that foremost in your mind is this question: Can we use the present perfect ever in such situations?

The answer is yes, but we must phrase the sentence such that it’s unmistakable that the action did continue from the past up to the present or the moment of speaking. For instance, by using the time frame as “this last week” to indicate that the week isn’t over yet, we can recast the sentence using the present perfect as follows:

This last week, I have done a great deal of office work assigned to me by my bosses. I expect to finish all my assignments by Tuesday.”

As to your second point, you are correct that the present perfect can be used not only when the action in a sentence has continued from the past up to the present. In fact, there’s not one but six distinct timelines for the present perfect, as follows:

(1) To express a state or condition that began in the past and leads up to the present: “The accomplices have kept their vow of silence for decades.”

(2) To express habitual or continued action: “She has worn anklets since she was ten.”

(3) To indicate events occurring at an indefinite time in the past (used with the adverbs “ever,” “never,” and “before”): “Some people have never gone to college due to poverty.”

(4) To indicate that an action happened only recently (used with the adverb “just”): “My brother has just finished college.”

(5) To indicate that an action happened more than once, but it’s not important or necessary to know exactly when: “She has seen that movie a dozen times.”

(6) To indicate that something that happened in the past continues to influence the present: “The El Niño phenomenon has altered weather patterns very seriously.”

Check out these previous readings in the Forum for detailed discussions on the present perfect tense:

The perfect tenses are my “major, major” English grammar setback (February 7, 2011)

How the perfect tenses situate events as they unfold in time (February 20, 2011)

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How an infinitive phrase works when placed next to an adjective

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (July 15, 2012):

Sorry if you find me pestering because of my frequent posting of questions. My question today is: What job is the infinitive ‘to talk’ doing in the sentence “I’m pleased to talk to you” All I know about infinitives is that they are verbals (or non-finite verbs) and in constructions can serve as adjectives, adverbs, or nouns. Perhaps you might agree with me that “to talk” in the sentence I’ve given does not serve any purpose close to an adjective or an adverb or a noun. So what is the grammar job achieved by an infinitive when it’s placed next to an adjective?

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

You need not apologize for frequently asking questions in the Forum, Mwita. It’s what this Forum is meant for. So long as the questions are sensible and relevant, I’ll always find time to attempt to answer them.

So what’s the form “to talk” doing in this sentence: “I’m pleased to talk to you”? 

I don’t think “to talk” is functioning as an infinitive in that sentence. It certainly couldn’t be the direct object of the verb “pleased” because it doesn’t receive the action of that verb. This being the case, it couldn’t be a noun form—definitely not an infinitive—in that sentence construction.

So what could “to talk” be then?

I think the whole of “to talk to you” is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adverbial modifier of the clause “I’m pleased.” Also, I don’t think “pleased” is an adjective in that clause; it’s an intransitive verb helped by the auxiliary verb “am.” The sentence “I’m pleased to talk to you” therefore isn’t a construction where an infinitive is placed next to an adjective. Rather, it’s of the form “subject (‘I’) + auxiliary verb (‘am’) + main verb (‘pleased’) + adverbial modifier (‘to talk to you’).”

In contrast, here’s a construction where an infinitive is placed next to an adjective: “It’s nice to talk to you.” This, of course, is of the form “subject (‘It’) + linking verb (‘is’) + adjective (‘nice’) + infinitive phrase (‘to talk to you’).” Note that in this construction, the infinitive phrase “to talk to you” (although functioning as a noun form or verbal this time) likewise functions as an adverbial modifier, not as a direct object.

Rejoinder from Mwita Chacha (July 15, 2012):

I’m afraid but, for two major reasons, I’ve some misgivings concerning your explanation in response to my question.

First, I am relatively opposed to your argument that the phrase to “talk to you” in my sentence “I am pleased to talk to you” is an adverbial modifier, not an infinitive phrase. Unless you set out to teach me that infinitives are no longer formed by the combination of “verbs” and a particle “to,” I don’t see how I can see “to talk to you” as not an infinitive the phrase in that sentence. About it, you also argue that “pleased” isn’t an adjective but an intransitive verb. In grammar, do we really have intransitive verbs in passive forms? 

Second, I observe that in the sentence “It’s nice to talk to you,” you’ve given as a legitimate example of constructions having infinitives next to adjectives, itself not qualifying to be so. To my mind, it’s a sentence that uses an infinitive phrase as an appositive of the pronoun “it.” Here is how I would change the position of the infinitive phrase without wrecking the original meaning of the construction: “It, to talk to you, is nice,” which has the appositive interrupting the flow of the sentence and “To talk to you is nice,” which does away with the pronoun “it.”

Additionally, I deem “to talk to you” not a prepositional phrase in all respects. This is because a conventional prepositional phrase is formed by a preposition and a noun put together, and I don’t think “talk” is acting as a noun in the phrase “to talk to you.” The sole genuine prepositional phrase in “to talk to you” is, of course, “to you,” which, in the sentence, acts as an adverbial modifier for the verb “talk.”

So I must say confusion, rather than clearness, has kept on piling on my mind.

Finally, whether the observations I’ve given above hold water or not, I would also like to follow up on my original question with the seemingly well-founded example of the construction that has an infinitive following an adjective. The sentence is “He was hesitant to allow his child going swimming,” and I now hope this one is very much consistent with my question.

My rejoinder to Mwita Chacha’s reply:

What we have here is admittedly a tough grammar issue to crack, so it’s best to keep an open mind about it until the grammar elements involved are fully clarified and their relationships to one another fully understood.

Let me begin by saying that not all base verbs preceded by “to” are infinitives.

By definition, an infinitive is a verb form normally identical in English with the first person singular that performs some functions of a noun and at the same time displays some characteristics of a verb and that is used with to (as in “I asked him to go”) except with auxiliary and various other verbs (as in “no one saw him leave”). (Definition by Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary)

Based on that definition, the verb forms in the following sentences are infinitives or infinitive phrases:

1. “To forgive is divine.” (The infinitive “to forgive” is the subject)
2. “She hated to play the violin.” (The infinitive phrase “to play the violin” is the direct object of the verb “hated”)
3. “I find it delightful to play the violin.” (The infinitive phrase “to play the violin” is an adverbial modifier)

In contrast, the “to + base verb + modifier” forms in the following sentences are prepositional phrases:

1. “She is pleased to play the violin.” (The prepositional phrase “to play the violin” is an adverbial modifier of the adjective “pleased”) 
2. “She went to see the school principal.” (The prepositional phrase “to play the violin” is an adverbial modifier of the verb “went”) 

Now, regarding this statement of yours: “About it, you also argue that ‘pleased’ isn’t an adjective but an intransitive verb. In grammar, do we really have intransitive verbs in passive forms?”

Yes, the word “pleased” is an intransitive verb in the passive form in the following sentence: “I’m pleased to talk to you.” This is because the subject of the sentence is the receiver of the action of the verb, not its doer. The verb “please” would be transitive in the following active-voice sentence where the subject, the infinitive phrase “to talk to you,” is the doer of the action: “To talk to you pleases me.” It is also transitive in the active-voice sentence “She pleases me greatly,” where the subject is the pronoun “she.”

Regarding this observation of yours:

Second, I observe that in the sentence ‘It’s nice to talk to you,’ you’ve given as a legitimate example of constructions having infinitives next to adjectives, itself not qualifying to be so. To my mind, it’s a sentence that uses an infinitive phrase as an appositive of the pronoun ‘it.’ Here is how I would change the position of the infinitive phrase without wrecking the original meaning of the construction: ‘It, to talk to you, is nice,” which has the appositive interrupting the flow of the sentence and ‘To talk to you is nice,’ which do away with the pronoun ‘it.’”

I’m afraid that in the sentence “It’s nice to talk to you,” it’s grammatically incorrect to think of the word “it” as the appositive of the phrase “to talk to you,” which you consider an infinitive phrase or a noun form—which it actually isn’t. In that construction, “it” is actually an expletive, which functions as an anticipatory or dummy subject—a grammatical device—that shifts emphasis to a part of the statement other than the subject; the expletive is not to be taken as a pronoun because it has no antecedent noun and actually has little or no meaning by itself. (Click this link to About.com for a concise explanation of the expletives ‘it’ and ‘there.’) This being the case, it doesn’t serve as an appositive of anything in that sentence (Click to “How appositives can give life and texture to writing” in the Forum). As to the phrase “to talk to you,” based on the clarifications I made earlier, it’s not an infinitive phrase but a prepositional phrase of the form “preposition (‘to’) + verb (‘talk’) + preposition (‘to’) + object of the preposition (‘you’), functioning as an adverbial modifier of the adjective “nice.”

Finally, in the sentence “He was hesitant to allow his child going swimming,” the phrase “to allow his child going swimming” is definitely not an infinitive phrase but a prepositional phrase functioning as adverbial modifier of the adjective “hesitant.” Observe that the phrase in question doesn’t function as a direct object of the verb “hesitant”; if it did, that would have been telltale proof that it is an infinitive phrase. What we have here is a prepositional phrase of the form “preposition (‘to’) + base form of the verb (‘allow’) + direct object (“his child’) + gerund phrase as noun complement (‘going swimming’).” 

I hope this further explanation has thrown more light into the discussion.

Mwita Chacha’s reply to my rejoinder (Juy 18, 2012):

I think I will get to understand this slowly with time, as learning is an ongoing, step-by-step process.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Can intransitive verbs take an object, and if so, how?

Question by reza, new Forum member (July 6, 2012):

Hi, there!

I have problem with intransitive verbs. Can they take an object and if so, how can they do so? Example: “I go to school with my friend.” Here, “go” is an intransitive verb and “my friend” is the object, but we know that intransitive verbs never take an object. If they take an object with prepositions, what the parts of speech will the verb “go” be and “my friend” be? I mean, if an intransitive verb comes with an object as in the sentence I presented above, can the form of that verb change from transitive to intransitive or not?

My reply to reza:

You’re right that “go” is an intransitive verb in this sentence: “I go to school with my friend.” However, “my friend” is not the object of the verb “go” in that sentence; it’s part of the prepositional phrase “with my friend,” which is an adverbial phrase modifying the main clause “I go to school.” In that main clause, the noun “school” is actually the object of the preposition “to”; this preposition transmits the action of the verb “go” to the object “school.” As an intransitive verb, “go” can’t take an object, but in this particular construction, it uses the preposition as an “intermediary” for transmitting its action to the noun “school,” which then functions as the so-called “object of the preposition.”

When an intransitive verb uses a preposition to transmit its action to an object in such situations, that verb doesn’t change into a transitive verb. It remains an intransitive verb, but it is using a preposition to grammatically connect to an object. It is unlike a transitive verb, which as we know always needs a direct object to be able to function properly in a sentence. For instance, when we drop the direct object “cars” in the sentence “Fred fixes cars for a living,” the transitive verb “fixes” no longer functions properly, and nor does the sentence itself, as we can see in the following object-less, nonsensical construction: “Fred fixes for a living.” What does he fix? We won’t know; in fact, the sentence itself doesn’t make sense. For a transitive verb to function at all, it absolutely needs a direct object.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

When is “be” a linking verb and when is it an auxiliary verb?

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (July 6, 2012):

In the sentence “The machine was damaged”' and similarly constructed sentences, what is the type of service offered by the word “was”? Is it acting as a linking verb connecting the noun “machine” to its corresponding subject complement, in this case the participle predicative adjective “damaged,” or is it a primary auxiliary verb, which, in the given sentence, combines with the lexical verb “damaged” to form the verb phrase “was damaged”? I come across such constructions in many pieces of writing, and I invariably end up totally confused when I attempt to dissect them. Indeed, I have decided to use “was” in my sentence, but other verb forms of “be”—“is,” “am,” and “were”—pose a virtually similar addling.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

In the sentence “The machine was damaged,” is the verb “was” a linking verb or an auxiliary verb? This is indeed an intriguing question, but the answer should become clear once we have reviewed the distinction between linking verbs and auxiliary verbs.

As we know, a linking verb is one that doesn’t express an action but implies a state of being or condition of the subject. Functionally, all by its lonesome, it just connects—”links”—the verb’s subject to additional information about it. Linking verbs are, of course, either verbs of sensation (“feel,” “look,” “smell,” “sound,” “taste”) or verbs of existence (“be,” “act,” “appear,” “become,” “continue,” “grow,” “prove,”). Examples of how a linking verb works in a sentence: “Amelia feels lonely.” “Roberto is happy.” “Your explanation appears misleading.” “She grew tired of the computer game.”) 

On the other hand, auxiliary or helping verbs work in conjunction with main verbs to express shades of time and mood. The most common auxiliary verbs are “will,” “shall,” “may,” “might,” “can,” “could,” “must,” “ought to,” “should,” “would,” “used to,” and “need.” Examples of how an auxiliary or helping verb works in a sentence: “She will sleep early tonight.” “We ought to leave now but it’s raining very hard.” “They need to finish the project next week or forfeit their bonuses.”

Now, as we know, the verb “be”—and, of course, its forms “am,” “is,” “are,” and “were”—can work either as the main verb or as an auxiliary or helping verb in a sentence. It is a main verb in the sentence “We are united as a people,” where it functions as a linking verb; but it is an auxiliary verb in “They are being led by a clueless team leader,” where it “helps” to form the verb phrase “are being led,” which is in the passive form of the present progressive tense of the verb “lead.”

But, you ask, what is “was” doing in the sentence “The machine was damaged”? Is it functioning as a linking verb or as an auxiliary verb?

The answer will depend on the intended sense or meaning of the sentence. It would be a linking verb if “damaged” is meant to be an adjective being used to denote a condition of the machine; recall that in English, the past participle of a verb usually becomes an adjective (such as “broken” or “cracked” in “The glass pane is broken/cracked.”). On the other hand, it would be an auxiliary or helping verb if “damaged” is meant to be a transitive verb (instead of an adjective) in the verb phrase “was damaged” to indicate an action that evolved in time, as in “The machine was damaged while being installed.” 

We must take note, though, that whether “be” functions as a linking verb or as an auxiliary verb is strongly sensitive to the tense of the verb. In the present-tense sentence “The machine is damaged,” it’s obvious that “is” functions as a linking verb because it’s clear that “damaged” is an adjective. When the verb is in the past tense, “The machine was damaged,” the function of the verb “was” becomes rather equivocal—it could either be a linking verb or an auxiliary verb depending on how the reader interprets the sentence. The sense of “was” as an auxiliary verb becomes unmistakable only when the main clause is qualified by a modifying phrase, as in the sentence “The machine was damaged while the workers were installing it.” In contrast, when that sentence is in the present tense “The machine is damaged,” the only valid sense is that “is” is a linking verb and that “damaged” can only be an adjective.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How to avoid using two “that’s” in the same sentence

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (July 12, 2012):

How can I avoid placing two that’s—one “that” being a demonstrative pronoun and the other a relative pronoun—in the same sentence? This is an example of the situation I’m talking about: “That is the car that was stolen from Angel’s backyard last week.” I’m worried that the sentence sounds boringly repetitive; at the same time, I’m afraid of risking breaching a grammar rule, or at least an American English standard grammar rule, if I decide to replace the second “that” with “which.”

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Try this elliptical construction that also contracts “that is”: “That’s the car stolen from Angel’s backyard last week.” I think you’ll agree that it’s not only neater but also nicely conversational.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Confused over the present perfect continuous tense

Question by spelling, Forum member (July 4, 2012):

Hi there,

I printed all the tenses info from www.englishpage.com. I am really trying to learn the tenses, but find it very confusing. For instance, I read the following in a newspaper:

“Vreken, who  has been described by family members as a man who approaced life with a positive attitude, was killed on Saturday while out on his morning jog.”

Now, according to the englishpage.com site, “has been” is in the present perfect continuous tense and must be used with the present participle “-ing.”  It must be used when speaking of something that started in the past and has continued up until now. Or it must be used with “recently” and “lately.”  In that sentence, however, I do not see the “-ing.”  Also, it is something that his family said about him, so it is a completed action. They did not start saying it but it continued until whenever! I’m confused. Please help!

My reply to spelling:

Your confusion is simply the result of a misunderstanding of the present perfect continuous tense. It’s true that this tense must be used with the present participle of the verb, which, of course, ends in “-ing,” as in “She has been singing the blues all day.” But “has been described,” the verb of the subordinate clause in the following sentence that you presented, isn’t in the present perfect continuous but in the passive form of the present perfect tense instead: 

“Vreken, who has been described  by family members as a man who approached life with a positive attitude, was killed on Saturday while out on his morning jog.”

The passive form of the present perfect is of the form “has been + past participle of the verb” (in this case “has been described”) in contrast to the passive form of the present perfect continuous, “has been + present participle of the verb” (as in the hypothetical sentence “Vreken’s family members have been describing him as a man who approached life with a positive attitude, but their neighbors knew that this wasn’t true at all.”). You can therefore see that it is the present perfect continuous that uses the “-ing” ending for its main verb (the present participle form); the present perfect, on the other hand, uses the “-ed” ending for its main verb (the past participle form).

In the sentence you presented, the passive present perfect form “has been described” indicates that the action of describing Vreken has already been “perfected” or completed. In contrast, in the hypothetical sentence I provided above, the passive present perfect continuous form “has been describing” indicates that that the action of describing Vreken started sometime in the recent past, continues up to the present, and may continue in the foreseeable future.

I hope this clarifies the difference between the present perfect tense and the present perfect continuous tense for you.

Rejoinder by spelling (July 5, 2012):

You know, in South Africa we have a saying that we use when completely confused, surprised or experiencing something weird or unexpected... “EISH!!!!”

I will look up actives and passives and study your feedback.  But the English language...”EISH!”

Thank you!

My reply to spelling’s rejoinder:

You’re most welcome!

For a nonnative English speaker, learning English can indeed be exasperating at times, but the confusion should abate when you already have an adequate grasp of its grammar and lexicon. I must tell you, though, that the surprises in English—both the weird and the unexpected—never really end. I refer particularly to the English idioms and figures of speech, which often violate the very grammar and usage rules as well as the dictionary meanings of words that one has so painstakingly learned. There are thousands of those idioms and figures of speech in English (definitely much more than those of any of the world’s languages), and becoming conversant with lots of them is a must to acquire an adequate command of the language. So, along the way, expect to catch yourself involuntarily saying perhaps tens of thousands more “eishes!” This is what it would take to become truly proficient in English, but my advice to you is not to lose heart. Just keep on learning English until you can speak and write it like a native English speaker does. In a world where English is the global language, a good mastery of it should be worth all the effort.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Can intransitive verbs take an object, and if so, how?

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (June 2, 2012):

Spending two hours a week on visiting this forum has made my grammar understanding surge at a spectacular pace. Whereas I revel in my expanded knowledge on such structural grammar aspects as parallel construction, types of English verbs, verbals and all that, I can't do the same thing about articles. Indeed, I find learning articles the most difficult thing to do in my efforts to become proficient in English language, and their subtlety particularly substantial snag. My hope is that you would kindly provide me with the easiest and appropriate method of approaching the study of articles; otherwise, I am likely to spend a hundred years trying to make a meaning out of them.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Thanks for the compliment about the Forum as a learning resource for English grammar and usage! I want you to know that I greatly appreciate it.

As to the usage of articles in English, it’s admittedly tough at first to figure out precisely when to use “a,” “an,” and “the” to limit or give definiteness to the application of a noun. But once you learn the specific rules for choosing articles, using them correctly all the time becomes simplicity itself.

Instead of going into the details of article usage here, though, I recommend that you check out these three websites for their very thorough and comprehensive discussion of the subject:

1. “Articles” at Grammarly.com
2. “Articles” at the Frankfurt International School website’s “A Guide to Learning English”
3. “Grammar Rules for Articles” at English-at-Home.com

I’m sure that by the time you’ve gone over their mutually reinforcing prescriptions for articles, your befuddlement over the subtleties of their usage would have become a thing of the past—definitely not in a hundred years but in just matter of a few minutes.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

A full-dress review of the kinds of verbs in English

Follow-up questions from r_a, Forum member (May 7, 2012):

In reply to previous questions posted in this section by Forum member r_a, I clarified the attributes of helping verbs, auxiliary verbs, and modal verbs on one hand, and of dynamic verbs and stative verbs, on the other. Since then, however, r_a has made several more Forum postings expressing continuing confusion, the latest of which raised these even tougher questions about verbs:

1.Why is it that certain stative verbs like “hate” and “love” couldn’t be substituted with “be” and its variants “am,” “is,” and “are” if indeed they are stative  verbs?

2. Are all linking verbs intransitive?

3. Are all stative verbs—“love” and “hate,” for instance—intransitive?

My reply to r_a:

To fully clarify matters about how verbs work in the English language, we need to go back to the basic definition of the verb and make a full-dress review of the various kinds of verbs.

Recall that a verb is a word that expresses an act, occurrence, or mode of being, and it can be any of three types—transitiveintransitive, and linking.

Transitive verbs. Transitive verbs are those that have the ability to pass on their action to something that can receive that action, and they can be any of three types:

1. One-place transitive verb. This type of transitive verb requires only a direct object to work properly. Examples are the verbs “receive,” “deliver,” and “damage.” See how they work in the following sentences: “The accused received the summons.” Typhoons damage infrastructure.” “The judge pronounced the verdict.” There’s a simple test to find out if a verb is a one-place transitive verb—a sentence that uses it becomes nonsensical if the direct object of that verb is removed:  “The accused received.” “Typhoons damage.” “The judge pronounced.” Note that each of these sentences hang in mid-air with an incomplete thought—a clear sign that they are not complete sentences.

2. Vg two-place transitive verb. This type of transitive verb requires a direct object and may also take an indirect object. (The term “Vg two-place transitive verb” used here is short for the linguistic label “two-place transitive like give”; the “g” in “Vg” stands for give.) Examples are the verbs “buy,” “bring,” “serve.” See how they work in the following sentences: “He buys her diamonds.” “She brings him clients.” “The sheriff servedJoanna the subpoena.” In the case of Vg two-place transitive verbs, an indirect object is optional. The sentences will work perfectly even with only the direct objects around: “He buys diamonds.” “She brings clients.” “The sheriff served the subpoena.”

3. Vc two-place transitive verb. In this type of transitive verb, the action actually takes place within the subject or doer of the action, or is done to the subject itself, then is transmitted to the direct object. (The term “Vc two-place transitive verb” is short for “two-place transitive like consider”; the “c” in “Vc” stands for consider.) Examples are the verbs “consider,” “make,” and “believe.” See how they work in the following sentences: “They considered the rebellion a lost cause.” “Factual errors like this make the judge extremely suspicious.” “The beauty queen’s detractors believe her legal victory to be a fluke.”

Intransitive verbs. Intransitive verbs are those that that can’t pass on their action to anything in the sentence. Because an intransitive verb doesn’t have the power to transmit its action to a direct object, this verb generally dissipates that action in itself. Examples are the intransitive verbs “go,” “arrive,” “disappear,” and “appear.” They can only function in objectless sentence constructions like the following: “The case filegoes missing.” “The plaintiffs arrived.” “The witness disappeared.” “The sheriff appeared.” One distinct peculiarity of a sentence that uses an intransitive verb is that it can’t be constructed into a passive-voice sentence. We can’t say or write the following sentences: “Goes missing the case file.” “Arrived the plaintiffs.” “Disappeared the witness.” “Appeared the sheriff.” In each case, the sentence doesn’t work because there’s no subject or doer of the action to begin with.

Linking verbs. Also known as copular verbs, linking verbs don’t act on an object but simply make English sentences flow correctly and smoothly. Their primary function is to connect the subject to a complement, which we will remember is the word or group of words that complete the predicate. (As I observed in my bookEnglish Plain and Simple, English without linking verbs may still work but the language will be like a paraplegic dragging itself around a room.) 

Linking verbs are of two kinds:

1. Current linking verb. This kind of linking verb indicates a state of the subject at a particular moment in time (whether in the past, present, or future). Examples of current linking verbs “appear,” “be,” “feel,” “lie,” “look,” “remain,” “seem,” “smell,” “sound,” “stay,” and “taste.” See how they work in the following sentences: “Adele appeared at peace when she testified in court.” “Her testimony seems fishy.” “The perfume smelledgood that time, but not anymore.”

2. Resulting linking verb. This kind of linking verb indicates that in a particular sentence, the role of the verb complement is a result of the process described in the verb. Examples of resulting linking verbs are “become,” “get,” “grow,” “fall,” “prove,” “run,” and “turn.” See how they work in the following sentences: “The witnessbecame a suspect.” “Justine fell in love with her defense lawyer.” “The legal strategy proved very useful.”

Distinction between action verbs and stative verbs

Now, in English grammar, a verb can also be classified as either a dynamic verb or a stative verb

Dynamic verb. It is one that describes actions or events that happen in a particular moment in time, like the verb “break” in “He broke her heart that night” (the verb “broke” here is transitive, with “her heart” as its direct object) and “The storm raged all night (the verb “raged” here is intransitive, with no direct object). We can see here that a dynamic verb can either be a transitive or an intransitive verb—but not a linking verb. So long as the verb describes an action or event in time, it’s a dynamic verb regardless of whether that action is done to a direct object (in the case of transitive verbs) or that action can’t be passed to an object in the sentence such that the verb dissipates that action in itself (in the case of intransitive verbs).

Stative verb. It is one that shows a state or condition and not an action, like the verb “know” in “She knowsalgebra” (the verb “knows” here is transitive, with “algebra” as its direct object); the verb “believe” in “Theybelieve in miracles” (the verb “believe” here is used intransitively, with no direct object); and the verb “is” in “He is reliable” (the verb “is” here is a linking verb, simply connecting the subject “he” to the predicate “reliable”). We can see here that a stative verb can be transitive, intransitive, or linking.

So what is it that normally distinguishes a stative verb from a dynamic verb? It is that a stative verb doesn’t work in a grammatically proper way in the continuous tenses. For instance, this is what happens when we use the stative verb “know” in the present-continuous sentence “She is knowing the truth” and the stative verb “believe” in the present-continuous sentence “They are believing in miracles.” Indeed, bad English results when we attempt to make a stative verb work dynamically, in much the same way that the McDonald’s colloquial slogan “I’m loving it,” for the sake of strong advertising recall, deliberately violates good grammar by using the stative verb “love” dynamically in the present continuous. (The grammatically correct construction for that slogan is, of course, “I love it.”)

Confusion over stative verbs and dynamic verbs

Now we are ready to clarify your confusion over stative verbs and dynamic verbs. The confusion arises because depending on their usage, some verbs can be both stative and dynamic. As pointed out by the very website you cited, PerfectEnglishGrammar.com, several of the verbs it listed as usually stative can also be dynamic. For instance, the verb “be” is stative in “She is nice” (being nice is part of her personality) but dynamic in “She is being nice” (she is making an effort to be nice). In the case of the verb “think,” it is stative in “I think she’s lovely” (an opinion that she is lovely) but dynamic in “I am thinking of her chances of winning the beauty contest” (the act of considering that particular idea). 

Offhand, then, we can say that a reliable test of finding out if a verb is stative through and through is when it can’t be used in a sentence dynamically. One such verb is “belong,” which is stative in “That laptop belongs to me.” We can’t use it dynamically in a sentence like, say, “That laptop is belonging to me,” where “is belonging” is in the present continuous tense. This means that “belong” can’t be used in the continuous tense at all—clear proof that it can only be a stative verb and never a dynamic one.

So my answer to your question on whether or not the PerfectEnglishGrammar.com is wrong, my answer is definitely a “No.” In fact, it categorically states that some verbs can be both stative and dynamic, and it shows several examples that this is indeed the case. And to this specific question of yours, on whether it is right to say “I’m having a car,” the answer is “Yes”—with the verb “having” in that sentence used dynamically in the sense of “getting” or “acquiring” a car. 

Verbs like “hate” and “love” are not always stative 

I must correct your impression that the verbs “hate” and “love” are always stative. For showing a state or condition, they are, of course, stative verbs in the following sentences: “She hates hypocrites.” “He lovescrime novels.” But in the sentence “This morning, we hated the way she maltreated her subordinates,” the intransitive verb “hated” is definitely dynamic. And in this imperative sentence, “Love your neighbor!” the transitive verb “love” is definitely dynamic as well.

Also, you shouldn’t confuse stative verbs with linking verbs. Some stative verbs can be linking verbs, as the verb “feel” in “She feels sad,” in which case we can substitute “is” for it: “She is sad.” But the great majority of stative verbs are not linking verbs, as the verb “love” in “We love the color pink” and “have” in “They havea grudge against her.” (Obviously, we can’t replace “love” with “are” and say “We are the color pink,” and neither can we replace “have” with “are” and say “They are a grudge against her.”)

All linking verbs are intransitive verbs

By definition, linking verbs don’t act on an object but simply make English sentences flow correctly and smoothly. That makes all linking verbs intransitive verbs, which by definition are verbs that can’t pass on their action to anything in the sentence—meaning that they can’t act on an object at all.

Not all stative verbs are intransitive verbs

As I explained earlier in this posting, a verb is stative if it shows a state or condition rather than an action, as the verb “believe” in “He believes in miracles.” Here, apart from being stative, “believe” is intransitive because it doesn’t pass on its action to an object in the sentence. The verb “prefer” is likewise stative in the sentence “Gentlemen prefer blondes,” but the verb “prefer” acts on the noun “blondes” as direct object, so here “prefer” is obviously a transitive verb. (The verb "prefer" is an example of the Vc two-place transitive type of verb as described earlier, in which the action actually takes place within the subject or doer of the action, then is transmitted to the direct object, which in this case is the noun "blondes.") 

Clearly then, in answer to your last question, not all stative verbs are intransitive verbs. A stative verb will be intransitive if it doesn’t have a direct object, and will be transitive if it acts on one.

CORRECTION:
I think I myself contributed to r_a’s confusion about verbs when, in reply to a question he raised in a posting last April 20, I made this erroneous generalization and reiterated it in a subsequent posting last May 5:

“In contrast, it’s absolutely correct to say that all stative verbs are linking verbs. In denoting a state, they all serve to link a subject with its predicate, as in ‘I know her well’ and ‘She appears confident.’”

Let’s analyze this statement closely.

That some stative verbs could be linking verbs is clearly true in the case of the verbs “appear,” “seem,” and “look” as used in the following sentences: “She appears confident.” “She seems confident.” “She looks confident.” This is because in all three sentences, the verbs can be replaced with “is” (which, of course, is a form of “be”) and still make sense: “She is confident.” The sense verbs “smell,” “taste,” and “feel” are also evidently both stative and linking verbs in the following sentences: “The food smells fresh.” “The pastry tastes sweet.” “The fabric feels smooth.” This is because in all three sentences, the verbs can also be replaced with “is” and still make sense: “The food is fresh.” “The pastry is sweet.” “The fabric is smooth.”

But see what happens when the verbs “know,” “love,” and “believe,” are used statively in the following sentences: “She knows calculus.” “We love big French fries.” “They believe in second chances.” In “She knows calculus,” the verb “knows” is clearly not a linking verb but a transitive verb with “calculus” as its direct object. Likewise, in “We love big French fries,” the verb “loves” is clearly also not a linking verb but a transitive verb with “French fries” as its direct object. On the other hand, in “They believe in second chances,” the verb “believe” is clearly not a linking verb but an intransitive verb, which has no direct object. Not being linking verbs, the verbs “know,” “love,” and “believe” will fail in the linking verb test because they obviously can’t be replaced with “be” or its variants.

What this analysis is telling us is that, in fact, not all stative verbs are linking verbs. Some stative verbs could be linking verbs but others could be transitive or intransitive verbs depending on how they are used in a sentence. Indeed, what’s common with all stative verbs is only that they show a state or condition and not an action, and whether or not they are linking verbs as well can only be determined on a case-to-case basis.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Figuring out the usage of the English articles

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (June 2, 2012):

Spending two hours a week on visiting this forum has made my grammar understanding surge at a spectacular pace. Whereas I revel in my expanded knowledge on such structural grammar aspects as parallel construction, types of English verbs, verbals and all that, I can't do the same thing about articles. Indeed, I find learning articles the most difficult thing to do in my efforts to become proficient in English language, and their subtlety particularly substantial snag. My hope is that you would kindly provide me with the easiest and appropriate method of approaching the study of articles; otherwise, I am likely to spend a hundred years trying to make a meaning out of them.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Thanks for the compliment about the Forum as a learning resource for English grammar and usage! I want you to know that I greatly appreciate it.

As to the usage of articles in English, it’s admittedly tough at first to figure out precisely when to use “a,” “an,” and “the” to limit or give definiteness to the application of a noun. But once you learn the specific rules for choosing articles, using them correctly all the time becomes simplicity itself.

Instead of going into the details of article usage here, though, I recommend that you check out these three websites for their very thorough and comprehensive discussion of the subject:

1. “Articles” at Grammarly.com
2. “Articles” at the Frankfurt International School website’s “A Guide to Learning English”
3. “Grammar Rules for Articles” at English-at-Home.com

I’m sure that by the time you’ve gone over their mutually reinforcing prescriptions for articles, your befuddlement over the subtleties of their usage would have become a thing of the past—definitely not in a hundred years but in just matter of a few minutes.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Analyzing a disputable sentence construction

Question by Mwita Chacha, Forum member (May 21, 2012):

I have just come across a disputable sentence—at least for me—on the website of one the reputable world news agencies. The sentence reading “The assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself up...” is part of the BBC’s story about today’s suicide attack that has occurred in Sana’a, Yemen, on Yemeni soldiers practising for a military parade. The contentious section of the sentence is “was wearing army uniform,” as it suggests that the attacker was in the act of putting on the uniform at the same time as he did the attack—which might be possible though. My query is, can one use a progressive tense—as BBC has done—to refer to the happening that isn’t progressive?

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

The sentence you presented, “The assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself up...”, seems to be using the progressive tense in the phrase “was reportedly wearing army uniform” but it actually doesn’t. In that phrase, the verb phrase “was wearing army uniform” is actually using “was wearing” as a stative verb phrase to indicate a condition, not as an action verb to indicate an unfolding action. We must keep in mind that in general, the progressive tense can only be used for dynamic verbs and not for stative verbs. Indeed, as you pointed out, if we think of “was wearing army uniform” as in the past progressive form, it could be construed—and wrongly so—that the attacker was in the act of putting on the uniform at the same time as he did the attack. The grammatically correct way to evoke this sense in the past progressive is to use a dynamic verb phrase instead of the stative “was wearing,” like the dynamic verb phrase “putting on” in this sentence: “The assailant, who was reportedly putting on army uniform, blew himself up...” Now that verb phrase is definitely in the past progressive tense, but then it doesn’t correctly convey the sense intended by that BBC report. (For the differences between dynamic verbs and stative verbs, click this link to my recent posting on “Re: kinds of verb”)

Rejoinder from Mwita Chacha (May 30, 2012):

I have visited the link you recommended to me, and my confusion has escalated instead of being lessened. The link explains clearly that stative verbs never work in progressive forms and that massive trouble begins when this rule is being violated, citing phrases such as “having a car,” “knowing him,” etc., as common glaring grammatical errors. If this is the case, then BBC’s phrase “'was wearing”' is arguably inaccurate inasmuch as it attempts to use a continuous tense to refer to the subject’s stative attribute. I would consequently propose “the assailant, who wore military uniform, blew himself...”' to be the unassailable version of the originally controvertible sentence “the assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself...”'

My reply to Mwita Chacha’s rejoinder:

I can understand why your confusion about the usage of stative verbs has escalated instead of getting lessened. The behavior of stative verbs is actually one of the toughest aspects of English grammar to comprehend, particularly when we are not specifically conversant with the different kinds of stative verbs and their unique characteristics. 

You are absolutely correct when you say that stative verbs never work in progressive forms, but I think it’s misleading to cite usage of phrases like “having a car” and “knowing him” as violations per se of this attribute of stative verbs. In actual practice, however, it’s how these phrases are used in a sentence that determines whether they are grammatically flawed or not. To prove this point, let us me show you a few sentences using these phrases in different ways.

The sentence “I am having a car” is, on its face, grammatically flawed—clearly a violation of the general rule that stative verbs don’t work in progressive forms; for indeed, “having” here is clearly in the progressive form and as such evidently malfunctions grammatically in tandem with the linking verb “am.” We can say exactly the same thing about the stative verb “knowing” “in a sentence like “I am knowing him”; it’s a grammatically flawed sentence. 

But see what happens when we have this sentence instead: “I am having a red car instead of a blue one.” The structure of the verb phrase is essentially the same as that of “I am having a car,” but the introduction of the elements of color (“red” and “blue”) and of choice makes the verb “having” no longer stative but dynamic in the sense of taking possession. In contrast, in the case of the verb “knowing,” there appears to be no way of getting around the fact that it’s a stative verb through and through. We obviously can’t say “I am knowing him for his kindness instead of his forgetfulness,” nor can we say “I am knowing him tomorrow rather than today.” What these examples of sentences are telling us is that depending on how they are used, some verbs can be stative or dynamic, but other verbs will be stative all the time and in all cases—meaning that they can only indicate a state or condition but never an action unfolding in time.

I have another misgiving over your generalization that phrases like “having a car” and “knowing him” per se are violations of this attribute of stative verbs: such phrases could, in fact, be functioning not as stative verbs but as verbals—specifically as gerund phrases, which as we know actually work as nouns in a sentence. For instance, in the sentences “I imagine having a car” or “I appreciate knowing him,” the phrases “having a car” and “knowing him” are actually noun complements in the sentence, not stative verbs in the progressive or continuous form. What are stative in those sentences are the verbs “imagine” and “appreciate,” both of which are transitive verbs—with “imagine” having “having a car” (a gerund) as direct object, and with “appreciate” having “knowing him” (a gerund) as direct object. Also, in both cases, the verbs “imagine” and “appreciate” are of the Vc two-place transitive type, in which the action actually takes place within the subject or doer of the action, then is transmitted to the direct object. 

This brings me to the point I discussed about stative verbs in a recent posting earlier in this Forum: in showing a state or condition, a stative verb can be transitive, intransitive, or linking depending on how it is used in a sentence. The stative verb “knows” in “He knows Italian” is transitive, with “Italian” as its direct object. The stative verb “believe” in “We believe in Divine Providence” is intransitive, with no direct object, but it is transitive in “We believe God,” with “God” as the direct object. In the sentence “She is beautiful,” however, the stative verb “is” is a linking verb, one that simply connects the subject “she” to the predicate “beautiful.” (Click this link to my earlier posting on the kinds and types of verbs.) 

Based on the above discussions, I have to disagree with you that the usage of the verb phrase “was reportedly wearing army uniform” in this sentence by BBC, “The assailant, who was reportedly wearing army uniform, blew himself...”, is violative of grammar. It is, in fact, grammatically and semantically airtight as well as unassailable from the total language standpoint. As to your proposed alternative sentence for it, “The assailant, who (reportedly) wore military uniform, blew himself...”, it is likewise unassailable in all respects. This is really the beauty of the English language—its lexicon is so rich we can use not just one or two but often several single words to denote a specific idea. In the particular case of verbs, though, we need to be careful that we know precisely whether we are using it in a dynamic or stative sense, on one hand; or as a transitive, intransitive, or linking verb, on the other. Not to know the distinctions clearly between these kinds and types of verbs can sometimes lead us into inaccurate conclusions about the grammatical correctness of their usage in particular sentences.

Response of Mwita Chacha to my reply (May 30, 2012):

Your explanation above about “stative verbs” and on how to apply them precisely is sufficient, adequate, and satisfying. Perusing it, I have come to ascertain that depending on how they are applied, stative verbs can give a meaning of continuousness in the same magnitude as they can do to deliver a sense of stativeness. The remaining hard task ahead is to get myself familiar with a list of stative verbs that can be employed to convey a sense of progressiveness and a sense of stativeness when used in discrete occasions.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Situations that call for the passive voice instead of the active voice

Question by Mwita Chacha, new Forum member (May 18, 2012):

Is the sentence “Five people have been killed in a plane crash” grammatically flawless? In my view, for one to be killed there must be an agent such as an animal or fellow human being to do the killing. Consequently, I find the sentence incorrect, and instead the word “die” should be used in place of “killed.”

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

Yes, the sentence “Five people have been killed in a plane crash” is grammatically flawless; it is correct in every respect. It is in the passive voice of the present perfect tense—a form that in this particular case makes the direct object (“five people”) the subject of the sentence, giving it more emphasis and prominence while diminishing the importance of the doer of the action by not even mentioning it. It’s true, as you say, that “for one to be killed there must be an agent such as an animal or fellow human being to do the killing,” but in the plane crash being reported in that sentence, it’s evident that there was no immediate way of knowing precisely what or who caused the death of the fatalities. Of course, that they were “killed” or deprived of their lives is beyond any doubt, and it’s in this sense that the sentence uses the passive-voice, intransitive verb phrase “have been killed”—a form that grammatically doesn’t require a doer of the action. Indeed, the passive voice is the voice of choice and an intransitive verb the verb of choice when it’s not necessary, desirable, or even possible for a sentence to identify the doer of the action at all.

We must keep in mind that in the sentence you presented, “Five people have been killed in a plane crash,” the noun phrase “plane crash” is not an agency but just an event or happening that resulted in the death of the five people. As such, “plane crash” can’t be considered the doer of the action of killing those people; it’s only the proximate cause of their death. For this reason, constructing the sentence in the active-voice form, “A plane crash has killed five people,” would be semantically and conceptually incorrect. For the same reason that the “plane crash” wasn’t an agent of the killing action but only an event, it would also be incorrect to construct that sentence even in the passive voice using “plane crash” as the doer of the action: “Five people have been killed by the plane crash.” To yield the correct sense, that sentence needs to replace the attributive phrase “by the plane crash” with the prepositional phrase “in a plane phrase”: “Five people have been killed in a plane crash.” This, of course, brings us back to the original sentence you presented, which treats the “plane crash” not as a doer of the action but as an event that brought about the death of the five people.

Now to your next point: Can the verb “die” be used instead of “killed” in that sentence? Definitely yes. The sentence will then take this form: “Five people have died in a plane crash.” Notice, though, that this is also a passive-voice sentence that doesn’t state or identify the doer of the action or agent that killed the five people. All it says is that the deaths happened “in a plane crash”—an event of still unknown cause—and it doesn’t pinpoint a particular agency that killed them.   

It should be clear by now that in English, using the passive voice has more to do with the art of communication itself rather than with grammar considerations. Although the active voice is a handy default vehicle for expressing ourselves clearly, the passive voice is much more appropriate if we want to call attention not to the doer of the action but to the receiver of that action, to the instrument used in that action, or to that action itself. Indeed, in English, we will find that the active voice is particularly unsuitable for situations when—even in the absence of incontrovertible proof—the statement directly and unequivocally attributes an accident, an error, a mistake, or a failing to someone, thus squarely putting the blame on him, her, or it. With the passive voice, we can be scrupulously correct in reporting unfortunate or undesirable outcomes without pointing an accusing finger at anybody, and we can deliberately keep certain things vague or unspoken to let others save face.

FURTHER READINGS:
Shedding the active-voice straitjacket from our written and spoken English

When there are compelling reasons for using passive voice sentences

Dealing with the vexing inverted syntax of passive-voice sentences

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How to reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases

Question by Na30r, new Forum member (May 7, 2012):

If you don’t mind please explain the “reducing of adverb clauses.”

Thank you for your time.

My reply to Na30r:

When someone makes a request in such concise and nuanced English like yours, Na30r, I feel obliged to answer no matter how tough and demanding the question might be, so here goes my answer:

The reduction of an adverb clause is a way of streamlining a sentence by knocking off the formal subject of the adverb clause to make it an adverb phrase instead. To make the sense of this statement, however, we need to first clearly distinguish between an adjective clause and an adjective phrase, on one hand, and an adverb clause and adverb phrase, on the other.

Recall that adjective clauses are those extended modifiers that give us more details about nouns. They are usually introduced by the relative pronouns “that,” “which,” “who,” “whom,” “whose,” or “where,” which then links the details to the main clause. For instance, in “The case that is being heard in the trial court is for child custody,” the adjective clause is “that is being heard in the trial court.” This kind of adjective clause using the relative pronoun “be” can be reduced by dropping “that is” to yield this adjective phrase: “being heard in the trial court.” The sentence then takes this simpler and more concise form: “The case being heard in the trial court is for child custody.”

In contrast to adjective clauses, adverb clauses are those extended modifiers of verbs and verb phrases that give us the details and circumstances of the action done by them, particularly in terms of time and duration. Adverb clauses come complete with a subject and a verb, as “while we were dancing” in this sentence: “While we were dancing, we talked about old times.” Adverb phrases, on the other hand, only have either a subject or a verb, as in this sentence: “While dancing, we talked about old times.” In contrast to the adverb clause “while we were dancing,” the adverb phrase “while dancing” states the same action but does away with the doer of the action. The basic way to reduce an adverb clause is therefore to knock off its formal subject, thus making it an adverb phrase with essentially the same meaning.

Now let’s take up the three possible ways of reducing an adverb clause into an adverb phrase:

(1) Reduction of adverb clauses in sentences involving same-time actions. When an adverb clause is introduced by “while” or “when,” it can be reduced by dropping both the subject and the form of “be” that goes with it. We already took up earlier how this is done for an adverb clause introduced by “while.” For adverb clauses introduced by “when,” as in “When he is in the Philippines, he always visits Boracay,” both the subject “he” and the verb “is” can be dropped to reduce the sentence to “When in the Philippines, he always visits Boracay.”
 
(2) Reduction of “when” and “while” adverb clauses that use an active verb instead of “be.” This can be done by changing the active verb in the adverb clause to its “-ing” form. For instance, “While I was flying that plane, I saw sparks on the left wing” can be reduced to “While flying that plane, I saw sparks on the left wing.” Sometimes, “while” or “when” can be dropped as well:“Flying that plane, I saw sparks on the left wing.” 

(3) Reduction of adverb clauses introduced by “before” or “after.” This can be done by similarly changing the active verb in the adverb clause to its “-ing” form.  For instance, “Before she hired the cook, she made him cook her favorite dish” reduces to “Before hiring the cook, she made him cook her favorite dish.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How helping verbs, auxiliary verbs, and linking verbs differ

Questions from r_a, Forum member (April 10, 2011):

Hello!

I want to know the difference between a helping verb and an auxiliary verb and a modal verb?

My second question is: What is the difference between a linking verb and a stative verb? Is it right to say that all linking verbs are stative verbs? But that it’s not right to say all of stative verbs are linking verbs?

I’m confused. Please explain.

Thanks.

Follow-up by r_a (April 20. 2012):

Hello, Mr. Joe Carillo

Please answer my question. I’m waiting for your answer. Thank you very much.

My reply to r_a (April 20, 2012):

Thank you for reminding me. I wrote my answers to your questions the other day but overlooked posting them. So here goes… 

Your questions actually require a full review course in basic English grammar, but I’ll try to answer them the best I could to alleviate your confusion.

helping verb and an auxiliary verb are one and the same—a verb that’s used in conjunction with a main verb to express shades of time, ability, degree, or conditionality. A helping verb always comes before the main verb or lexical verb in a sentence. In English, the helping verbs or auxiliary verbs are “will,” “shall,” “may,” “might,” “can,” “could,” “must,” “ought to,” “should,” “would,” “used to,” and “need.” Combining one or more of them with a main verb produces a verb phrase, as “will come” in “He will come tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.”

To evoke a precise meaning or nuance, a main verb can use more than one helping verb, as in this sentence: “The company has been selling the new product for a month now.” Here, “selling” uses the helping verb “has” (functionally called a verbal auxiliary) and the helping verb “been” (the past participle of “be,” also functioning as a verbal auxiliary) to form the present perfect progressive tense.

Now, a modal verb is a type of helping or auxiliary verb that’s used with a main verb to indicate its so-called modality, a grammatical indication that the action in that verb doesn’t denote a simple fact but only the likelihood of it happening or just the ability, permission, and obligation to do it. For instance, the modal verbs “can,” “could,” “have to,” “must,” “might,” and “should” indicate various degrees of intent or likelihood when used with the main verb “come” in the following sentences: 

Mild intent: “We can come tomorrow if you wish.” Conditional: “We could come tomorrow if weather permits.”Mandatory: “We have to come tomorrow for the finals.” Absolute obligation: “We must come tomorrow no matter what.” Weak intent: “We might come tomorrow if we feel like it.” Sense of obligation: “We should come tomorrow as we promised.” 

Now to your question on the difference between a linking verb and a stative verb:

In English, a verb is classified as either an action verb—also called a dynamic verb—or a stative verb. Action verbs are, of course, those that describe actions or events that happen, like “smile” in “She smiled at me” and “fell” in “The rain fell in torrents.” On the other hand, stative verbs are those that show a state and not an action, like “know,” “believe,” “appear,” “seem,” and “consist.” For instance, in the sentence “A square consists of four sides of equal length,” the verb “consists” is stative because it denotes composition rather than action.

You asked if it’s right to say that all linking verbs are stative verbs. In English, this isn’t always the case. For instance, the linking verb “be” is stative in the sentence “The sky is blue” but dynamic in “She is having a tantrum” and “They are arguing.” In the case of the linking verb “have,” it is stative in “They have a yacht” but dynamic in “They are having a conference.” 

In contrast, it’s absolutely correct to say that all stative verbs are linking verbs. In denoting a state, they all serve to link a subject with its predicate, as in “I know her well” and “She appears confident.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Flawed grammar in President Obama’s “Concert for Hope” speech

Question by Mariese, a new Forum member based in Germany (April 6, 2012):

Hello,

I am currently analyzing Barack Obama’s speech at a “Concert for Hope” on September 11, 2011 (dealing with the 10th anniversary of the terrorists’ attack on 9/11 2001). 

Two passages seem odd to me:

The sacrifices of these men and women, and of our military families, reminds us that the wages of war are great; that while service to our nation is full of glory, war itself is never glorious.

These past 10 years underscores the bonds between all Americans.

My problem is the usage of singular and plural in these quotations. In the first one Obama uses a plural noun (“sacrifices”), but a singular verb form (“reminds”). It’s the same in the second passage (“years” – “underscores”). I just can’t find any explanation for this on my own.

Are these grammatically correct? Or are they any special form? Why does he put it this way? 

Thanks in advance for your explanation!

My reply to Mariese:

I followed the link you provided to U.S. President Obama’s “Concert of Hope” speech and while I was impressed by his oratory, I agree with you that the two sentences you quoted from it indeed seem odd. On close analysis, in fact, they are flat-out grammatically wrong.

Take the first sentence you quoted, which is the topic sentence of the 8th paragraph of the speech (italicizations mine):

The sacrifices of these men and women, and of our military families, reminds us that the wages of war are great; that while service to our nation is full of glory, war itself is never glorious.

The subject of the main clause of that sentence is the noun phrase “the sacrifices of these men and women, and of our military families,” which on its face as a compound subject is obviously plural in form, thus requiring the verb to be plural in form as well—”remind” and not “reminds.” The grammar rule here is, of course, that when two or more singular nouns are compounded as subject or doer of the action—meaning they are added together or are acting together (or both, as in this case)—the operative verb should take the plural form.

Also, in linguistics, that noun phrase is called a nominal group, which by definition consists of a particular noun (“sacrifices”) and all the other words that modify or characterize that noun. Within a clause, a nominal group functions as though it is that noun itself, which is referred to as the head or head noun; the items that precede the head noun (in this case, the article “the”) are called its premodifiers, and the items that come after it (“of these men and women, and of our military families “) are its qualifiers. In a nominal group, the rule is that it’s the head noun that determines whether the noun phrase is singular or plural. Any other noun or pronoun found in the premodifier or in the qualifier of the head noun doesn’t determine or affect its being singular or plural. Clearly then, with “sacrifices” as the head noun of that nominal group, the operative verb should be in the plural form “remind” and the sentence in question should read as follows:

The sacrifices of these men and women, and of our military families, remind us that the wages of war are great; that while service to our nation is full of glory, war itself is never glorious.

Now let’s take a close look at the second sentence you cited:

These past 10 years underscores the bonds between all Americans.

That sentence is actually the topic sentence of the 10th paragraph of President Obama’s speech. On its face, I think it’s grammatically wrong, for the doer of the action in that sentence is the obviously plural noun phrase “these past 10 years,” thus requiring the operative verb to be in the plural form “underscore” instead of the singular form “underscores.” There’s a school of thought in English grammar, though, that consider as singular a noun or noun phrase denoting a period of time, like “five years” in the sentence “Five years is not enough work experience to qualify you for that job.” In the usage of President Obama’s speech, however, it’s very clear from his use of the plural article “these” in that sentence that he meant to use the period “10 years” in the plural form. In fact, that sentence forms part of the following series of five topic sentences in the speech, all of which except the lead sentence of the 10th paragraph—the odd-man out among them and the very sentence in question here—use the time period “there past 10 years” in the plural form: 

These past 10 years have shown that America does not give in to fear. (5th paragraph)

These past 10 years have shown America’s resolve to defend its citizens, and our way of life. (7th paragraph)

These 10 years have shown that we hold fast to our freedoms. (9th paragraph)

These past 10 years underscores the bonds between all Americans. (10th paragraph)

These past 10 years tell a story of our resilience. (11th paragraph)

Clearly, then, we can confidently say that the speech erred grammatically—if inadvertently—in the 10th paragraph by using the singular verb form “underscores” for the plural form “these past 10 years.” That sentence should be corrected as follows:

“These past 10 years underscore the bonds between all Americans.”

FURTHER READING ON SUBJECT-VERB AGREEMENT:
How to lick errors in subject-verb agreement for good

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Singular-plural conundrums; choice between gerunds and nouns

Question from English Maiden, Forum member (April 2, 2012):

Sir, could you tell me which of the two sentences in each set below is the correct one and why? The context for each set is also given.

(Context: I am a marriage counselor speaking before married couples.)
“You husbands should, from time to time, give gifts to your wives.”
“You husbands should, from time to time, give gifts to your wife.”

(Context: I’m the class president and am speaking before my class.)
“Everyone should surrender their cellphones before going inside the theater.”
“Everyone should surrender their cellphone before going inside the theater.”

I realize that I have already asked a similar question before, but what I’m trying to say here is that I’m still having so much trouble deciding whether to use the singular or plural forms of the nouns I highlighted in the sentences I presented. I feel I should use the plural because I’m not just talking about one husband or one cellphone. I’m actually talking about, in my 1st set of sentences, all the wives of all the husbands I’m speaking to, and in my 2nd set, all the cellphones of everyone in my class. And deciding gets even more difficult for me when expressing general ideas. For example, should I say “People who don’t have jobs are but lazy people,” or should I use the singular job instead and say “People who don’t have a job are but lazy people”? Here are other examples:

“All my friends have successful careers” or “All my friends have a successful career

“I get uncomfortable around people with strong personalities” or “I get uncomfortable around people with a strong personality

I must admit that I am more accustomed to using the plural forms of the nouns that act as objects (or will “act as an object” do?) of a preposition (or should it be “of prepositions” instead?) for these types of sentences. This is a serious problem to me, and I’m hoping you can clear everything up for me. Also, sir, when a gerund and a regular noun seem like they can both be used as an adjective to describe another noun, which one should one prefer? 

“swim trunks” or “swimming trunks”
“work experience” or “working experience”
“sleep pattern” or “sleeping pattern”
“dance partner” or “dancing partner”

Sorry for asking too many questions in one post. I look forward to your answers and explanations. Thanks so much in advance!

My reply to English Maiden:

I’m afraid that none of the sentences in these two sets you presented is grammatically and notionally correct:

A. Context: I’m a marriage counselor speaking before married couples.
(1) “You husbands should, from time to time, give gifts to your wives.
(2) “You husbands should, from time to time, give gifts to your wife.

B. Context: I’m the class president and am speaking before my class.
(1) “Everyone should surrender their cellphones before going inside the theater.”
(2) “Everyone should surrender their cellphone before going inside the theater.”

There’s always a strong temptation to evaluate flawed constructions like the above in terms of one-on-one correspondence between the number (whether singular or plural) of antecedent nouns and their subsequent possessives, but such evaluations are bound to fail because of certain intractable peculiarities of English with respect to the possessives and to indefinite pronouns like “everyone” and “everybody.” As we know, the pronoun “you” and the possessive “your” can be either singular or plural depending on the intended sense, and the indefinite pronouns “everyone” and “everybody” are grammatically singular but notionally plural and genderless as well. For this reason, as you yourself have found out and explained, the four sentence constructions you presented above will very often be grammatically and notionally suspect because of their inherent semantic contradictions.

When confronted with such semantic contradictions that could confuse the reader or listener, you should immediately reconstruct your sentences at the very moment of writing to make their grammar and logic unassailable. Don’t pass on the problem to your prospective readers or listeners. You shouldn’t put yourself in the situation of being criticized for shoddy, not-well-thought-out sentence constructions.

To get rid of the grammatical and semantic contradictions in the four sentences you presented, I would recommend the following reconstructions:

A. Context: I’m a marriage counselor speaking before married couples.
(3) “To each of you husbands here, here’s my advice: Give gifts to your wife from time to time.”

B. Context: I’m the class president and am speaking before my class.
(3) “Please surrender your cellphone before going inside the theater.”
or, even simpler and less intimidating:
(4) “Please leave your cellphone here before going inside the theater.”

In English as in most everything in life, avoidance of trouble at the very outset is the best policy.

Now, to your last question: When a gerund and a regular noun seem like they can both be used as an adjective to describe another noun, which one should one prefer? 

My advice is to use the conventionally accepted form. In the four sets of choices you presented, the conventional usage is as follows:

“swim trunks” or “swimming trunks” – swimming trunks 
“work experience” or “working experience” – “work experience” 
“sleep pattern” or “sleeping pattern” – “sleeping pattern” 
“dance partner” or “dancing partner” – “dancing partner”

When in doubt, follow your instinct. Hardly anybody will take issue with you on this anyway except a terribly grumpy, hidebound English grammar teacher.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

“Is it true that we Filipinos are grammar-conscious as a people?”

Question by melvinhate, Forum member (March 30, 2012):

Sir Joe,
Is it really true that we Filipinos are grammar conscious people?

My reply to melvinhate:

Yes, I would think that like most nonnative speakers of the English language, Filipinos are generally grammar-conscious. This shouldn’t be taken to mean, though, that we speak or write English in a grammatically better way than native English speakers. It only means that as learners of English as a second or third language, we take greater pains than native English speakers in making our speech or writing grammatically, structurally, and syntactically correct. We are more careful and circumspect with our word choices. We avoid contractions. We tend to structure and stretch out our sentences along formal rather than informal lines, sometimes to the point of being obtuse or stuffy. And for the simple reason that we don’t know a lot of the English idioms and figures of speech, we tend to be literal and straitlaced—and uncolorful if not humdrum—in expressing our ideas. In short, we are grammar-conscious with our English because we don’t have the confidence to play or trifle with the language the way the native English speaker can. Of course, by dint of continuing study and practice with our spoken and written English, we can make ourselves more and more at home with English to the point of being spontaneous with it. Once we become capable of directly thinking in English (instead of translating our thoughts from our native tongue to English), we will surely be no longer grammar-conscious in expressing ourselves in English.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

The correct use of the semicolon

Question by aardvarklee, new Forum member (March 27, 2012):

I’m glad to have found this forum. One thing which I get frustrated about is the correct use of the semicolon… that’s the ; symbol.

I know that it can be used when making a listing such as “There was a list of friends: Richard; Cliff; Peter; Sally etc.”

Can you explain how to use it properly in other situations with examples?

Thanks

Aardvark!

My reply to aadvarklee:

As we were taught in English grammar, the semicolon is a punctuation mark used primarily in a coordinating function between major sentence elements, like the independent clauses in these two compound sentences: “To err is human; to forgive divine.” “I went to the theater; I was told that tickets were sold out.” Note that in both these sentences, the two closely related and co-equal clauses are conjoined by a semicolon instead of a coordinating conjunction. Of course, the first sentence can also use “and” to link the two coordinate clauses: “To err is human and to forgive is divine.” And the second sentence can also use “but” to link the two coordinate clauses: “I went to the theater but I was told that tickets were sold out.” Whether to use a semicolon or a coordinating conjunction in such situations is often a stylistic decision on the part of the writer.

We will recall that semicolons have four other uses:

1. As punctuation before the introductory words “however,” “therefore,” and “that is” when they introduce a complete sentence. (It is preferable to use a comma after the introductory word.)

Example: “I made it to my son’s graduation ceremony by parking on a side street; however, my car was towed by traffic enforcers during my absence.”

2.  As punctuation before introductory words like “namely” or “e.g.,” when they introduce a list following a complete sentence. (Use a comma after the introductory word.)

Example #1: “We toured seven cities in Europe last April; namely, Paris, Rome, Madrid, Amsterdam, Lisbon, Copenhagen, and Leipzig.”

Example #2: “Bring at least four clippings of printed reading matter tomorrow; e.g., news story, feature article, opinion column, editorial, and classified advertising.”

3. Use the semicolon to separate units of a series of items when one or more of the units contain commas.

Example: “The caravan passed the towns of Nagcarlan, Laguna; Tayabas, Quezon; Daet, Camarines Norte; and Sipocot, Camarines Sur.”

4. Use the semicolon between two sentences joined by a coordinating conjunction when one or more commas appear in the first sentence.

Example: “When this terrible crisis is over, I will join forces with you; and you can rest assured of my undying loyalty.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Is “that’s” an acceptable contraction for “that was”?

Question by English Maiden, Forum member (March 16, 2012):

Can “that’s” be a contraction for “that was”? I often hear native and nonnative speakers say statements like “That’s what I was told,” “That’s what I thought,” and “That’s not what I did/said.” Clearly, in the above sentences I presented, “that’s” means “that was” since all the actions or situations being described are in the past, am I correct? If yes, does this mean that “that’s” can also stand for “that was”?

My reply to English Maiden:

In formal writing, “that’s” is unacceptable as a contraction for “that was.” It would betray the writer’s carelessness or downright ignorance of English grammar, particularly in the usage of the tenses. For instance, would you allow yourself to be caught writing this in a school essay: “That is what I was told by my teacher yesterday” or “That’s what I was told by my teacher yesterday”? Of course not! You’d feel safer and grammatically righteous writing “That was what I was told by my teacher yesterday?” So my answer to your question, as far as formal writing is concerned, is a firm no: “that’s” can’t stand for “that was.”

In informal conversations, however, people would always be predisposed to make “that’s” stand for “that was,” for economy in words is precisely why contractions are made in the first place. They normally wouldn’t take the trouble saying “That was what I was told by my teacher yesterday?” (Notice that the construction “was what I was” sounds like a tongue-twister that a speaker would naturally want to avoid.) Instead, without even consciously thinking of the violation in tense involved, they would usually contract “that was” to “that’s” and say “That’s what I was told by my teacher yesterday.” Anyone will surely take offense if you pointed out the tense violation, so if you are the listener, I think you’d strongly hesitate pointing out such a petty grammar wrinkle in the first place.

So when it comes to using “that’s” as a contraction for “that was,” just keep in mind that you can get away with it only in informal spoken English but never in formal English writing.

Rejoinder by English Maiden (March 22, 2012):

Thanks a lot for your reply, sir. I notice that you often use the modal “would” in your explanations, although I don’t quite understand why. Anyway, about using “that is/that was,” I also find it confusing to choose which one to use with the word “meant.” For example, if I want to say to someone that they misunderstood my statement, should I say “That IS not what I meant” or “That WAS not what I meant”? Another example, when I want to clarify what I just said to avoid confusion or misinterpretation, should I say “This IS what I meant by...” or “This WAS what I meant by...”? “What I meant by what I said IS...” or “What I meant by what I said WAS...”? Please clarify things for me. Thanks in advance!

My reply to English Maiden (March 23, 2012):

As I said in my reply to your original question, “would” is used in two classes of senses in English. The first is as the simple past tense of “will,” as in “Helen said she would go home before midnight last night, and she did” (here, the speaker is reporting having heard Helen say, in these exact words: “I will go home before midnight”); and the second as the modal* “would” to express a strong wish or desire, as in “I would love to be in Paris in springtime!” If you check with a good dictionary like, say, Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, you’d find that the modal “would” could evoke several other senses than just wishes and desires; it could also evoke preference, habit, intent, consent, choice, contingency, possibility, or probability—and I must say that they constitute a big mouthful compared to the single-bite sense of the simple past-tense “would”! 

About the choice between using “that is” and “that was” in sentences like “That (is, was) not what I meant,” use the present-tense “that is” or “this is” if the statement referred to is, say, in a whiteboard or blackboard in front of you or in an e-mail message you are replying at the moment: “(That, This) is not what I meant.” On the other hand, use the past tense “that was” when verbally contradicting a report about a statement you made in the past that’s now being quoted to you wrongly by someone; in this case, you reply would be “That was not what I meant.”

When you want to clarify what you have just been said, use the present tense all the time for your clarification: “This is what I meant.” “What I meant is this.” Because of the immediacy of your response, you can even use the present tense “mean” instead of the past particle “meant” in such responses: “This is what I mean.” “What I mean is this.” “What I mean in what I’ve just said is this…” Under such circumstances, no one could accuse you of wrong grammar when you use the present tense all throughout your clarification.

---------
*Be definition, a modal is an auxiliary verb that relates to or constitutes a grammatical form or category indicating predication of an action or state in some manner other than as a simple fact. Examples are “can,” “could,” “would,” “must,” “may,” “might,” and “ought.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

A questionable line from the lyrics of a famous song

Question from English Maiden, Forum member (March 5, 2012):

Hi, sir!

I’ve always wondered if this line in a well-known song is grammatically wrong: “All I hear IS raindrops falling on the rooftop.” That the noun (“raindrops”) that follows the verb “is” in that line is plural makes me doubt the correctness of it. Could it be that the correct way to put that sentence is by changing the singular verb “is” to the plural “are,” as in this revised version?

“All I hear ARE raindrops.”

I also face the same issue with the pronoun “what.” Oftentimes I am unsure whether I should use a singular or plural noun with it. For example, should I say “What I enjoy watching most IS horror movies.” or “What I enjoy watching most ARE horror movies”? Are both examples correct? If yes, is there any difference between them? If not, why is one correct and the other wrong? I look forward to your reply. Thank you in advance!

My reply to English Maiden (March 24, 2012):

Again, sorry for this delayed reply. As in the case of another posting of yours, this one got buried in the huge volume of postings in this discussion board in early March.

Strictly speaking, there’s a subject-verb disagreement in this song lyric: “All I hear is raindrops falling on the rooftop.” The linking verb should take the plural form “are” because it refers to both the notionally plural pronoun “all” as subject and the plural noun “raindrops” in the predicate, so the sentence should read as follows: “All I hear are raindrops falling on the rooftop.” That this should be the case can easily be checked by putting the sentence in this inverted form: “Raindrops falling on the rooftop are all I hear.” In this construction, it’s pretty obvious that the subject of the sentence is the noun phrase “raindrops falling on the rooftop,” where the head noun “raindrops” is no doubt plural, thus requiring the linking verb to be in the plural form “are.”

Having said that, however, I must acknowledge that the line in question is part of the lyrics of the song by Bythwood Dinavon/Tamia’s “Officially Missing You,” the first few lines of which are as follows:

All I hear is raindrops
Falling on the rooftop
Oh baby tell me why’d you have to go
Cause this pain I feel
It won’t go away
And today I’m officially missing you…

As we know, song lyric writers—like poets—sometimes need to take liberties with words and the language itself to achieve the tonality, cadence, and number of syllables they need for the lyrics of a song. For this purpose, society grants them the so-called literary license in recognition of their status as creative members of society. It’s a license that allows them to take minor liberties with language for creativity’s sake, the better to make their creative works aesthetically enjoyable and the better to entertain us. There is therefore no point in quibbling with the grammar violations that they occasionally are forced to commit for the sake of creativity and euphony.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Should it be “Philippine music” or “Filipino music”?

Question from English Maiden, Forum member (March 6, 2012):

Hi, sir! It always is a tough job for me choosing which one between “Philippine” and “Filipino” to use when describing things that are related to the Philippines. For example, should I say “Filipino music” or “Philippine music”? “Philippine dances” or “Filipino dances”? “Philippine football” or “Filipino football”? “Philippine movie industry” or “Filipino movie industry”? “Philippine culture” or “Filipino culture”? The list just goes on and on. Please explain to me which term is more favored, preferred, or common and why, or if both can be used interchangeably for the examples I cited above. Thanks in advance!

My reply to English Maiden:

Sorry for this delayed reply. This question of yours got buried among the postings in this busy discussion board.

There are obvious overlaps in the sense of the usage of “Philippine” and “Filipino” to describe things related to the Philippines. In particular, these pairs or terms practically mean the same and are interchangeable: “Filipino music” and “Philippine music,” “Philippine dances” or “Filipino dances,” and “Philippine fiestas” and “Filipino fiestas.” But you won’t ever hear a Filipino call the Philippine government “the Filipino government” or call the Filipino people “the Philippine people” or call the Philippine archipelago “the Filipino archipelago.” 

The usage of “Philippine” or “Filipino” as a modifier is largely on a case-to-case basis, and I couldn’t say which term is more favored, preferred, or common. As a general rule, however, use “Philippine” to modify nouns in the context of the Philippines as a nation and geographical territory, as in “Philippine sovereignty,” “Philippine claim to the Spratly Islands,” “Philippine islands,” “Philippine economy,” “Philippine newspapers,” “Philippine passport,” and “Philippine standing in the community of nations.” On the other hand, use “Filipino” to modify nouns in the context of the characteristics of, ownership of, or possession by the people and citizens of the Philippines, as in “Filipino merchants, “Filipino movies,” “Filipino customs and traditions,” “Filipino national language,” “Filipino character,” and “overseas Filipino workers or OFWs.” When there’s a seeming overlap in sense when choosing between “Philippine” and “Filipino,” play it by ear and make your best judgment.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

What sequence of tenses should we use in complex sentences?

Question by English Maiden, Forum member (March 20, 2012):

Hi, Sir!

I just want to know what the differences in meaning are, if any, between the two sentences below. To me they mean exactly the same, and I will probably have no doubt of using them interchangeably:

“After I finish my homework, I will call you.”

“After I have finished my homework, I will call you.”

For subordinate clauses introduced by adverbs and adverbial phrases like “after,” “unless,” and “as soon as,” which is  more common to use, the present perfect or the simple present tense? Are there any differences or subtleties in meaning between them? Thanks in advance for your answers!

My reply to English Maiden:

Your question actually boils down to this: What’s the correct sequence of tenses to use in a complex sentence? As we know, a complex sentence consists of an independent clause using one verb and a dependent or subordinate clause using another verb. In Sentence 1 above, in particular, the independent clause is “I will call you” using the simple future tense verb “will call” and the dependent clause is “after I finish my homework” using the present tense verb “finish.” In Sentence 2, the independent clause is the same as in Sentence 1 but the dependent clause now uses the present perfect tense verb “have finished.”

Are there are any differences in meaning between the two sentences?

My answer is that they actually differ not only in nuance but also in sense. By using the present tense “finish” in Sentence 1, “After I finish my homework, I will call you,” the speaker conveys the idea that finishing the homework would be a short-time action that will be over not long after the time of speaking, as the action “stops” in, say, “After the clock stops ticking, I will call you.” On the other hand, by using the present perfect “have finished” in Sentence 2, “After I have finished my homework, I will call you,” the speaker conveys the idea that finishing the homework would be an extended action that will be completed long after the time speaking, as in, say, the action “have read” in the sentence “After I have read Tolstoy’s War and Peace, I will call you.” In short, in complex sentence constructions, the yardstick for choosing the tense for the verb in the subordinate clause is the expected duration of the action.

The other major determinant for the tense of verbs in a complex sentence is, of course, the logic of the statement itself, which will depend on logical language operators like the adverbs “after” and “unless” and the adverbial phrases “as soon as.” Recall that these adverbs and adverbial phrases function as subordinating conjunctions in complex sentences, providing both link and logic to the main clause and subordinate clause. 

Now let’s see what happens when we replace “after” in Sentence 1 and Sentence 2 with some of the adverbs and adverbial phrases you listed above: (1a) “When I finish my homework, I will call you.” (1b) “When I have finished my homework, I will call you.” (2a) “As soon as I finish my homework, I will call you.” (2) “As soon as I have finished my homework, I will call you.” (3a) “Once I finish my homework, I will call you.” (3b) “Once I have finished my homework, I will call you.”

They all make sense, but it should be clear by now that there’s no way of knowing whether it’s the present perfect or the simple present tense that’s more commonly used in such complex sentences. No matter what adverb or adverbial phrase introduces the subordinate clause, it’s the sense or nuance that the speaker wants to convey that ultimately determines the sequence of tenses to be used.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Why some intransitive verbs appear to take an object

Question from r_a, new Forum member (March 3, 2012):

Hi! I have two big questions that nobody can answer until now.

My first question is this: Why do some intransitive verbs take objects? For example, the verb “yearn” in “I yearned to go there” and the verb “proceeded” in “He proceeded to deny the truth.” 

And my second question is this: If we have an intransitive verb with a preposition in a sentence like, say, “He complains about everything,” which part of the sentences is the object—“everything” or “about “everything”? I want to know if the preposition “about” is part of the object or part of the verb.

Thank you.

My reply to r_a:

Recall that in English, a verb may be transitive, intransitive, or linking. It is transitive when it’s an action verb that absolutely needs a direct object to make sense in a sentence (like the verb “caught” in “The police caught a thief”), intransitive when it’s an action verb that doesn’t need and can’t take a direct object at all (like the verb “sneezed” in “She sneezed”), and linking when it’s a verb that doesn’t express action but simply connects the verb to the predicate (like the verb “is” in “The day is hot”). By definition, of course, a direct object is a noun or pronoun that receives the action of a transitive verb or shows the result of its action, as the noun “thief” in the first sentence I gave as example above.

Many verbs, of course, can either be transitive or intransitive depending on how they are used in the sentence. For example, “breaks” is transitive in “She often breaks the rule” because it needs the direct object “rule” for the sentence to make sense. On the other hand, “breaks” is intransitive in “When dropped on a hard surface, glass breaks” because it needs no direct object for the sentence to make sense.

Now, in the case of the two verbs you presented, “yearn” and “proceed,” they are indeed both intransitive verbs and as such shouldn’t be able to take a direct object at all. Why then, you ask, do these verbs each appear to take an object in the sentence “I yearned to go there” and “He proceeded to deny the truth”?

The answer—and mark this very carefully—is that although intransitive verbs can’t link up with a direct object, they can indirectly do so by using a preposition as grammatical intermediary. The noun, pronoun, or noun phrase linked to the verb in this manner is called the object of the preposition. In the sentence “She sneezed on her hankie,” for instance, the intransitive verb “sneezed” is linked by the preposition “on” to “her hankie” as object of the preposition. In effect, it is the preposition that “receives” the action of the intransitive verb “sneezed” and then transmits that action to “her hankie” as object.

The same thing applies to the two sentences you presented. In “I yearned to go there,” the intransitive “yearned” is linked by “to” to the words “got there,” and the whole phrase “to go there” actually serves as the direct object of the verb “yearned.” In “He proceeded to tell the truth,” the intransitive “proceeded” is linked by “to” to the words “tell the truth,” and the whole phrase “to deny the truth” serves as the direct object of the verb “proceeded.” Keep in mind that in these two sentences, “to go there” and “to deny the truth” are both infinitive phrases—noun forms—that function as a direct object.

By this time the answer to your second question should be obvious. In “He complains about everything,” the direct object of “complains” is the whole noun phrase “about everything,” where “everything” is the object of the preposition “about.”

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Grammar SOS!

Question from English Maiden, Forum member (March 8, 2012):

Hello, sir! I just posted this on Twitter, and I was wondering if my sentences are correct the way they are or if they need to be rewritten:

“Rarely do I get disappointed with a Korean movie. In fact, these are the ones I love watching the most.”

Sir, the words I wrote in capital letters, I was wondering if they are correct. Should I pluralize the word “movie” in the first sentence, and change “these are” to “they are” in the second? Also, how much time has to elapse before one needs to use the present perfect continuous instead of the simple present continuous? For example, when should I say “I’ve been standing in the rain” instead of “I’m standing in the rain”? This is really causing a lot of stress to me, so I’m hoping you can help me out.

My reply to English Maiden:

Yes, you should pluralize “movie” in the first sentence, but “these are” and “they are” are practically interchangeable for the second sentence, which, by the way, should be punctuated with a colon and not by a period. Those two sentences should then read as follows:

“Rarely do I get disappointed with Korean movies. In fact, these are the ones I love watching the most:”

Now the question is, of course, why use the plural “movies” instead of the singular “movie”? Well, it’s obvious from the sense of your statement that you are making a value judgment about Korean movies in general, so the presumption is that you have watched a good number of them to be able to make that judgment. When you say, “Rarely do I get disappointed with a Korean movie,” it makes you sound so biased toward Korean movies as to imply that you won’t get disappointed with any Korean movie even if it so happens to be awfully bad. But then, as they say, movies are movies are movies—some are great, some are so-so, some are awful, and the rest are dismal. So why make an iffy statement way ahead of time that you won’t get disappointed with a Korean movie even if you haven’t seen it yet?

Having said that, let me point out that you can make that first sentence semantically and logically airtight by qualifying it with a timeframe, as in this example: “Rarely have I been disappointed with the Korean movies shown in 2011.” 

As to your second question, the present perfect continuous is typically used with a duration adverbial phrase, as in this example: “I’ve been standing in the rain for ten minutes now.” The present perfect continuous doesn’t require a specific length of elapsed time, only the sense that the action has continued uninterrupted until the time of speaking.

In contrast, the simple present continuous denotes continuing action at the time of speaking, with no indication of when that action started and how long it might last, as in this example: “I’m standing in the rain.” It’s like a snapshot of a fleeting moment in time.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

How literal adverbial phrases differ from idiomatic ones

Question from English Maiden, Forum member (February 28, 2012):

Good morning, sir! I have just a very simple question here. Are both of the following sentences correct?

“We are all unique in our own way/right.”
“We are all unique in our own ways/rights.”

I realize that the first construction, which uses “in our own way/right,” is more common, but I was wondering if the second sentence, with “in our own ways/rights” in it, might also be just as correct and acceptable. Personally, I would use the second construction since the subject of the sentence is “we,” which is in the plural, so it makes perfect sense to put “way/right” in the phrase in question in the plural, too. Please tell me if my assumption is correct or wrong. Also, what do you call the word “way(s)/right(s)” in the sentences I presented? What’s its function?

My reply to English Maiden:

First, let’s make the distinctions clearer between the four constructions by writing them down as complete sentences:

(1a) “We are all unique in our own way.” (1b) “We are all unique in our own ways.”
(2a) “We are all unique in our own right.” (2b) “We are all unique in our own rights.”

Offhand we can see that the first three constructions—1a, 1b, and 2a—are undoubtedly correct grammatically and semantically. Only 2b, “We are all unique in our own rights,” looks and sounds suspect, and about this I’ll have something more to say later.

The next thing we will discover is that the adverbial phrase “in our own way” is used in Sentences 1a and 1b in the literal sense of “in our own personal manner as an individual.” One grammatical consequence of this literalness is that the noun “way” in that adverbial phrase can take either its singular or plural form depending on whether the subject of the sentence is singular or plural, as in these constructions: “I am unique in my own way.” “She is unique in her own way.” “They are unique in their own ways.” “We are all unique in our own ways.” (Of course, if the speaker means to use “way” collectively for the entire group, this latter construction should use “way” in the collective singular form and knock off the adverb “all”:  “We are unique in our own way.”)

Now, in sharp contrast to this literal character of “in our own way,” we will find that the adverbial phrase “in our own right” is actually an idiomatic expression in the sense of “by virtue of one’s own qualifications or properties.”  Recall now that one major feature of an idiom is that its key or operative word isn’t substitutable or modifiable, so that changing the way the words of an idiom are put together or inflected alters its meaning. In the case of “in our own right,” the figurative meaning of the idiom is lost when the noun “right” is made plural; indeed, “rights” has the different sense of “the interest that one has in a piece of property,” as in “We own the mineral rights to that piece of land”). This is why the sentence “We are all unique in our own rights” is defective both grammatically and semantically.  

As to your last question on what to call the word “way(s)” and “right(s)” in the sentences you presented and what their function is, I really can’t figure out how to answer that. All I can say is that “way” and “right” are nouns integral to the adverbial phrases in question, and as such have no independent grammatical function of their own.

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Getting to know the 4 types of conditional sentences

While on the Internet yesterday, I stumbled upon the topic of “mixed conditionals.” Before that, I had always thought (is my use of the past perfect here correct?) that in unreal conditional sentences, the time in the if-clause should ALWAYS MATCHES the time in the result or main clause, as in these sentences: “If I were pretty, I would have a boyfriend now,” and “If I hadn’t missed the train, I wouldn’t have been late for my job interview.” Now, my question is, are mixed conditional sentences like the ones below acceptable English?

(1) “If I had taken French in high school, I would have more job opportunities.”
(2) “If Mark had gotten the job instead of Joe, he would be moving to Shanghai.” 
(3) “If I didn’t have to work so much, I would have gone to the party last night.”
(4) “If I weren’t going on my business trip next week, I would have accepted that new assignment at work.” 
(5) “If Dan weren’t so nice, he wouldn’t be tutoring you in math tonight.”
(6) “If Sandy were giving a speech tomorrow, she would be very nervous.” 

*sentence examples from 
http://www.englishpage.com/conditional/mixedconditional.html

Also, sir, which is correct, "sample book/s" or "book sample/s"? I'm looking forward to your answers. Thanks in advance!

My reply to English Maiden:

Yes, the six sentences you presented are all grammatically correct and acceptable English constructions. The first four are of the type called third conditional (no possibility); the fifth, the type called second conditional (unreal possibility); and the sixth, the type called first conditional (real possibility). I must add that it’s confusing to call such sentences “mixed conditionals,” for there’s really nothing mixed about them or their tenses. They are forthright statements that convey the idea that the action in the main clause could take place only if the condition in the subordinate clause—the “if”-clause—is fulfilled. 

So, for starters, how does a third conditional sentence (no possibility) differ from a second conditional sentence (unreal possibility)?

The third conditional sentence talks about a condition in the past that didn’t happen, thus making it impossible for a wished-for result to take place, as in Sentence 1: “If I had taken French in high school, I would have more job opportunities.” This type of sentence has the following structure: the “if” clause states the impossible past condition using the past perfect tense “had + past participle of the verb,” is followed by a comma, then followed by the impossible past result in the form “would have + past participle of the verb.” We can see that Sentences 2, 3, 4 are similar third conditional sentences with a wished-for-result that could no longer possibly happen:

(2) “If Mark had gotten the job instead of Joe, he would be moving to Shanghai.” 
(3) “If I didn't have to work so much, I would have gone to the party last night.”
(4) “If I weren't going on my business trip next week, I would have accepted that new assignment at work.”

The second conditional sentence, on the other hand, talks about a possible but very unlikely result that the stated future condition could be fulfilled; in short, the stated outcome is an unreal possibility, as in Sentence 5: “If Dan weren’t so nice, he wouldn’t be tutoring you in math tonight.” This type of conditional has this sentence structure: the “if” clause states the future condition in the simple past tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the future result clause in the form “would + base form of the verb.” The speaker here talks of the very unlikely possibility that Dan would do the tutoring job if he “weren’t so nice.”

The third type of conditional sentence is the first conditional or real possibility. It denotes a high degree of possibility that a future condition or situation will happen given a hypothetical future condition, as in Sentence 6: “If Sandy were giving a speech tomorrow, she would be very nervous. Here, the speaker believes that knowing Sandy, it’s very likely for her to be “very nervous” when giving the speech.

There’s one more type of conditional sentence: the zero conditional (certainty). It talks about a condition whose result is always true and always the same, like a scientific fact, as in this example: “If people don’t drink water, they get dehydrated.”

Now to this last question of yours: Which is correct, “sample book/s” or “book sample/s”? 

I think the idiomatic usage is “book samples,” as in the sentence “The book samples you presented are unacceptable to this library.” Using “sample books,” as in the sentence “The sample books you presented are unacceptable to this library,” looks iffy to me and doesn’t sound as good, but I must say that from a grammatical or semantic standpoint, there’s no reason to altogether disallow that alternative usage .

RELATED POSTINGS ON CONDITIONALS:
“Do better than a calculated guess in handling conditional sentences,” January 8, 2011
“Do conditional sentences backshift in reported speech?”, May 7, 2011

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Are electronic documents considered published?

Question by melvinhate (January 16, 2012):

Sir Joe,
 Are electronic documents considered published? How about those articles posted under “Saying Your Piece” in your forum?

My reply to melvinhate:

Are electronic documents considered published? I would think so.

I’m not aware, though, if there’s already a corresponding law in the Philippines that considers an electronic publication a printed publication. In the United States, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has this provision for Electronic Publications as Prior Art: 

Status as a “Printed Publication”

An electronic publication, including an on-line database or Internet publication, is considered to be a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b) provided the publication was accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates. See In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221, 227, 210 USPQ 790, 795 (CCPA 1981) (“Accordingly, whether information is printed, handwritten, or on microfilm or a magnetic disc or tape, etc., the one who wishes to characterize the information, in whatever form it may be, as a ‘printed publication’ * * * should produce sufficient proof of its dissemination or that it has otherwise been available and accessible to persons concerned with the art to which the document relates and thus most likely to avail themselves of its contents.'" (citations omitted).).

Click to read responses or post a response

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)




Copyright © 2010 by Aperture Web Development. All rights reserved.

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Page last modified: 31 December, 2012, 8:30 p.m.