Jose Carillo's Forum

USE AND MISUSE

The Use and Misuse section is open to all Forum members for discussing anything related to English grammar and usage. It invites and encourages questions and in-depth discussions about any aspect of English, from vocabulary and syntax to sentence structure and idiomatic expressions. It is, of course, also the perfect place for relating interesting experiences or encounters with English use and misuse at work, in school, or in the mass media.


How infinitives and gerunds work in comparative sentences

Question e-mailed by FH from Iran (April 2, 2013):

I have a question: Which choice is correct? Please explain your reasons.
 
“A teacher can receive no greater gift than ________ she or he has had a positive influence and has been helpful to someone else.”
 
(a) to know
(b) knowing
(c) know 
 
Thank you for taking the time to help me.

My reply to FH (April 7, 2013):

Dear FH,

Answer choice (c) “know” is definitely wrong. Both (a) “to know” and (b) “knowing” are possible answers from a grammar standpoint, but I think the semantically and idiomatically correct answer is “to know.” This is because the infinitive phrase “to know” somehow gives the sense that the subject—in this case the “teacher”—still hasn’t received or doesn’t possess yet the gift being referred to, a situation that matches the sense of possibility denoted by the modal “can.” In contrast, the gerund phrase “knowing” gives the sense that the subject is already in possession or has already received such a gift—a situation that doesn’t seem to logically match the modality of “can.” 

It would seem to me that the gerund “knowing” might work in, say, a present-perfect sentence like this one: “As a teacher, I’ve received no greater gift than knowing I have had a positive influence and has been helpful to someone else.” Still, the semantics of the gerund “knowing” seems odd or askew in such constructions because “knowing” denotes a continuing state or permanent condition. In contrast, the one-time action denoted by the gerund “discovering” might work in such constructions: “As a teacher, I’ve received no greater gift than discovering I have had a positive influence and have been helpful to someone else.” Even better is the semantics of this sentence that uses the gerund phrase “receiving the compliment”: “As a teacher, I’ve received no greater gift than receiving the compliment that I have had a positive influence and have been helpful to someone else.” 

What these examples is telling us is that some verbs lend themselves semantically well to taking the infinitive form, while others don’t and could only take the gerund form to work properly in certain sentence constructions.

I hope this explanation helps clarify the usage for you.

Sincerely yours,
Joe Carillo

Click to read comments or post a comment

The proper tense use of the tenses in main and subordinate clauses

This is a follow-through to the discussion on the question on “Not until Usage” by youngmentor (March 25, 2013).

Feedback from Mwita Chacha, Forum member (April 4, 2013):

If I’m not mistaken, grammar rules require that when the main clause is in the past tense, the independent clause also should be in the past tense. So my revision sentence would further be ‘‘Not until I requested for my GSIS claim this March did I find out that my service record had not been closed yet because your office had not received the endorsement letter.’’

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

I don’t think there’s any grammar rule in English that requires the dependent or subordinate clause to be also in the past tense when the independent or main clause is in the past tense; that would make English an impossibly restrictive language for describing with events as they happen in time. You are perhaps referring by mistake to the so-called normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech or indirect speech. Reported speech is, of course, the kind of sentence someone makes when he or she reports what someone else has said. And under the normal sequence-of-tenses rule, when an utterance takes the form of reported speech and the reporting verb is in the past tense, the operative verb of that utterance generally takes one step back from the present into the past: the present becomes past, the past usually stays in the past, the present perfect becomes past perfect, and the future becomes future conditional. (Click this link to my forum posting on “The proper way to construct sentences for reported speech”

Nevertheless, let’s see if it’s correct to use the past perfect for the verb phrases in the “that”-clause of the sentence in question, as you have done: “Not until I requested for my GSIS claim this March did I find out that my service record had not been closed yet because your office had not received the endorsement letter.” 

In that sentence, the operative verb of the dependent clause is “requested” and that of the main clause is “did I find out,” both of which are in the past tense. We must keep in mind, though, that they are both in the past tense not because there’s a grammar rule requiring them to be always so together, but only because it just so happens that it’s what the particular situation requires. As to the verb phrases in the “that”-clause of the main clause, namely the verb phrases “has not been closed yet” and “has not received,” there is actually no rule whatsoever that requires them to have the same tense as the operative verb of the main clause. This being the case, the tense they will take will not be automatically the past tense but will be dependent only on the sense of the situation being described. In this particular case, they have to be in the present perfect because at the time the letter was written, the two conditions described—”has not been closed yet” and “has not received”—are still subsisting; in fact, they are the very basis and justification for the letter-writer’s request.

The past perfect would apply to those two conditions if they are no longer subsisting. Indeed, only in that event can we use the past perfect for those verb phrases, as you have done in this rewrite:  “Not until I requested for my GSIS claim this March did I find out that my service record had not been closed yet because your office had not received the endorsement letter.” But the use of the past perfect here would wrongly imply that after the letter-writer discovered the problem, that office thereafter received the endorsement letter and duly closed his service record. This isn’t the case at all, though. Those two conditions are still subsisting up to the time of writing, so it’s logical for the letter-writer to use the present perfect tense for those two verb phrases: “Not until I requested for my GSIS claim this March did I find out that my service record has not been closed yet because your office has not received the endorsement letter.”

I hope I have adequately clarified the tense usage for that sentence. 

Rejoinder from Mwita Chacha (April 8, 2013):

So you suggest ‘‘I failed to attend the meeting yesterday because I’m ill’’ is grammatically correct as long as the writer was still ill at the time he was making the sentence? It’s for the first time I hear that.

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

That’s right. And if you put the subordinate clause up front, the grammatical correctness of using the present tense for the state of the speaker’s being ill won’t look as questionable as you think:

“Because I am ill, I failed to attend the meeting yesterday.” (The speaker continues to be ill until the time of speaking.)

Contrast that sentence construction with this one:

“Because I was ill, I failed to attend the meeting yesterday.” (The speaker is no longer ill at the time of speaking.)

Keep in mind that the state of being ill is not necessarily the direct cause of failing to attend a meeting. A slight headache, for instance, won’t prevent one from making it to a meeting. It’s just becomes a subjective justification--a reason in the mind--for not attending the meeting.

In contrast, a real physical constraint like being hogtied by robbers definitely will prevent one from attending a meeting. That’s a direct cause--a consummated action done to the speaker--that will absolutely need the past tense in the construction that you have in mind:

“Because I was hogtied by robbers, I failed to attend the meeting yesterday.” (The speaker is no longer bound like a hog and has lived to tell the tale about his misfortune.)  

And to further emphasize my point that the tense of a subordinate clause is not dependent on the tense of the main clause, take a look at the following sentence with two separate actions in the main clause:

“Because I am ill, I failed to attend the meeting yesterday and won’t be able to fly to Frankfurt tomorrow.”(Three tenses are at play here: the present tense, the past tense, and the future tense.)

I hope this adequately clarifies things for you.

Response by Mwita Chacha (April 8, 2013):

It has indeed clarified things for me. There are some grammar books strictly insists that once the main-clause verb is in past tense the subordinate-clause verb must always be in past tense. My sympathy goes directly towards those who are not Forum members and who, like me hours ago, believe that’s the truth what is said by those books.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Don’t be caught using “yesternight” these days!

Question by jhun bartolo, new Forum member (April 8, 2013):

Hello, sir!

I would just like to know if the word “yesternight” can still be used? According to what I have researched, this word can no longer be used. I hope that you can answer this question. Thank you.

My reply to jhun:

“Yesternight” is an archaic word for “last night,” dating to as far back as the 1500s and has long fallen into disuse. You’d sound decidedly Shakespearean if you used it in your spoken or written English today, so I suggest you don’t.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Usage of the definite article “the” in serial lists is a matter of style

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (March 25, 2013):

When is the article “the” necessary? In the sentence “She beat the bushes offering her free-lance services to Look, the Milwaukee Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the New York News SyndicateNewsweekEsquire, and the Saturday Evening Post,” the writer seems to be taking liberties in using it.

My reply to Miss Mae:

As we know, the definite article “the” indicates that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context or by circumstance, as in “reading the morning paper.” Another use of “the” is, of course, to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent is a unique or a particular member of its class, as in “the President of the Philippines.”

There are two general styles in the use of “the” for serial listings of definite nouns. The first style is to have each of the definite nouns preceded by the article “the,” as in this sentence: “The tailor, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick-maker all went on Holy Week vacation.” The second style is to use “the” only once before the first item in the list of definite nouns, as in “The tailor,  butcher, baker, and candlestick-maker all went on Holy Week vacation.” In this second style, it is implied and understood that the first “the” applies to all of the items, which then are all presumed to be definite nouns.

established stylistic preference in the use of the definite article “the” for their names. In the case of The New York Times and The Saturday Evening Post, for instance, they specify and prefer that the article “the” always precede the name, and that the first letter of “the” should be always in capital letters at that. This is why when these two publications are listed with other names of publications, we must not miss out on their “The’s,” as in this serial listing: ““She beat the bushes offering her free-lance services to The New York Times, Newsweek, Esquire, The Saturday Evening Post, Look, and Time.” Other publications aren’t as demanding.

In the case of the serial listing your presented, “She beat the bushes offering her free-lance services to Look, the Milwaukee Journal, the Chicago Tribune, the New York News SyndicateNewsweekEsquire, and the Saturday Evening Post,” you need to check one by one if any of the listed publications have a stylistic preference for the article “the.” Wikipedia is a good place to find out what those stylistic preferences are. Offhand, I know that Look, Newsweek, and Esquire don’t demand the use of “the” ever. On the other hand, the Milwaukee Journal, Chicago Tribune, and New York News Syndicate don’t demand “The” before their names but when these names are serially listed, they’d rather that “the” precede them. In fact, the writer of the serial sentence you presented appears not to have taken stylistic liberties with the use of “the” at all; on the contrary, she seems to have scrupulously researched the stylistic preferences of those publications in the use of the article “the” before their names.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Constructing a sentence that starts with “not until”

Question by young mentor, Forum member (March 25, 2013):

I was seized by doubt on the use of “not until” in starting this sentence: “Not until I requested for my GSIS claim this March I would have not found out that my service record has not been closed yet due to non-receipt of the endorsement letter.”

I would be needing your expertise regarding this sentence construction.

My reply to young mentor:

This sentence of yours has faulty tense usage and its construction can stand improvement:

“Not until I requested for my GSIS claim this March I would have not found out that my service record has not been closed yet due to non-receipt of the endorsement letter.”

The present perfect conditional “would have not found out” should be in the simple past tense “did I find out” instead.

That sentence should then read as follows:

“Not until I requested for my GSIS claim this March did I find out that my service record has not been closed yet because your office has not received the endorsement letter.”

As to your letter itself, I’m afraid that it sounds very officious and wordy. You can write it much better by imagining that you are face-to-face with the recipient. Then you won’t have need for those big words like “consonance,” “perusal,” and “good office” and won’t have the urge to sound bureaucratic or legalistic in making your request.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Puzzling variation in the use of the indefinite article “a”

Here’s an interesting grammar puzzler e-mailed to me yesterday, March 15, 2013 by FH, an English teacher in Iran:

Dear Mr. Carillo,

Please look at options (A) and (B)

(A) It was a hard work.

(B) A good knowledge of French.

As you know, (A) is wrong but (B) is correct. But why? Both “work” and “knowledge” are uncountable, both have an adjective in front of them. But why (A) is wrong and (B) correct?

I am really confused. The issue of using the indefinite article “a” in front of uncountable nouns has really confused me.

All the best
FH

Here’s my reply to FH:

March 15, 2013

Dear FH,

Here’s my grammar analysis of the two grammatical constructions you presented:

  1. “It was a hard work.”
  2. A good knowledge of French.”

 

The first, “It was a hard work,” is grammatically flawed and unidiomatic because it needlessly uses the indefinite article “a” to precede “hard work.” It’s true that here, “work” is an uncountable noun that’s preceded by the adjective “hard,” but “hard work” is actually functioning in that sentence as a compound noun—a figurative expression or idiom—meaning “difficult labor.” The words “hard” and “work” are therefore not working as separate grammar entities in this case.

As a compound noun, “hard work” in that sentence serves as a predicate nominative to the subject “it” following this pattern:

It           +      was         + (hard work)
Subject + linking verb + predicate nominative

By definition, a predicate nominative follows a linking verb and tells us what the subject is. In the sentence in question, although the predicate nominative “hard work” is a compound noun, it serves as an adjective describing the subject “it,” in much the same way that the predicate nominative “big trouble” works as an adjective in the sentence below:

“She was big trouble.”

We don’t say “She was a big trouble,” which is grammatically wrong and awfully unidiomatic. In the same way, we don’t say “It was a hard work” but say “It was hard work” instead.

(The grammatical situation would be different if “work” is used in a sentence as a stand-alone noun in its literal sense modified by a preceding adjective phrase. An indefinite pronoun would then be needed, as in “It was a hard piece of work” and “It was an infuriating kind of work.”)

The above analysis, to my mind, explains why we don’t use the indefinite article “a” in the sentence “It was hard work.” But if this is the case, why then is the indefinite article “a” necessary in this other sentence that you presented?

A good knowledge of French.”

Let’s see why this phrase needs a different grammatical treatment although it also uses an uncountable noun like the sentence we analyzed.

Although both “work” and “knowledge” are uncountable nouns, they are generically different. “Work” in the sense of the sentence you presented is uncountable because it’s a thing that can’t be physically counted like, say, marbles or houses. However, “work” as a uncountable noun can take either a singular form (“work”) or plural form (“works”). We therefore can construct sentences like “It was productive work,” “It was a difficult piece of work,” “She did many different works,” or “His works in modern architecture made him famous.”

In contrast, “knowledge” belongs to the class of abstract ideas or qualities that don’t have and can’t take a plural form at all, like “ignorance,” “courage,” “cowardice,” and “patriotism,” so we can’t use “knowledges,” “ignorances,” “courages,” “cowardices,” and “patriotisms” in any kind of sentence construction whatsoever. But being always singular, such abstract nouns need to be preceded by the indefinite article “a” or “an” to work properly in a sentence, whether or not there’s an intervening adjective between the noun and the indefinite article. Not to do so would result in faulty syntax.

Consider these three sets of examples:

“He showed an ignorance that’s shocking.” “He showed an abysmal ignorance that’s shocking”

“She demonstrated a courage that amazed his peers.” “She demonstrated an indomitable courage that amazed his peers.”

“They showed a cowardice that disappointed us.” “He showed an ignoble cowardice that disappointed us.”

All of the sentences above will grammatically malfunction—or at least sound unidiomatic—if we knock off the “a” or “an” preceding the abstract nouns.

This need for the indefinite pronoun “a” or “an” by an abstract noun when used in a sentence obviously applies to the noun “knowledge” as well: “She has a knowledge of French.” “She has a good knowledge of French.” “She has an amazing knowledge of French.”

This rule is not absolute, however. When no postmodifying phrase follows a noun preceded by an adjective, however, the indefinite pronoun “a” or “an” can be dropped for both brevity and euphony:

“He showed shocking ignorance.” “He showed abysmal ignorance.”

“She demonstrated amazing courage.” “She demonstrated indomitable courage.”

“They showed disappointing cowardice.” “They showed ignoble cowardice.”

I hope you will find this explanation helpful.

Sincerely yours,

Joe Carillo

Click to read comments or post a comment

How “Whenever we go (for, on) vacation...” differ in meaning

The following question was posted in my Personal Messages Box by chiccoloco, new Forum member (February 20, 2013):

Hi, Mr. Carillo! I’m one of your avid followers. I find your site helpful especially when I find myself confused with some grammar things in my job as an online English teacher. 

I wrote to ask if there’s any difference between saying “Whenever we go for vacation...” or “Whenever we go on vacation...” Are the prepositions “for” and “on” correct in both sentences? Or is it a matter of a missing article in the first phrase?

I hope you could shed some light on this. Thanks.

My reply to chiccoloco (February 23, 2013):

The expressions “Whenever we go for vacation...” or “Whenever we go on vacation...” are practically semantically equivalent ways of saying “Whenever we take a vacation,” which, of course, means spending a period from home or business in travel or recreation. The use of the prepositions “for” and “on” is grammatically correct in both sentence constructions. The sense of the two expressions is slightly different, however. The expression that uses “for” has the nuance that the speaker is referring to the vacation as the purpose for taking time out from home or business; on the other hand, the expression that uses “on” has the nuance that the speaker is referring to the vacation as the act of taking the vacation itself. This distinction, however, largely resides in the mind of the speaker; to the listener, that distinction would be hardly discernible. Whether “for” or “on” is used in saying it, the speaker will be understood to be taking a vacation.

Click to read comments or post a comment

How “can’t help but + verb” differs from “can’t + help + (verb+ing)”

Question by Miss Mae (February 17, 2013):

Is there a valid reason for writers to refrain from using the idiomatic expression "can't help but"? That instead of the form “can’t + help + but + (verb),” it should be “can’t + help + (verb+ing)” instead?

My reply to Miss Mae (February 19, 2013):

Both the idiomatic expressions “can’t help + but + verb” and “can’t help + (verb + -ing)” are acceptable, and there’s really no valid reason why the first should be preferred to the second. This is because aside from being different in construction, each conveys a different sense when used in a sentence.

The first form, “can’t help + but + verb,” is a formulaic rendering of the idiomatic expression “can’t help but do something,” which means to be unable to choose any but one course of action. Consider this sentence using that form: “I can’t help but cry.” Here, with the expression using the bare infinitive “cry” (meaning the infinitive “to cry” with the “to” dropped), the sentence is complete in itself, and the sense is that under the circumstances, the speaker is unable to do anything else except to cry. 

However, when the form “can’t help + verb + -ing” is used, the sense is that the speaker just can’t prevent himself or herself from crying. When this form is used, some qualifying phrase after the “-ing” form of the verb is often required to make the sentence complete and make sense. In the case of the verb “cry,” for instance, we can’t simply say “I can’t help crying”; both the grammar and the semantics of the sentence would be flawed in that case. However, if we say “I can’t help crying all night,” “I can’t help crying out loud that I’ve been robbed,” or ““I can’t help crying after all the terrible things that happened to us,” the sentence becomes grammar- and semantics-perfect.

We can generalize on this usage by saying that we can ensure that the expression “can’t help + verb + -ing” will always work properly in a sentence if it’s immediately followed by a complement, which can be any word or phrase that completes the sense of the verb. In the three sentences given as examples in the preceding paragraph, the complements are, of course, “all night,” “out loud that I’ve been robbed,” and “after all the terrible things that happened to us.”

Rejoinder by Miss Mae (February 20, 2013):

I see. I have refrained from using the construction “can’t help + but + verb” for years for a false reason after all!

Click to read comments or post a comment

Is the use of the word “anyways” acceptable?

Question by nutcracker, new Forum member (February 6, 2013):

I often hear youngsters using “anyways.” Is this also acceptable?

My reply to nutcracker:

Many youngsters often use “anyways” instead of “anyway” these days largely because of the influence of watching too many Hollywood movies on cable TV or video, where characters of low educational level use it habitually. This is a pity because “anyways” is American slang or colloquialism that’s considered nonstandard usage in the United States and Canada. I don’t think “anyways” is proper and acceptable usage for nonnative speakers or learners of English, so I believe it should be discouraged as a matter of course in schools and in everyday discourse.

RELATED POSTING IN THE FORUM:
“Is a professor’s use of the word ‘anyways’ acceptable in class?”

Rejoinder by nutcracker (February 7, 2013):

I am also guilty of using it sometimes, going after the trend when even local  DJs and native speakers use it. I remember a speaker in one seminar I attended saying “ English is a growing language.” 
Definitely not in this case, especially for  those learning English as a second language.  I agree that nonstandard usage should be discouraged in formal school.

Thanks again for this enlightenment.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Should the conjunction “or” be preceded by a comma?

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (February 3, 2013):

When listing options, should or be introduced with a comma, too?

 My reply to Miss Mae (February 10, 2013):

Sorry for this delayed reply. I missed reading your posting and it’s only now that I came across it in the ‘Use and Misuse” discussion board.

Normally, the conjunction “or” is used to indicate an alternative or distinguish between two choices, as in “You can take the morning flight or the one in the evening?” or “Do you prefer coffee or tea?” In the case of one-word alternatives or those that consist of a phrase of just a few words, there’s no need for a comma to precede the “or.” When the alternative or choices are in the form of rather long phrases, however, using a comma before the “or” may become advisable for clarity’s sake, as in “It’s possible that the newly married couple will consider buying a condominium unit when they move to the city proper next month, or they might just rent an apartment if they can find one near enough to the university where they’ll both be teaching.” Now imagine that long sentence without the comma before “or” and read it.

RELATED READINGS:
“On the question over my use of the serial comma”

“Why I consistently use the serial comma”

Click to read comments or post a comment

Using some idiomatic variations of the preposition “about”

Question by maria balina, Forum member (January 19, 2013):

Hi, Mr. Carillo!

How do I respond to a question asking me how to use the expressions “when it comes to,” “in terms of,” and “about?”  These expressions are similar in meaning but I'm sure there are certain rules on their usage.

I would really appreciate an immediate reply from you. Thank you.

My reply to maria balina:

You’re correct in saying that “when it comes to,” “in terms of,” and “about” are similar in meaning, for they all convey the sense of “with regard to” or “concerning” something. They have different shades of meaning, though, and there are really no hard-and-fast rules on their usage. The choice among them largely depends on the chosen or habitual tone of voice—the so-called “language register”—of the writer or speaker.

Let’s start with the preposition “about.” It’s obviously the no-frills, no-nonsense, direct-to-the-point choice when you want to refer to something very quickly: “About the inconsiderate thing I said last night, I really didn’t mean it.” There are several close synonyms of “about,” the most common of which are “concerning,” “regarding,” “as regards,” and “with regard to,” but using them can make that same statement unnatural-sounding and ponderous. In particular, to say “Concerning the inconsiderate thing I said last night, I really didn’t mean it” sounds officious and bureaucratic, and to say “With regard to the inconsiderate thing I said last night, I really didn’t mean it” sounds like legalese or lawyer talk. I think you’ll agree that neither is the way to express yourself if you want to sound natural and unaffected.

As to “in terms of,” it’s an idiomatic expression that means “as measured or indicated by” in its original mathematical sense, and “in relation with,” “with reference to,” or “on the basis of” in its wider sense. Using it in its original sense gives a patina of precision and accuracy to statements, as in “Fifty years is a very short period in terms of evolutionary time, but a manageable interval for population geneticists.” In contemporary usage, however, “in terms of” is often loosely used in the sense of “regarding,” as in “The couple’s relationshipin terms of intimacy is now practically zero.”

Much more idiomatic than both “about” and “in terms of” is the expression “when it comes to.” It means “when the subject being discussed is a particular thing,” and is often used as a grammatical transition to a different topic or a new aspect of the topic being talked about. Typical of its usage is effecting a change of subject, as in this statement: “In mathematics my professor is nothing less than a wizard. When it comes to social interaction skills, however, he is a hopeless incompetent.”

In present-day usage, however, “when it comes to” is now often used to mean simply “about,” “as to,” “as for,” “in relation to,” “speaking of,” or “on the matter of.” Note that the sense of transition in “when it comes to” is no longer as evident in this Canadian Press news report: “Statistics Canada says people over 65 use the Internet more than they did a decade ago, but there’s still a wide generation gap when it comes to videos and music.” 

Indeed, that sense of transition is sometimes dispensed with altogether in the journalistic usage of “when it comes to,” which retains only the sense of “about.” This is the case in this sentence that starts a news report in The Guardian in the UK: “When it comes to air pollution, the long-suffering residents of Beijing tend to think they have seen it all. But this weekend, instruments measuring the levels of particulate matter in the city’s famously noxious air broke all records.”

So when uncomfortable or doubtful about using the various idiomatic variations of “about,” stick to “about.”

Click to read comments or post a comment

Should the number of a parenthetical agree with that of its subject?

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (January 31, 2013):

How on earth can I make the subject of the following sentence agree with the noun in the parenthetical?

“Entry-level attorneys (Lawyer I) must have passed the state’s bar.”

My reply to Miss Mae:

There’s really no need for the subject in the following sentence to agree with the noun in the parenthetical: “Entry-level attorneys (Lawyer I) must have passed the state’s bar.” Here, the subject “attorneys” is a plural noun, but the parenthetical “Lawyer I”—although a singular noun in form—is actually a category or classification. As such, it functions as an adjective modifying the noun phrase “entry-level attorneys.” In English grammar, as we know, adjectives don’t have a plural form; they don’t inflect or change regardless of whether the noun they are modifying is singular or plural. It is therefore grammatically incorrect to seek agreement in number between the subject and the parenthetical in that sentence in this way: “Entry-level attorneys (Lawyers I) must have passed the state’s bar.” Indeed, as a rule in the English language, agreement in number (whether singular or plural) should be sought only for the subject and the verb in a sentence.

Click to read comments or post a comment

The proper tenses for actions happening at different times

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (January 28, 2013):

Does this rule I read from your third book, Give Your English the Winning Edge, apply to more than one statement as well?

“If the statement is about events or action happening at different times, a different tense with the appropriate verb form should be used for each event or action.” (Jose Carillo, 2009, Chapter 46, “Tense in Cases of Clause Dependency”).

My reply to Miss Mae:

Yes, definitely, that general rule in English grammar applies to both single statements and multiple statements. We must clearly distinguish, though, between a “statement” and a “sentence.” 

By definition, a statement is a single declaration, remark, or assertion that could be simply a single word of warning like, say, “Fire!”, or a long speech or perhaps a press release consisting of so many sentences or paragraphs. Obviously, a statement could invoke or involve several events or actions at different times, so to put those events or actions in context, the sentences describing them would have to use the appropriate tense for each of them.

In contrast, a sentence by definition is “a word, clause, or phrase or a group of clauses or phrases forming a syntactic unit which expresses an assertion, a question, a command, a wish, an exclamation, or the performance of an action…” (This is from the definition by the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary.) Within a sentence, there are specific grammatical rules for verbs that describe events or actions that happened at different times, so the verbs will need to use tenses that will clearly give a sense of when the events or actions happened in relation to one another.  

Take this sentence, for instance: “I’m telling you that when I met with my best friend yesterday, she claimed that she had seen your fiancée having dinner last Sunday with another man your age in that fancy bayside restaurant.”  Here, “am telling” is in the present progressive tense, “met” and “claimed” are both in the simple past tense, “had seen” is in the past perfect tense, and “having dinner last Sunday” is in the past progressive tense.

In a statement consisting of several such sentences describing events or actions happening at different times, each of the sentences could have different interplays of the various tenses. The task of the writer or speaker is to make sure that such interplays of the tenses will make the sequence or progression of the events and actions unmistakably clear to the reader or listener.

Click to read comments or post a comment

The difference between “seeing” and “watching” a movie

Question from Sky, Forum member (December 7, 2012):

Do the two sentences below have the same meaning? My American friend said that the words “seeing” and “watching” aren’t interchangeable at all even in the situations given in them.

1. “I am seeing a movie tonight.”
2. “I am watching a movie tonight.”

Also, am I incorrect in saying “Could you please ‘look’ at my bag because I am going to the toilet?”?

My friend said that instead, the correct way is by using the word “watch” only: “Could you please ‘watch’ my bag because I am going to the toilet?”

My reply to Sky (December 27, 2012):

I’m sorry for this much delayed reply. I missed reading your posting because of a pressing seminar-workshop engagement during the first week of December.

I think that strictly speaking, your American friend is correct in saying that the verbs “seeing” and “watching” are not interchangeable in the two sentences you presented. The sense of “I am seeing a movie tonight” is that of going out of one’s way to watch that movie somewhere; one usually has to go to a theater to watch it—as a passive spectator among several others. In contrast, “I am watching a movie tonight” conveys the sense of viewing it on one’s own accord and without going out of one’s way to do so; in this case, viewing it is more likely a solitary act in the privacy of one’s home, perhaps on broadcast television, DVD, or YouTube.

We can see that a major difference in the sense of “seeing” and “watching” a movie is the degree of one’s purposiveness and control in doing so. One “sees” a movie as a spectator with little or no control at all of how that movie is shown. On the other hand, and more so in our digital age, one “watches” a movie by looking on at it any which way—straight from start to finish, running it backwards or fast forward, replaying it as many times as desired, etc. In short, “watching” a movie is likely to be more participatory than just “seeing” that movie. 

Idiomatically, though, these semantic distinctions between “seeing a movie” and “watching a movie” are often lost or not observed in actual usage. For instance, there’s hardly any discernible difference today between saying “The elderly couple sees a movie every night” and “The elderly couple watches a movie every night,” particularly if we don’t really know where they do the watching. And even if we knew better, there’s really no point now in splitting hairs when someone asks “Did you see that movie on TV last night?” instead of “Did you watch that movie on TV last night?” In these days when cinematic entertainment or spectator sports are now shown through an ever growing mix of digital visual media, it’s no longer worth quibbling over the semantic difference between “seeing” and “watching.” In this larger context, your American friend is probably too grammatically purist and passé in insisting that “seeing” and “watching” are not interchangeable at all.

As to your last question, Sky, it’s indeed grammatically incorrect to use the verb “look” in this question: “Could you please look at my bag because I am going to the toilet?” 

To “look at” means to just direct one’s eye or attention to something; it doesn’t convey the vigilance needed to ensure that that thing isn’t stolen. Your American friend is right that the correct word is “watch,” which means “to take care of”: “Could you please watch my bag because I am going to the toilet?”

However, there’s a verb phrase using “look” that also means “to take care of.” That verb phrase is “look after,” and it works just as well as “watch”: “Could you please look after my bag because I am going to the toilet?”

Click to read comments or post a comment

The usage of the modals “can” and “could”

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (December 4, 2012):

Do “can” and “could” have the same nuances as “will” and “would” (which, as I understand it, do not have any significant difference)?

My reply to Miss Mae:

Before discussing the usage differences between “can” and “could,” I’d like to first disabuse your mind from the mistaken idea that there’s no significant difference between the usage of the modals “will” and “would.” Of course, as I explained in my reply to YoungMentor last week (“Uses and meanings of ‘would’ in the present tense”), http://josecarilloforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=3777.0 there’s not only a significant but a big difference in the sense of these two modals. That difference is the direct, straightforward sense of the modal “will” as opposed to the politeness and deferential sense of the modal “would” in conveying intent or desire. Indeed, there’s a big world of difference between saying “Will you join me in my campaign?” and “Would you join me in my campaign?” The first is a plain invitation, while the second is a polite or deferential request—and the difference between these two statements says a lot about the social station or rank of the speaker and the person being addressed.

Perhaps what gave you the wrong notion that there’s no significant difference between “will” and “would” was the exceptional case that YoungMentor asked about, where the speaker is instructing someone to do something in a certain way: “The preposition that would yield the correct sense is, of course, ‘from among,’ meaning that the ‘one or two people’ specified in the sentence belongs to the totality of all the people visiting hospitals.” As I explained in my column, “would” is the preferred usage in this case but “will” is also acceptable. We shouldn’t generalize on this single exception though.

Now to your main question: “Do ‘can’ and ‘could’ have the same nuances as ‘will’ and ‘would’?” Again, I’d say that it’s slippery—even dangerous—to answer that question with either a categorical no or a yes. To begin with, when we use “can” and “could,” we are conveying the idea of ability, possibility, permission, or potential; in contrast, when we use “will” and “would,” we are conveying the idea of desire, choice, willingness, consent, or habitual or customary action. From the semantic standpoint, therefore, “can” and “could” couldn’t possibly have the same nuances as “will” and “would,” for the each of these modal pairs refers to entirely different ideas.

Maybe the only valid comparison we can make between these two modal pairs is that they vary in a grammatically similar way in their past tense forms. “Would” conveys the idea of past habitual action, as in “In his younger days, he would take long hikes in the countryside,” and also serves as the past tense of “will” in indirect speech introduced by a verb in the past tense, as in “The convicted plunderer promised that he would not run for public office anymore.” In the same token, “could” conveys the idea of past ability, as in “When Anna was 4 she could already play to piano,” and also serve as the past tense of “can” in indirect speech introduced by a verb in the past tense, as in “The ventriloquist claimed that he could make a Boeing 767 vanish from sight.” I guess these parallel grammatical situations are the closest you can get to saying that “can” and “could” have the same nuance as “will” and “would.”

Rejoinder from Miss Mae (December 8, 2012):

When can writers use can and could then?

I’m sorry about my comment on will and would. I’ve mistaken it with the American and British definitions of would 

My reply to Miss Mae:

Last week, I clarified that the modals “will” and “can” are both present-tense forms that inflect in a grammatically similar way in the past tense—“will” changes to “would” and “can” to “could.” Thus, “can” in the present-tense sentence “I can play the piano” becomes “could” in the past-tense sentence “There was a time when I could play the piano.” Also, the past-tense forms “would” and “could” are used in indirect speech when it’s introduced by a verb in the past tense: “The fallen boxing champion promised that he would avoid any more distractions in his boxing career.” “The clerics asserted that they could make the RH Bill voted out in Congress.”

Now, in reply to your new question, let's take up the specific uses of “can” and “could.”

First, “can” is used to convey the ability or means, knowledge, money, or equipment to do something: “I can play the piano.” “I can do integral calculus.” “I can afford a weekend vacation in Hong Kong.” “They can haul all that trash in half a day.”

Second, “can” is used for declaring that you see, hear, feel, taste, smell, understand, or remember something: “We can see the valley from here.” “I can hear you loud and clear.” “I can taste a hint of cinnamon in this bread.” “We can still remember when Typhoon Trix demolished our house in 1952.”

Third, “can” is used for saying what can possibly be done: “We can go shopping anytime you want.” “We can go biking all day.”

Fourth, “can” is used for saying that it’s possible to do something: “With a smartphone, you can now surf the web while traveling.” “We can fly to Bangkok for less than $100 during off-seasons.”

Fifth, “can” conveys the idea of being allowed to do something or having the right or power to do something: “You can share my condominium unit if you want,” “No need for a travel agent; we can make our flight bookings ourselves online anytime.”

Sixth, “can” is used as a mark of civility or politeness when making spoken requests or when offering or suggesting something: “Can you tell me how to say ‘I love you’ in French?” “Can I offer you a ride home?” “Can I carry that shopping bag for you?” (This is as opposed to bluntly saying: “Tell me how to say ‘I love you’ in French.” “I want to offer you a ride home.” “I’ll carry that shopping bag for you.”)

“Can” in its negative form “cannot” or “can’t” is used for emphasizing that something should not happen or continue: “That’s something I cannot do under the circumstances.” “We can’t allow these religious charlatans to dictate what’s right or wrong.” The negative forms “cannot” or “can’t” is also used to express shock or surprise: “She can’t speak for me! How presumptuous of her!”

As I indicated at the outset, the modal “can” inflects to “could” when a present-tense sentence is rendered in the past tense: “I could do integral calculus when I was in college.” “Before he got married, he could afford annual vacations in Europe.” “Before they put up those high-rise condominiums, we could see the valley from here.” 

In spoken form, of course, “could” is used to make a deferential or more polite request, offer, or suggestion: “Could you tell me how to say ‘I love you’ in French?” “Could  I offer you a ride home?” (Compare these to their likewise polite but less deferential equivalents using “can” that were given earlier: ‘Can you tell me how to say ‘I love you’ in French?” “Can I offer you a ride home?”)

Their usage may look complicated, but with constant practice, the choice between “can” and “could” should become instinctive to all of us.

Click to read comments or post a comment

A heated grammar dispute over the linking verb “is” in a sentence

Question by ianconnectsyou, new Forum member (December 2, 2012):

My officemate and I had a grammar dispute over this sentence that I used as a remark in my report: “John Sorilla, brother of the subject, is the co-maker of the principal borrower.” Now, my officemate insisted that I must remove the linking verb “is” because, according to her, it made my sentence awkward to read. I was not in accord with her in that suggestion, so I begged for a clear explanation as to why she believed it made my sentence awkward in construction. Apparently, she was unable to explain her claim, so I justified mine.

I told her that pulling the linking verb “is” out in that sentence would not make it any less awkward, if not grammatically incorrect. I said that the linking verb “is” is very important in that construction because it connected the subject “John Sorilla” to the complement “the co-maker of the principal borrower”. I further explained that the sentence falls under one of the seven sentence patterns in English—SLVC—and that removing the linking verb “is” would make the sentence downright ungrammatical. Assuming that it added to her confusion, I went even further to explain that the noun phrase “brother of the subject,” which was separated by a pair of comma, is an appositive phrase that explains or renames the subject.

Is my assessment of the situation correct? I just want to know your opinion because even though I was able to explain my side sufficiently, I did not win that heated debate. To my surprise, my other officemate sided with her and I was forced in the end to edit my sentence.

More power to you and to this forum!

My reply to ianconnectsyou:

If you intended “John Sorilla, brother of the subject, is the co-maker of the principal borrower” as a complete sentence, then I don’t see why your officemate insisted on dropping the linking verb “is” from that construction. It’s a letter-perfect and grammatically perfect sentence as it is; without “is,” the sentence becomes simply a noun phrase: “John Sorilla, brother of the subject, the co-maker of the principal borrower.”

But then we must view this matter in its total context. Was your sentence part of a narrative, exposition, or dialogue, or was it a stand-alone entry at the bottom of, say, a document meant to identify “John Sorilla”?  If this was the case, you’re absolutely right in insisting to retain the linking verb in your construction. On the other hand, if the construction was simply meant as a label like, say, “John Doe, brother of the accused, defendant,” then there was really no need for that linking verb. The phrase could stand by itself to do the identifying job without need for a verb.

On the basis of the above considerations, I think you can find common grammatical ground with your officemate and not allow this issue to needlessly rankle between the two of you.

Click to read comments or post a comment

What’s the correct usage of “food” and “foods”?

Question from English Editor, Forum member (November 22, 2012):

May I please be enlightened as to the correct usage of the words “food” and “foods”? I know that “food” can be a countable or an uncountable noun, depending on the usage. However, confusion sets in when I encounter the word “foods.” Please see examples below taken from the manuscript I am currently working on:

1. That is why you need to know healthful food from unhealthful food. (Does “food” here mean a certain group of food,” meaning, say, fruits and vegetables that are good for the health?

2. Healthful foods that come from animal sources help you grow. (If the premise above is correct, how come “foods” was used here?)

Can you please tell me the reason for the discrepancies in the sentences above?

My reply to English Editor:

In the first sentence you presented, the word “food” is used as a mass noun denoting forms of nutriment in solid form. So yes, you’re correct when you say that “food” here means a certain class or group of food (often to the exclusion of liquid food, which is called a “drink”), but the term could also be taken to denote all food in a generic sense, in which case it is considered a noncount noun. Such is the case in the sentence “Food is essential to life.” (We don’t say “Foods are essential to life.”)

In the second sentence you presented, however, the plural form “foods” in the term “healthful foods” is used in the sense of particular kinds of food—in this case from animal sources—such as milk, cheese, yoghourt, and meat. Here, of course, “foods” is a countable noun, and in my own encounters with the term, it is often used in the sense of processed or manufactured foods as opposed to natural produce such as specific fruits and other agricultural crops—like, say, apples, pears, and oranges as well as corn, beet, and yam. Unprocessed food of this kind is normally classified as “natural food” in the sense of a singular noncount noun.

Click to read comments or post a comment

When to use “would” instead of “will” in the present tense

Hi, Sir! I know you already answered some of the questions raised by the other members of this forum regarding the uses of “would.” I would just like to request if you could possibly give us a more detailed explanation of the uses of would in the present tense in the following sentences:

(1) “The preposition that would yield the correct sense is, of course, ‘from among, meaning that the ‘one or two people’ specified in the sentence belongs to the totality of all the people visiting hospitals.

(2) “I would like to introduce myself.”

(3) “Would that be ok?”

(4) “At any rate, here, from Jim Wegryn’s ‘A Barrelful of Words,’ are some other collective nouns that would make sense.”

My reply to youngmentor:

Let’s take up your question about the first sentence you provided: 

“The preposition that would yield the correct sense is, of course, ‘from among,’ meaning that the ‘one or two people’ specified in the sentence belongs to the totality of all the people visiting hospitals.”

To paraphrase your question for greater clarity, why does that sentence use the form “would yield” instead of “will yield,” and what, if any, is the grammatical and semantic distinction between them?

That sentence uses the modal form “would yield” instead of the future-tense “will yield” to denote a choice or instruction instead of simple futurity of the action. This usage, which is more pronounced in spoken British English, is usually for situations in which the speaker is instructing or advising someone to do something in a certain way. It doesn’t mean, though, that using the “will yield” form is grammatically wrong; in fact, in written American English, that distinction is rarely observed. To evoke the same sense of choice or instruction, we can write that same sentence using the form “will yield”: “The preposition that will yield the correct sense is, of course, ‘from among,’ meaning that the ‘one or two people’ specified in the sentence belongs to the totality of all the people visiting hospitals.” Personally, however, I would prefer the modal “would yield” form anytime because it emphasizes the sense of instruction rather than simple futurity of the action. That, to me, is too big a distinction to simply gloss over by using the “will + verb” form.

As to your second example, “I would like to introduce myself,” the modal form “would like” is used to convey in a polite way the sense of one’s willingness or desire to do something. One thing you’ll notice about this modal usage is that it has no valid equivalent using the “will like” form. We can’t say “I will like to introduce myself,” and to say “I will introduce myself” is impolite and rough, to say the least. Indeed, its ability to attenuate roughness in language is one of the major virtues of the modal “would” as opposed to plain “will.” Check out my earlier posting on this aspect of the modal “would” by clicking this link to “Will and would,” October 3, 2012. 

And as to your third example, “At any rate, here, from Jim Wegryn’s ‘A Barrelful of Words,’ are some other collective nouns that would make sense.” Why is “would” used here instead of “will”?

That sentence is actually of the same type as the first example you presented—it’s making an instruction rather than just indicating the simple futurity of the action. To make that distinction clear, “would make sense” is the preferred usage, but then again, this is largely for spoken instruction. In the usual written form not intended for vocal delivery, using “will make sense” isn’t grammatically wrong and if you did, only the most rabid purist grammarians would notice and attempt to correct you.

Click to read comments or post a comment

How would you analyze the sentence “My computer is being slow”?

Question by zaniah, new Forum member (November 16, 2012):

How would you grammatically break down the phrase “My computer is being slow”?

I think that “being + adjective” is only used for people or institutions or animals, not inanimate objects.

“The Police are being careful not to ....”
“He is being very helpful”.
“He is being difficult” but not ”it is being difficult” rather “it is proving difficult”.
Not “this fan is being slow” but “this fan is (running) slow”.

Someone assured me that it is “grammatically correct” ( I suppose it is ) and used “Dinner is being eaten” and “bananas being the exception” as examples of “being” not being used with people, but to me the first example is a passive verb structure and the second example I’m not so sure about (a noun phrase?), but either way they both seem grammatically different in structure.

I wonder if by “My computer is being very slow” they mean “My computer has been very slow”, the way people will say “I would of...” instead of “I would have ...”?

My reply to zaniah:

You’re right. The form “is being” is normally used only in the case of animate beings such as humans and the higher form of animals, its sense being that of a conscious or deliberate effort  by a living entity. In that sense, “My computer is being slow” would be grammatically iffy if not outright faulty. The correct sense would be conveyed by knocking off the verb “being” from that sentence: “My computer is slow.” This time, with the sentence using only the linking verb “is,” the sense conveyed is not an action but a state of being.

Of course, it’s perfectly grammatical to say “My computer being slow, I decided to buy a new one.” Without the linking verb “is,” the clause “my computer being slow” functions as a participial phrase modifier—an adjective—to convey the state of slowness.   

If we want to convey the sense of a developing action, however, we can use “getting” as the main verb instead of “being,” as in this sentence: “My computer is getting slow.” The sense here is, of course, that of an action that’s just happening without a conscious or deliberate effort.

Click to read comments or post a comment

View the complete list of postings in this section
(requires registration to 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: 15 April, 2013, 8:40 p.m.