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.


Is it the writer’s prerogative to omit “that” from sentences?

Question from Miss Mae, Forum member (November 28, 2013):

About omitting “that,” is it a writer’s prerogative to do so?

My reply to Miss Mae:

Omitting “that” in a complex sentence is definitely a writer's prerogative but certain caveats must be observed to keep the sense of the sentence intact. I posted in the Forum on July 3, 2010 a two-part essay on “When to keep or knock off ‘that’.” Check out that essay by clicking this link to “Getting a better handle on when to use or to just knock off 'that'.”

For a systems appreciation of the grammar and semantics involved in the dropping or retaining of “that,” I suggest a rigorous reading of my three-part essay on “Getting to know the relative clauses better” that I posted in the Forum last November 17, 2013.

When you’re done with these readings, I’m very sure that you’d have developed a sure knack for deciding when to retain or drop “that” from a complex sentence.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Some syntax variations in English evoke practically the same sense

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (November 2, 2013):

Why should there be an in between the words “speaking” and “English” in the second sentence below but nothing between the same words in the first sentence?

“The last time I was heard speaking English fluently was when my grade-school assistant principal visited me in the ICU.”

“But that incident made me conscious of a divide between Filipinos who prefer speaking in English and those who prefer speaking in Tagalog.”

(These are quotes from my posting in the Advocacies section, “When speaking in English becomes a problem,” on October 27, 2013.)

My reply to Miss Mae:

Hmm… a very interesting grammar question.

In the first sentence, “The last time I was heard speaking English fluently was when my grade-school assistant principal visited me in the ICU,” the preposition “in” is not used between “speaking” and “English” because here, “English” is being used as an adjective modifying the gerund “speaking.” With such a construction in the form “gerund + adjective + adverb,” the implied sense is that the speaker speaks English fluently as a matter of course.

On the other hand, in the second sentence, “But that incident made me conscious of a divide between Filipinos who prefer speaking in English and those who prefer speaking in Tagalog,” the preposition “in” is used between “speaking” and “English” and between “speaking and “Tagalog” because in both instances, “English” and “Tagalog” are being used as objects of the preposition “in.” In this form, the implied sense is that the speaker has a choice of speaking either in English or Tagalog, and vice versa. This sense is, in fact, emphasized by the verb “prefer,” in such a way that the preposition “in” becomes functionally necessary to link the verb with the alternative objects “English” or “Tagalog.”

In informal English, however, these grammatical distinctions often get blurred without causing sentence dysfunction. In the first sentence you presented, the phrase “speaking English fluently” can also use “in” without raising eyebrows and yield practically the same sense: “The last time I was heard speaking in English fluently was when my grade-school assistant principal visited me in the ICU.” So with knocking off the “in” in the phrases “prefer speaking in English” and “prefer speaking in Tagalog” in the second sentence: “But that incident made me conscious of a divide between Filipinos who prefer speaking English and those who prefer speaking Tagalog.” English has the flexibility and tolerance for such minor deviations in syntax in evoking the same sense.

Follow-up question by Miss Mae, Forum member (November 4, 2013):

Wait. Let me understand.

If the reason why there is no in between the words "speaking" and "English" is because the latter was used as an adjective, then why there is also no in between the words "live" and "is" in the sentence below? 

Quote from: Miss Mae on October 27, 2013, 12:20:04 AM
About 140 kilometers away from the city where I live is Dubai.

 My reply to Miss Mae:

There’s no need for the preposition “in” in this sentence that you presented:

“About 140 kilometers away from the city where I live is Dubai.”

It’s because in the phrase “where I live is Dubai,” the noun “Dubai” is actually not an object of the preposition; instead, it is the subject of the sentence. You see, that sentence is what’s known as an inverted sentence, with the following construction as its normal form:

“Dubai is about 140 kilometers away from the city where I live.”

In this normal form, “Dubai” is the subject and the whole phrase “is about 140 kilometers away from the city where I live” is the subject complement that serves to describe it.

But let’s address the question as to whether the preposition “in” might hypothetically be needed in the original sentence you presented. Yes, it might, but that “in” would need an object of the preposition, say “my Filipina friend,” to function properly, as in the following sentence:

“About 140 kilometers away from the city where I live in with my Filipina friend is Dubai.”

In that form, however, “live in” becomes a prepositional idiom that could mean “to live in one’s place of employment” or “live in another’s home” or, in the derogatory sense, to live with a member of the opposite sex without benefit of marriage—an arrangement that’s legally known as “cohabitation.”

Another thing: Even if that reconstruction is grammatically and semantically airtight, it would be much more readable if it’s also rendered in the normal form as we had done to your original sentence. That normal form would read as follows:

“Dubai is about 140 kilometers away from the city where I live in with my Filipina friend.”

I trust that settles this matter about the usage of “in” for you.

Click to read comments or post a comment

What are the nominative functions of nouns?

Question by Sky, Forum member (October 1, 2013):

Anyone who could help explain and give examples of the four nominative functions of nouns?

Thanks.

My reply to Sky:

I’m glad you raised this very interesting question about basic English grammar that I found neither the occasion nor need to take up since this Forum started four years ago.

To put my explanation in perspective, though, let me start by way of review that the nominative is one of the three cases in English. These cases—the nominative or subjectivethe objective, and the possessive—are the forms that a noun, pronoun, or modifier takes to indicate its functional role in a sentence.

In the nominative case, the noun or pronoun performs the verb’s action, as in “Evelyn nudged me” and “She nudged me.” The noun “Evelyn” and the pronoun “she” are both nominative because they do the action of the verb “nudge.” In the subjective case, the noun or pronoun is the subject of the sentence, as in “Mario is honest” and “He is honest.” 

In the objective case, the noun or pronoun receives the verb’s action either as its direct or indirect object, as in these sentences: (a) “Clara pulled the plug.” “Clara pulled it.” Here, the noun “plug” and the pronoun “it” are direct objects of the verb “pulled”; and (b) “We gave Norma the check.” Here, the noun “check” is the direct object of the verb “gave” and the noun “Norma” is the indirect object.

In the possessive case, the noun or pronoun indicates who or what possesses or owns something, as in this sentence: “That smartphone is Anita’s, this one is mine, and that one over there is yours.” Here, “Anita’s” is a possessive noun form while “mine” and “yours” are possessive pronouns.

Now that the definitions of the three cases are out of the way, let’s go back to the nominative case for a closer look at how nouns in this case work.

Nouns in the nominative case can function in four ways: as the subject, as an appositive, as a subject complement, and as a direct address.

A noun is functionally nominative when it names the subject of the verb or identifies the doer of the action of the verb in the active voice.  Thus, in “George is a risk-taker” (“George” is the subject) and in “George takes risks” (“George” is the doer of the action), both uses of “George” are functionally nominative. In contrast, in the passive-voice sentence “Risks are taken by George,” the noun “risks” is functionally objective.

A noun or noun phrase functions as an appositive when it’s placed next to some other nominative noun to identify or rename it, as in “George, a first cousin of mine, is a risk-taker” (“a first cousin of mine” as an appositive to the subject) and “George, a first cousin mine, took the risk of flying in bad weather” (“a first cousin of mine” as an appositive to the doer of the action).

A noun or noun phrase functions as a subject complement when it’s used in the predicate following a linking verb and serves to identify or describe the subject of the sentence. For example, in the sentence “Nadine is the winner of the beauty contest,” the noun phrase “the winner of the beauty contest” is the subject complement. 

Lastly, a noun functions as a direct address when used to refer to or talk directly to someone, as in “Grace, you are definitely my choice” and “Emilio, see me at my office after lunch.” A direct address is always a proper noun set off by a comma from the main structure of the sentence and doesn’t have a grammatical link to it.

This rounds up my discussion of the four nominative functions of nouns.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Should we use “there was” or “there were”?

Question from jerbaks, new Forum member (September 25, 2013):

He told us ________ one man and six women applying for the job. 

(A) there was
(B) it was
(C) there were
(D) they were

Some say it’s A while others choose C. Which is correct? Thanks in advance!

My reply to jerbaks:

The test sentence you presented involves the so-called anticipatory “there are (were)”/”there is (was)” clause, and I must tell you right off that it’s not a good multiple-choice grammar test because it doesn’t have a single correct and unambiguous answer. Answer choices “(B) it was” and “(D) they were” are downright grammatically wrong, of course, but either “(A) there was” or “(C) there were” could be considered correct depending on whether your teacher subscribes to the descriptivist or prescriptivist position in English grammar.

Let me explain why this is so.

In sentences that use the anticipatory “there are (were)”/”there is (was)” clause, the pronoun “there” is used as a so-called anticipatory subject. As such, “there” actually carries little or no independent meaning; “there” is made to precede the notional subject just to give this subject end-weight or emphasis. In this sentence that you presented, “He told us (there was, there were) one man and six women applying for the job,” there are two notional subjects—“one man” and “six women.” What we have here is therefore a compound subject that intuitively should require the plural form of the verb, in which case “were” would logically be the correct answer: “He told us there were one man and six women applying for the job.”

Using “there were” for that sentence is actually the prescriptivist position, which maintains that after the expletive “there,” the verb should be singular or plural depending on whether the subject that follows is singular or plural—the familiar subject-verb agreement rule. Although grammatically airtight, however, the sentence “He told us there were one man and six women applying for the job” does look, feel, and sound awkward. (I presume you can sense the awkwardness yourself.) For this reason, regardless of the obvious plurality of “one man and six women,” many native speakers of English find it more natural and pleasant-sounding to use the singular-form “there was” instead for that sentence: “He told us there was one man and six women applying for the job.”

This preference for the singular “there was” is the descriptivist position, which maintains that since the anticipatory “there is (are)”/“there was (were)” form is mostly followed by a singular subject in actual, spontaneously spoken English, it should be accepted as the standard way of introducing a subject, whether singular or plural, that’s preceded by an anticipatory “there” clause. This descriptivist position is particularly common in American English, which deems the construction template “There are shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office” awkward and unpalatable; it would rather use the correct-sounding “There is shame and dishonor in being found to be unfit for public office” notwithstanding the apparent subject-verb disagreement involved. 

The continuing debate between the prescriptivist and descriptivist positions for the usage of the anticipatory “there” clause is what makes the test sentence you presented unsuitable in English grammar tests. The prescriptivists will always invoke the subject-verb agreement aspect to support their position, while the descriptivists will always invoke the need for natural sounding and euphonious sentences regardless of that subject-verb disagreement quirk. I doubt that they will arrive at a common ground sometime soon.

So then, since you asked for my advice, I’m saying for the record that I’m partial to the descriptivist position. I’m much more comfortable with “(A) there was” for the test sentence you presented: “He told us there was one man and six women applying for the job.” Despite likely brickbats from the prescriptivists, I think those who take their English seriously can make the same choice with confidence and equanimity.

RELATED READING:
The wisdom of routinely avoiding anticipatory “there is/are” clauses

Click to read comments or post a comment

Isn’t “2,500 cringeworthy English” itself cringeworthy English?

Feedback posted in my Personal Box by aidsasis, new Forum member (September 1, 2013):

I read your article “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials” (English Plain and Simple, August 30, 2013) in the Manila Standard, and I’m pretty sure you didn’t write that title. 

I do hope you spoke to them about that cringeworthy error.

My reply to aidsasis:

I did write that title. Can you please tell me what you find objectionable about it? That way, I can give you a proper response.

By the way, it wasn’t published in the Manila Standard-Today but in The Manila Times.

Rejoinder of aidsasis:

Isn’t it that the word “English” functions like a mass noun? We don’t say, “People should improve their Englishes,” or “My student made a mistake on 5 English today.”

That’s why I found the title cringeworthy.

My response to aidsasis’s comments:

The word “English” does function as a mass noun as you’ve pointed out, but depending on usage and context, it can also function as a count noun or an adjective.

It’s obviously a mass noun that’s singular both grammatically and notionally when used to denote English as a language, as in the sentence “English is a major hiring criterion today,” and as a field of study, as in “English is only an elective in my course.” A telltale sign of this mass-noun usage is the absence of the definite article “the” before the noun; in such cases, the verb takes the singular form. In contrast, “English” is a mass noun that’s plural both notionally and grammatically when used to denote the English people as a group, as in “The English speak what’s known as British English.” A telltale sign of this usage is the presence of the definite article “the” before the noun; in such cases, the verb takes the plural form.

“English” is a count noun that becomes plural both grammatically and notionally when used to denote the various kinds or varieties of English in use in various parts of the world, as in “Worldwide, scores of Englishes have been identified by the researchers.” (“Yes, there’s a plural for English and it’s ‘Englishes’”) As a count noun, however, “English” can also be singular both grammatically and notionally when preceded by the indefinite article “an,” as in “An English like yours won’t qualify you for a call-center job for the American market.”

Of course, when the word “English” modifies a noun, it functions as an adjective, as in “English idioms number several thousands, making it tougher for nonnative English speakers to speak the language with confidence.”

Now I think we’re ready to analyze my usage of “English” in that title of my column in The Manila Times last August 31, 2013: “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials.” Is that usage aboveboard or, as you argue, itself a cringeworthy one?

Let’s consider that usage of “English” from two viewpoints.

From the first viewpoint, we can look at each of the 2,500 flawed passages identified by Mr. Antonio Calipjo Go in those two DepEd learning modules as a distinct and discrete kind of English, with what we might justifiably call a perverse grammar, syntax, and logic of its own. Each of them is therefore a countable noun or entity that not only can be modified as a grammatical term but also totaled in the following manner: “1 cringeworthy English + 1 cringeworthy English + 1 cringeworthy English + 1 cringeworthy English + …1 cringeworthy English = 2,500 cringeworthy English.” We can’t call their total “2,500 cringeworthy Englishes” because each instance of cringeworthy English identified by Mr. Go is distinct and doesn’t add up to a single, distinct cringeworthy language. This would be the semantically wrong sense if we use the phrase “2,500 cringeworthy Englishes” instead.  

From the second viewpoint, we can consider the noun phrase “2,500 cringeworthy English” as an ellipted or streamlined form of the longer phrase “2,500 cringeworthy English passages” or “2,500 cringeworthy English errors,” with the word “passages” or “errors” dropped for brevity and easier articulation. We use this kind of ellipsis quite often in such sentences as “We have already counted as many as 500 walking dead in that ongoing TV series on zombies.” This sounds much better and more forthright than this fully spelled out construction: “We have already counted as many as 500 walking dead people in that ongoing TV series on zombies.”

By the same logic and syntax, I used for that column of mine the more succinct title “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials” instead of the longer, fully spelled out “2,500 cringeworthy English passages in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials.” I think that apart from making that title more compact for headline purposes, dropping the noun “passages” or “errors” makes it more compelling and gives it a much greater sense of immediacy.

So then I must disagree with you that the English of that column title is in any way cringeworthy. I’m confident that its grammar, semantics, structure, and syntax are airtight, making the English of that title definitely way above the league of the 2,500 cringeworthy English found in those two DepEd learning materials.

Rejoinder posted by aidsasis, September 3, 2013:

Oh... 

So in effect, you’re saying that the following phrases are also acceptable because they’re “ellipted or streamlined forms” of their longer counterparts:
 
- three air (for three air pockets)
- six oxygen (for six oxygen particles)
- seven Chinese (for seven Chinese characters)

and so on...

My reply to aidsasis:

I can see that you’re either unfamiliar or just feigning unfamiliarity with the nature of elliptical construction and its limits. Otherwise, I don’t think you’d have proffered—whether in plain jest or with intent to obfuscate—these three obviously invalid, downright cringeworthy examples of ellipses:

“three air” (for “three air pockets”)
“six oxygen” (for “six oxygen particles”)
“seven Chinese” (for “seven Chinese characters”)

No matter your intention, I’ll share this caveat with you about elliptical phrase and sentence construction: it’s an advanced form of writing that absolutely shouldn’t be done in the slapdash, trigger-happy manner that you’ve done with your three examples. You do ellipsis—that is, drop certain words from a phrase or sentence for brevity and ease of articulation—only it if doesn’t put the ellipted phrase at risk of being misunderstood or put the sentence or exposition itself in danger of losing its sense or continuity. Three air! Six oxygen! Seven Chinese! Ellipses are obviously not done in the unthinking formulaic way you came up with these three examples. That’s done only by a rank amateur in the use of English or by an English-savvy person just trying to muddle an otherwise clear-cut issue.

Anyway, for a quick review of the basics of elliptical construction, I would like to invite you to check out two of my previous Forum postings on the subject. They discuss the various grammatically legitimate forms and patterns of the ellipsis, giving examples of each of them. I trust that when you are done with the readings, you’ll no longer be tempted to trifle with the earnest discussions in the Forum by coming up with obviously absurd examples that, frankly, don’t qualify as ellipses at all.

READINGS ON ELLIPSIS: 
Elliptical sentences often read and sound better than regular sentences
Deconstructing and understanding those puzzling elliptical sentences

Response of aidsasis to my rejoinder, September 4, 2013:

Haha! Cool it, Mr. Carillo! We’re just talking about proper usage here. 

I’m really just asking what makes “2,500 cringeworthy English” acceptable and my examples unacceptable.

Let’s just stick to your phrase. Your explanation seems to imply that a teacher can correctly tell a student, “You have 5 wrong English in your essay.”

Is that acceptable? I find that sentence cringeworthy.

My reply to aidasis:

Yes, I agree with you that the sentence “You have 5 wrong English in your essay” is unacceptable, even cringeworthy, but then that sentence is a semantically defective construct of yours, not mine. It’s a far cry from, say, Mr. Antonio Calipjo Go saying, “I found 2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s learning modules for Grades 8 and 7,” and then proceeds to identify and list each one of them into a countable set. As I explained in my reply to your initial posting, the validity of an elliptical construction is selective and highly contextual.

But I can very well see now where you’re coming from—you want a rigid, formulaic rule for elliptical phrase and sentence construction. Since you are a former high school teacher who’s now a home-based English tutor, however, you should know very well that there’s no such thing. The rule that you have in mind applies only to simple statements that teachers use to drill basic English to entry-level kids. Outside academe, however, you have to deal with the real-life dynamics of language on a case-to-case, contextual basis, with special attention to the specific words used and their precise syntactic mix. This is as true for elliptical phrases and sentences as it is for idiomatic phrases and figurative expressions. They work properly and can be understood only if both speaker (or writer) and listener (or reader) implicitly and mutually know beforehand the unstated context of the statement that’s being made. I know this to be true in the case of most of the readers of my column in The Manila Times, so I had no qualms at all in writing the column title “2,500 cringeworthy English in DepEd’s Grades 8, 7 learning materials.” I was sure that the great majority of my readers would be perceptive enough to get from that title the gist of what it’s saying, and that if they were still in doubt as to its precise meaning, they would just proceed to dig into the column proper to resolve that doubt.

In contrast, a high school teacher who tells his or her student “You have 5 wrong English in your essay” should be prepared to hear a smart-alecky riposte like this: “Teacher, you have 1 wrong English yourself in your comment.” Why? Because there’s as yet no mutually understood context for that elliptical statement between teacher and student. The student won’t know that the teacher had unilaterally dropped the noun “sentence” from the phrase “5 wrong English sentences.” As I explained in my earlier posting, elliptical phrase and sentence construction is an advanced form of writing, not to be foisted whimsically on those who don’t know yet how ellipses work. 

Ellipsis is, in fact, a form of idiom itself. Every English teacher worth his or her salt should know this, so I was really taken aback when you proffered these three absurd ellipses in your previous posting: “three air” (for “three air pockets”), “six oxygen” (for “six oxygen particles”), and “seven Chinese” (for “seven Chinese characters”). Anyone who does that must have such a cringeworthy sense of humor indeed—and I must tell you that it’s absolutely no laughing matter when it comes from an English teacher and tutor like you!

Response of aidsasis, September 4, 2013:

Thank you for doing research on me, sir! I’m flattered.

Well, I guess we’ll agree to disagree on the acceptability of your use of “2,500 cringeworthy English” then. 

I don’t see a substantial difference between your phrase and the phrase “5 wrong English”. I think both are clearly understandable in their contexts, and yet, I don’t find either of them to be acceptable. 

I’ve asked some of my peers, and they also think your usage was wrong, but you seem to be very convinced, so I’ll just leave that at that. A suggestion -- Maybe you can ask your peers, too, just for confirmation purposes.

Anyway, there are many disagreements when it comes to allowed usage in the English language; maybe this is just one of them. 

I wish you all the best in your quest for excellence in the use of the English language. Cheers!

My reply to aidsasis:

Great! Let’s agree to disagree then, and I’ll certainly follow your suggestion to ask my own peers if indeed the phrase “2,500 cringeworthy English” is itself cringeworthy English. In the same token, please continue checking out with your own peers how they find that phrase. Tell them that the Forum has an open invitation to them to post their views and opinions in this discussion board. 

When some new Forum member either impresses or depresses me with their English or with their assertiveness, or both, I do a little check—not hard research by any means—where they are coming from. This just gives me a better handle on how best to read the mind behind the post—a practical routine that really should neither flatter nor fluster you.

You’ve offered your cheers and I’d like you to know that I’m delighted to toast to that! I hope to hear from you often in the Forum, whether to agree or disagree on things English or whatever.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Judicious writing is the polar opposite of tendentious writing

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (September 7, 2013):

How judicious is “judicious writing”?

In H. P. Lovecraft’s Advice to Aspiring Writers, 1920, the author had advised: “No aspiring author should content himself with a mere acquisition of technical rules… All attempts at gaining literary polish must begin with judicious reading, and the learner must never cease to hold this phase uppermost.” How judicious then “judicious writing” should be? I don’t think I have read more than a hundred...

P.S. According to her, too: “Popular magazines inculcate a careless and deplorable style which is hard to unlearn, and which impedes the acquisition of a purer style.” What would you say about this?

My reply to Miss Mae:

Judicious writing means writing that shows discernment, prudence, and sensibleness; it is writing that shows mental, grammatical, and stylistic discipline on the part of the author as well as respect for the reader’s intelligence and sensibility. In practical terms, judicious writing is good, understandable, level-headed writing.

The opposite of judicious writing is tendentious writing, which is writing marked by strong personal, social, racial, religious, political, or ideological bias; it is an exposition that’s more interested in giving vent to what’s in the mind of the writer than in what the reader wants or needs to know. In practical terms, tendentious writing is bad, prejudiced, sometimes muddle-headed writing.

This is really all I can say about the subject.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Which usage is correct: “Did was…” or “did is…”?

Question by Sky, Forum member (August 27, 2013):

Which one is correct below?

1. “What I did is...”
2. “What I did was...”

Thanks.

My reply to Sky:

For such sentence constructions, either the past tense “was” or the present tense “is” can be used depending on context and what the speaker or writer has in mind. For describing a past action that one actually did some time in the past, “was” obviously should be used, as in “What I did was to call the police.” On the other hand, for describing demonstratively (especially when making or pointing to a diagram or illustration in full view of the listener) a method or procedure that one performed in the past, the present tense “is” can be used, as in “What I did is this: draw a circle first, mark its center with a dot, then draw a straight line from that dot to the circumference.” In this latter case, the diagram or illustration usually becomes the real-time peg for the use of the present tense.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Four comprehensive lessons on proper preposition usage

Question by youngmentor, Forum member (August 19, 2013):

Hi sir,

I would just like to ask if there are any rules on the use the various prepositions such as “in,” “on,” “at,” “to,” “by,” “from,” “with,” and “of.” In most of my readings, writers or authors generally give advice that we should just read a lot to become familiar with the correct pairing of words and prepositions. Although I know the basic textbook rules for preposition usage, I often get into trouble applying them every time I encounter a new word; I become unsure precisely what preposition to use with that word to be able express my idea clearly and correctly. I know, of course, that there are times when certain prepositions could be used interchangeably, but could you give me some points on what aspects of the word and the preposition should be considered to ensure that my preposition choices are standard and acceptable?

An example of the predicaments I encounter in preposition usage is the choice between the prepositions “by” and “with” in the following alternative sentence constructions:

(A) “Do you know a person by the name Joe Carillo?”
(B) “Do you know a person with the name Joe Carillo?”

I know that sentence A is correct; in the case of sentence B, however, I’m not so sure. Which of the two prepositions is used in Standard English?

My reply to young mentor:

In the Forum’s “Getting to Know English” section, you’ll find four comprehensive lessons on preposition usage. Study them carefully and I’m sure that when you’re done, you’d have become much more confident and comfortable with your preposition choices.

Here are the lessons and I suggest you read them in the sequence indicated:

Lesson #7 – The Prepositions Revisited
Lesson #8 – Specific Rules for Preposition Usage
Lesson #9 – Getting to Know the Prepositional Phrases
Lesson #10 – Dealing with the Prepositional Idioms

As to the choice between “by” and “with” in the following sentences, “Do you know a person by the name Joe Carillo?” and “Do you know a person with the name Joe Carillo?”, both are grammatically correct usage. However, “by” in that sentence is the idiomatic usage—meaning that it’s the conventional choice of educated native English speakers; “with” is usually the groping, uncertain choice of nonnative entry-level English learners, who eventually gravitate to the idiomatic “by” as they get to know their English better.

(By the way, there are actually two more ways of correctly phrasing that sentence without using the preposition “by” or “with”: “Do you know a person named Joe Carillo?” and “Do you know a person whose name is Joe Carillo?” When you are unsure of your choice of preposition, you can get by with these alternative sentence phrasings without fear of losing face.)

P.S. Aside from memorizing and religiously following these rules for preposition usage, follow that general advice of those writers and authors you mentioned in your posting. Nonnative English speakers do need to read a lot of well-written English articles and books to become thoroughly familiar with the prepositions and confident in using them.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Why use the preposition “with” repeatedly for each serial item?

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (July 26, 2013):

Why should there be a “with” to introduce every noun enumerated in the following sentence: “It was consolidated with SBN 617 by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, with SBN 935 by Sen. Lito Lapid, with SBN 2820 by Sen. Manny Villar, and with SBN 1843 and SBN 2999 by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, all of which intend to empower all citizens of the country not otherwise disqualified by law to exercise the right of suffrage.”

My reply to Miss Mae (August 9, 2013):

My apologies for overlooking this posting of yours.

In the sentence in question, it’s for clarity’s sake that we need the preposition “with” to introduce every item consolidated with the subject “it.” Strictly speaking, of course, that sentence should specify the consolidation process for each item as follows: “It was consolidated with SBN 617 by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, consolidated with SBN 935 by Sen. Lito Lapid, consolidated with SBN 2820 by Sen. Manny Villar, and consolidated with SBN 1843 and SBN 2999 by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, all of which intend to empower all citizens of the country not otherwise disqualified by law to exercise the right of suffrage.”

To streamline and make that sentence concise, however, we can use elliptical construction by using the verb “consolidated” only at the first instance and dropping all of its repeated uses thereafter, as follows: “It was consolidated with SBN 617 by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, with SBN 935 by Sen. Lito Lapid, with SBN 2820 by Sen. Manny Villar, and with SBN 1843 and SBN 2999 by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, all of which intend to empower all citizens of the country not otherwise disqualified by law to exercise the right of suffrage.” Note that in this form, the sentence still makes perfect sense because it’s clear that the verb “consolidated with” applies to all items in the serial enumeration.

But see what happens to that sentence when we knock even the preposition “with” along with the verb “consolidated”: “It was consolidated with SBN 617 by Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, SBN 935 by Sen. Lito Lapid, SBN 2820 by Sen. Manny Villar, and SBN 1843 and SBN 2999 by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, all of which intend to empower all citizens of the country not otherwise disqualified by law to exercise the right of suffrage.” The syntax of the sentence has been disrupted. The sentence has become nonsensical because there is now a serious semantic disconnect between the enumerated items. Figuring out precisely what and which have been consolidated has become extremely difficult. To prevent the sentence from degenerating into syntactic bedlam, we need the preposition “with” as a grammatical and semantic binder for each item in the serial enumeration.

What this state of affairs is telling us is that there are limits to what words can be safely dropped when constructing enumerative sentences elliptically. We should be sensitive to these limits to make sure that our efforts at streamlining sentences won’t render them confusing or, at worst, meaningless. 

FURTHER READINGS ON ELLIPTICAL SENTENCES:
Deconstructing and understanding those puzzling elliptical sentences

Elliptical sentences often read and sound better than regular sentences

The proper way to construct elliptical sentences

Click to read comments or post a comment

Instances when the article “a” can be dispensed with

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (July 26, 2013):

Why can’t the article “a” be placed between the words “still” and “lack” in the following sentence: “There is still [a] lack of awareness of the social problems encountered by the physical disabled.”

In contrast, why is “a” needed between “give” and “20%” in this other sentence: “If passed, House Bill 12147 will require all transportation services, hotels and lodging establishments, theaters, government hospitals, and other medical institutions all over the country to give a 20% discount on PWDs’ purchases.”

My reply to Miss Mae (August 9, 2013):

You will recall that in the usage of articles in English, the articles “a” and “an” generally can be used only with count nouns, as in “She wants a piece of bread” and “He asks for an hour of silence.” On the other hand, the article “the” generally can be used with noncount nouns or can be omitted entirely, as in “They had an argument over the land” (referring to a specific piece of land) and “They flew over land” (referring to land as a surface).

As to the noun “lack,” it just happens to be a noncount noun that can use either the definite article “the” or the indefinite article “a”—and in some cases no article at all—for particular usages of that noun. In fact, whether to use “a” or no article at all is oftentimes a matter of personal preference of the author. In my case, as a matter of style, I prefer not using “a” in the particular sentence you presented: “There is still lack of awareness of the social problems encountered by the physical disabled.” My basis for that choice is that both the word “lack” and “awareness” are noncount nouns, and that the sentence reads perfectly in order even without the article “a.” This doesn’t mean though that its use in this sentence that you presented is grammatically wrong: “There is still a lack of awareness of the social problems encountered by the physical disabled.” It’s just that I feel “a” is uncomfortably extraneous in that construction. (On the other hand, I wouldn’t hesitate to use the article “a” for this sentence using the noncount term “lack of evidence”: “A lack of evidence has jeopardized the prosecution of the suspected thief.” It’s because the noun “evidence” is clearly countable in this particular case.)

As to the other sentence you presented, the article “a” is obviously needed between “give” and “20%”: “If passed, House Bill 12147 will require all transportation services, hotels and lodging establishments, theaters, government hospitals, and other medical institutions all over the country to give a 20% discount on PWDs’ purchases.” Anyway we look at it, the term “20% discount” is undoubtedly a count noun, so not to use the article “a” for it definitely will make the sentence look and sound out of kilter.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Situations when middle names are uncalled for

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (July 26, 2013):

I just wonder why “Delaraga,” which is the middle name of the late Ramon Bagatsing, has to be shortened to “D.” in the following sentence: “The late Ramon D. Bagatsing was another PWD who had held a major government post.” Can’t middle names—which refer to the mother’s maiden surname in the Philippines—be used in formal writings?

My reply to Miss Mae (August 9, 2013):

Unless absolutely called for, providing the middle name of a person identified in published articles is a needless imposition on the reader, an eyesore in the mass of text, and a drag to the flow of the narrative or exposition. This is why it has become axiomatic and a matter of style for published works to do away with middle names and middle initials. The only instances that middle names or initials are allowed or condoned in published work are (a) when the person has to be distinguished from another who has the same first name and surname, (b) when the person is a well-known female who gets married, in which case it becomes desirable to use both her maiden name and her married surname to alert the reader that she is the same person, or (c) when the person is convicted of a crime, in which case it becomes absolutely necessary to provide his or her middle name to clearly distinguish him from others who may have the same first name and surname. To provide surnames in published articles for reasons other than these three is likely to be misconstrued as an affectation on the part of the writer or an attempt to patronize the person being identified.

Click to read comments or post a comment

The difference in sense between the prepositions “like” and “as”

Question by Wentfor10, new Forum member (June 18, 2013):

Hi, sir.

I want to know if there is any difference between “like” and “as.”

For example: 
“He speaks English like an Englishman.”
“He speaks English as an Englishman.”

Do these two sentences have the same point or not?

My reply to Wentfor10:

The sentences “He speaks English like an Englishman” and “He speaks English as an Englishman” mean two different things altogether.

Depending on context, the conjunction “like” can mean “as if” or “in the same way that” or “in a way or manner that.” In the first sentence you presented, “He speaks English like an Englishman,” “like” is used in the sense of “as if,” so the sentence is synonymous with “He speaks English as if he is an Englishman.” Aside from this sense, “like” can also be used in the sense of “in the same way that,” as in the sentence “They detest each other like children do bad-tasting medicine”; and also in the sense of “in the way or manner that,” as in the sentences “He negotiates deals like an old entertainment impresario should” and “She testified unconvincingly in court like you told me.” 

In contrast, in the sentence “He speaks English as an Englishman,” the conjunction “as” is used in the sense of “in the way or manner expected of”—meaning in this particular case that the speaker is, in fact, an Englishman and speaks English in the way or manner expected of an Englishman. This sense is entirely different from that of the sentence “He speaks English like an Englishman,” which means that the speaker is, in fact, not an Englishman but can speak it as well as an Englishman does.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Not being clear enough doesn’t necessarily mean being wrong

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (July 2, 2013):

Working online, I had to explain to my boss why I could only do two articles during weekdays for him. “I have to take a nap every afternoon, Sir. But if necessary, you can assign 3-4 articles to me every Wednesdays and Thursdays. Only that I would ask that what I would do for Wednesdays are for Thursdays and that what I would do for Thursdays are for Fridays.”

“Huh? Can you make it simple? I will assign articles for you on a Wednesday but you can write them Thursday, the following day?” my boss replied.

I repeated what I had said in our country’s standard native language. What I asked was that if I could start working on Wednesdays what I had to submit on Thursdays, and on Thursdays what I had to submit on Fridays. Why did he think that I just want to know a day earlier what I would do a day after? What have I said wrongly?

My reply to Miss Mae:

I agree with your boss that you could have made your request simpler. I must admit that I myself couldn’t figure out what you meant by saying “Only that I would ask that what I would do for Wednesdays are for Thursdays and that what I would do for Thursdays are for Fridays.” It just seems to me that although you didn’t say anything wrong, you didn’t make yourself clear enough to your boss. In short, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Click to read comments or post a comment

“As if” and “as though”--Is there a difference?

Question from jhun bartolo, Forum member (June 7, 2013):

Hello, sir. 

Do “as if” and “as though” have differences with their use? When I posted these sentences, “Pray as though everything depends on GOD. Work as though everything depends on YOU,” somebody commented that it should be “as if” and not “as though.”

My reply to jhun bartolo:

Practically all of the authoritative dictionaries today tell us that the conjunctions “as if” and “as though” are synonymous in the sense of “like something was actually so,” “as it would be if,” “as to suggest the idea that,” or “as would be true if.” Personally, though, I am stylistically partial to “as though” because I think it sounds more accepting of the stated presumption than “as if,” which seems to me to convey a somewhat weaker belief in that presumption. 

For this reason, I think your choice of “as though” for these two sentences of yours is perfect for their context: “Pray as though everything depends on GOD. Work as though everything depends on YOU.” It’s unmistakable that a believer in God is speaking here. In contrast, see what happens when “as if” in used instead for those two sentences: “Pray as if everything depends on GOD. Work as if everything depends on YOU.” Somehow, although both affirmative-sounding, these “as if”-using sentences seem to convey a hint of cynicism towards the stated presumptions.

This isn’t to say, though, that there are no contexts in which “as if” and “as though” are not perfectly equivalent. Consider the following three sets of examples:

“She rushed out of the house as if goblins were chasing her.”
“She rushed out of the house as though goblins were chasing her.”

“It looked as if he had not slept all night.”
“It looked as though he had not slept all night.”

“They looked at us as if we were from another planet.”
“They looked at us as though we were from another planet.”

I think you’ll agree with me that there isn’t any perceptible difference in meaning between the sentences in each of those pairs.

Click to read comments or post a comment

When the perfect participle and present participle hardly differ

Question sent by e-mail by FH, an English teacher in Iran (May 20, 2013):    

Suppose that I sent you an e-mail but you haven’t answered it yet. Now, you want to answer it. Which of the sentences below would you use at the beginning of your reply, A or B? Please explain why.

(A) “Farhad, I apologize to you for not having responded to your e-mail sooner.”
(B) “Farhad, I apologize to you for not responding to your e-mail sooner.”

I look forward to hearing from you.

My reply to FH:

I must admit that I puzzled over your grammar question for quite a while before composing this answer.

My opinion is that since the act of answering the e-mail is being done at the very moment of writing the reply, the perfectly grammatical answer to your question is Sentence A: “Farhad, I apologize to you for not having responded to your e-mail sooner.” 

What we have here is a sentence that uses the so-called perfect participle to express a state (or an action) as just finished right before another action is consummated. The earlier state in such sentences is denoted by the perfect participle form “having + past participle of the verb,” which in this case is the negative verb phrase “not having responded”—meaning a state that was subsisting until the action was taken by the writer to apologize.

This answer, of course, immediately brings up the question of why Sentence B couldn’t be the answer: “Farhad, I apologize to you for not responding to your email sooner.” As you know, this other sentence uses the negative present participle form “not responding”—meaning an action not done until sometime in the past before the later action (the action taken by the writer to apologize) took place. The difference is that when the negative present participle is used, a significant length of time should have elapsed between the earlier action and the later action. This is in contrast to the negative perfect participle, where a particular state ends or an action is finished right before or while the later action is taking place.

The time that elapses between the earlier action (or state) and a later action could be of any length, of course. In this particular case, a delay of a few days or several weeks in the response to the e-mail would make the intervening time between the two actions significant and a cause for concern. The use of the negative present participle form “not responding” would then be called for: “Farhad, I apologize to you for not responding to your email sooner.” Indeed, it’s likely that this statement would be made if Farhad had already sent a follow-up e-mail calling attention to the delayed response to his earlier e-mail.

As we all know, however, our perception of the intervening time between two actions is a subjective thing. Depending on our point of view and attitude towards those two actions, that intervening time could seem very long or very short or practically nonexistent. It is when we perceive that intervening time to be unimportant or inconsequential that we are likely to choose—and for good reason—the present participle as a more natural and logical choice for that statement than the perfect participle. 

In such situations, in fact, the semantic distinction between the perfect participle and the present participle gets blurred. The two become practically interchangeable in everyday usage, with hardly any perceptible difference in meaning. Sentence B, “Farhad, I apologize to you for not responding to your email sooner,” then becomes a correct and perfectly defensible grammatical construction as well for that reply.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Modals denote conjecture, never absolute certainty

Here’s a fascinating question on modals from FH, an English teacher in Iran, that came by e-mail last May 2, 2013:

As you know, we use the structure “must have + past participle” when we are sure that an action happened in the past. For example, “I rang the bell several times, but they didn’t open the door. They must have gone out.”

Here’s my question: What’s the negative form of the structure “must have +past participle”? My friend says that when we are sure an action did NOT happen in the past, we should use the structure “can’t/couldn’t have + past participle.” For example, “Where is she? She couldn’t have gone out—the door’s locked.”

I disagree with my friend. I think when we’re sure that an action has NOT happened in the past, we should use the structure “must not have + past participle.” For example, “Where is she? She must not have gone out—the door’s locked.”

What do you think?

My reply to FH:

You and your friend are fundamentally mistaken in thinking that the negative modal forms “must not have + past participle” and “couldn’t/ can’t have + past participle” can be used to denote with certainty that an action didn’t happen in the past. On the contrary, these forms denote only a strong belief or conjecture that the action didn’t happen.

Remember now that the auxiliary verbs “can,” “could,” “must,” “might,” and “may” are modals that indicate conjecture, supposition, or belief rather than established facts or absolute certainty.

“Can” and “may” are often interchangeably used to denote possibility or permission, as in “She can go” or “She may go.” On the other hand, “could” is used as the past tense form of “can,” as in “We discovered she could sing”; for the past conditional, an in “She assured me that she would come if she could”; and as an alternative to “can” in suggesting less force or certainty, as in “I hope you both could come.” (In negative constructions, though, “may” is rarely used; instead of “mayn’t,” what’s usually used is “cannot” or “can’t.”)

“Must” is used to denote what can logically be inferred or supposed, as in “It must be risky to sail in such bad weather,” and “may” is used to indicate possibility or probability, as in “You may be right that he took the money.” “Might” is used to indicate a lower probability or possibility than “may,” as in “We might catch up with you if the rain stops,” and to express probability or possibility in the past, as in “She might have sold her car after all.” It is also used as a polite alternative to “may,” as in “Might I ask who’s on the line?” or to “should,” as in “You might at least express appreciation.

We can thus see that the positive modal forms “must have + past participle” and “could have + past participle” couldn’t be expressions of certainty at all. And neither could their negative modal forms “must not have + past participle” and “could not have + past participle” denote certainty that the action didn’t happen. They just express strong supposition or conjecture.

So, for actions that surely happened in the past, we absolutely can’t use the positive modal form “must have + past participle” as in this example of yours: “I rang the bell several times, but they didn’t open the door. They must have gone out.” Instead, we must establish the action in that second sentence as an objective fact: “I rang the bell several times, but they didn’t open the door. They surely had gone out.”

For actions that surely didn’t happen, neither can we use the negative modal form “must not have + past participle” as in your friend’s example: “Where is she? She must not have gone out—the door’s locked.” We also must establish that the woman is indeed still inside the house: “Where is she? The door’s locked so she surely had not gone out.”

In each case, the subject’s going out or not going out must be an absolute certainty.

Click to read comments or post a comment

Yes, “nor” can be used without “neither” in tandem with it

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (April 23, 2013):

Can nor be used without its “partner,” neither?

My reply to Miss Mae (April 26, 2013):

Sorry for this delayed reply. I missed reading your posting and it’s only now that I got to see it in the discussion board.

Definitely yes, the conjunction “nor” can be used without the conjunction “neither.” On its own, “nor” is used to introduce the second or last member or the second and each following member of a series of items, each of which is negated, as in the sentence “The burden wasn’t carried by you nor me nor by anyone for that matter.” 

Of course, when only two members of a series of items are involved, “nor” works with “neither” in the negative correlative form “neither…nor,” as in “Neither you nor me carried the burden.” This construction follows the traditional grammar rule that the negative correlative “neither…nor” should only be used to mean “not one or the other of two.” When the reference is to “none of several,” “none” instead of “neither” is used: “None of the five reelectionists passed the advocacy group’s integrity test.”

Also without the conjunction “neither,” the conjunction “nor” is used to introduce and negate a following clause or phrase in a sentence, as in “The candidate didn’t mind being labeled a family dynast, nor did she mind being deemed unqualified.” On a more profound note, the same stand-alone usage of “nor” is used in Psalm 121:6 of the New International Version of the Bible: “The sun will not harm you by day, nor the moon by night.”

Comment from Musushi-tamago, Forum member (April 26, 2013):

In your example for the use of “neither…nor,” “Neither you nor me carried the burden,” I think the “me” should be “I” because it is a doer of the action. Am I right?

My reply to Musushi-tamago:

You’re absolutely right and I’m sorry for the oversight! The pronoun “me” should be “I” instead because it’s in the nominative case, meaning that it’s doing the action of the verb, not receiving that action. That sentence should therefore read as follows: “Neither you nor I carried the burden.” 

This usage of the nominative pronoun “I” in that sentence is in contrast to that of the objective pronoun “me” in the example I presented earlier, “The burden wasn’t carried by you nor me nor by anyone for that matter.” Here, “me” is correct usage because the sentence is in the passive voice. In that passive voice construction, “me” isn’t a doer of the action but an object or receiver of the action of the passive verb form “wasn’t carried.”

For a discussion of how the nominative case differs from the objective case, click this link to this earlier posting of mine in the Forum, “Lesson 3 – The Matter of Case in English.”  

Thanks for the feedback!

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: 16 February, 2013,10:30 p.m.