USE AND MISUSE

Should “as” be always paired off with another “as”?

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (April 7, 2014):

Is it really necessary that “as” should be paired with another “as” in English sentences? I have these two sentences for you to consider:

1. “Animism regards the spirit world as stronger than that of the humans.” 
2. “Animism regards the spirit world as stronger than as that of the humans.” 

Which of them has the correct form, Sir? What I have written was the first...

My reply to Miss Mae:

No, it’s not necessary that “as” be paired with another “as” in English sentences. It all depends on the sense and on what part of speech it is performing in the sentence—and about this I’ll have much to say later.

At the moment, though, let me first answer your question regarding the two “as”-using sentences you presented. I must tell you offhand that both suffer from faulty grammar and syntax. The comparative in your first sentence, “Animism regards the spirit world as stronger than that of the humans,” is stated in clunky, unparallel terms; in particular, the noun phrase “the spirit world” cannot be validly compared in strength with “that of the humans.” The comparison should be on a one-on-one basis—“the world of spirits” vs. “the world of humans.” So the semantically correct construction of that first sentence of yours should be “Animism regards the world of spirits as stronger than the world of humans.” I would say though that it would be clearer and more elegant to construct that sentence as “Animism regards the spirit world as stronger than the human world.”

Your second sentence, “Animism regards the spirit world as stronger than as that of the humans,” is flat-out wrong grammatically, semantically, structurally, and syntactically. The craggy, double-“as” comparative of that sentence, “as stronger than as that of,” is truly out of this world and should stay there for good.

Let me now take this opportunity to discuss “as” as a many-splendored word that can assume the role of as many as four parts of speech—as adverb, conjunction, preposition, or pronoun—and then to pinpoint those instances when it needs to be paired off with another “as” to work properly.

The adverb “as.” As an adverb, “as” needs to be paired off with another “as” to make a comparative indicating the same degree or amount, as in “Her dreams are as high as the sky.” If the degree or amount isn’t the same and the reference to the comparison is implied or clear to the listener or reader, the comparative needs only one “as,” as in “The last session was twice as long.” When “as” is used as an adverb in the sense of “for instance,” it need not be paired with another “as,” as in “She was referring to English proficiency tests, as TOEFL or IELTS.” There’s also no need for another “as” when the adverb “as” is used in the sense of something being considered in a specified form or relation, as in “I would like to discuss Jose Rizal’s generation as distinguished from ours today.”

The conjunction “as.” As a conjunction, “as” needs to be paired off with another “as” when used as a correlative after an adjective or adverb modified by the adverbial “as,” as in “The man accused of killing his girlfriend was as meek as a lamb when he was sentenced to life imprisonment.” No pairing off with another “as” is needed when “as” is used as a conjunction in the sense of “in the way or manner that,” as in “The boss wants you to behave as we do”; in the sense of “while” or “when,” as in “He yawned as he got up from bed”; and in the sense of “for the reason that,” as in “The newly married couple couldn’t take an out-of-town summer vacation as they were perilously low on funds.” 

The preposition “as.” As a preposition, “as” doesn’t need to be paired off with another “as” when used in the sense of “like,” as in “All voted as a jury”; and in the sense of “in the capacity, character, condition, or role of,” as in “The law student works as a security guard at night.”

The pronoun “as.” Finally, “as” as a pronoun doesn’t need to be paired off with another “as” when used in the sense of “that,” “who,” or “which” after the word “same” or “such,” as in “She works in the same call-center as my son”; and also when used in the sense of “a fact that,” as in “Fair or not, many opinion columnists in media think the principal accused in the pork-barrel scam are guilty, as is evident from their sock-it-to-them commentaries.” 

I think this is about all we should know about the various uses of “as.”

Click to read comments or post a comment

How to construct the past-perfect conditional of the passive voice

A reader, Mr. Rosauro Feliciano, expressed his appreciation for my March 24, 2014 column in The Manila Times on the perfect tenses in the passive voice, then asked if he should use “if” or “had” in the following sentence:

“My son would have been an alumnus of the PMA class of 2007 (if, had) he was not sent to West Point after the plebe year at PMA.”

He also asked if that sentence is constructed correctly.

My reply to Mr. Feliciano:

That sentence is in the past-perfect conditional form of the passive voice, and it can be constructed in two ways.

Using “if”: “My son would have been an alumnus of the PMA class of 2007 if he had not been sent to West Point after the plebe year at PMA.”

Or using “had”: “My son would have been an alumnus of the PMA class of 2007 had he not been sent to West Point after the plebe year at PMA.”

The construction using “had” is my personal preference because I find it more elegant and better sounding.

For a more comprehensive discussion of sentences of this type, I suggest you check out this posting of mine in the Forum: “Do better than a calculated guess in handling conditional sentences”.

Click to read comments or post a comment

The necessity for the perfect tenses in the passive voice

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (March 10, 2014):

I can’t remember anymore when and where exactly I’ve got this idea, but I still hesitate every time I add been to has, have, and had. Should writers really refrain from doing so, Mr. Carillo?

My reply to Miss Mae:

It’s most unfortunate when writers hesitate to use the forms “has been,” “have been,” and “had been” in constructing sentences. They are depriving themselves of the opportunity to use the English language to the fullest advantage when they are crafting narratives or expressing their thoughts and ideas. I must warn you that the situation is, well, very much like using a word processor with not a few of the QWERTY keys for the alphabet dysfunctional or missing.

In your case, I think it’s clear that your trepidation about those three verbal auxiliaries indicates unfamiliarity with—and lack of confidence in—the use of the perfect tenses in the passive voice. Recall that “been” is the past participle of the verb “be,” and that “been,” together with the helping verb “have,” serves as auxiliary to the past participle/progressive form of the operative verb to form the perfect tenses in the passive voice.

At first the perfect tenses in the passive voice may seem overwhelmingly complicated, but they actually become much easier to understand when they are broken down into their five forms, as follows: 

1. Past perfect in the passive voice = had + been + past participle of the verb – for action completed (finished or “perfected”) at some point in the past before something else happened. Example: “The fancy car had been sold before we got to the auction house yesterday.” 

2. Past perfect progressive in the passive voice = had + been + progressive form of the verb – for continuous action that was completed at some point in the past. Example: “The building had been rumbling for several minutes before it collapsed.”

3. Present perfect in the passive voice = has/have + been + progressive form of the verb – for continuous action that has been finished at some point in the past or that started in the past and continues to happen. Examples: “That truck has been rusting at our backyard so we decided just now to have it refurbished.” “The speculator is on a buying spree now that stock prices have been falling precipitously.” (The rule is, of course, to use “has been” for a singular subject and “have been” for a plural subject).

4. Future perfect in the passive voice = will/shall + have + past participle of the verb – for action that will have been completed (finished or “perfected”) at some point in the future. Example:  “By the time we get the funds to make the purchase next week, the promotional offer will have expired.” (For both a singular and a plural subject, “will have/shall have” applies.)

5. Future perfect progressive in the passive voice = shall + have been + progressive form of the verb– for continuous action that will be completed at some point in the future. Example: “When you visit us in Stockholm in 2016, we will have been accorded permanent resident status for almost a year.”

Take note that in the perfect tenses in the passive voice, the subject of the sentence will always be the receiver of the action of the verb, never its doer, and the verb will have to be intransitive—meaning one that doesn’t have or can’t take a direct object. Keep in mind, though, that some verbs can either be transitive or intransitive depending on how they are used. To keep out of trouble when doing past perfect constructions in the passive voice, you must develop adequate sensitivity for figuring this out with the verb you are using.

For a quick review of how verbs in English behave, check out the following earlier posting in the Forum:  
Lesson #2 - How the English Language Really Works

Click to read comments or post a comment

Sequence of tenses for clauses linked by the conjunction “when”

Question by youngmentor, Forum member (March 7, 2014):

Hi sir! It’s been a while since I last visited your site. I came across this question by a Facebook member who was asking if this sentence is faulty: “When we got our first blog back in 2010, all we have in mind is to have a personal presence on the Internet.” For me, this sentence would be correct if the idea expressed in the main clause is still true or existing. However, if time is the focus, it should read as “When we got our first blog back in 2010, all we had in mind was to have a presence on the Internet.” Should the second sentence be correct, would it be safe to say that when starting a sentence with “when” and the verb is in the past tense, the verb in the main clause should also be in the past tense? Is my understanding correct, sir? Hope you’ll be able to shed light on this. Thank you. (I’m sorry if the format of this board was not followed correctly. I’m only using a cellphone to access this site now.)

My reply to youngmentor:

You are right that this sentence presented by that Facebook member is grammatically faulty: “When we got our first blog back in 2010, all we have in mind is to have a personal presence on the Internet.” Note that its main clause, “all we have in mind is to have a personal presence on the Internet,” has the verb phrase “have in mind” in the present tense, which is inconsistent with the past-tense verb “got” of the subordinate clause “when we got our first blog back in 2010.” 

The general sequence-of-tenses rule for complex sentences is this: When the operative verb of the main clause or independent clause is not in the past tense or in the past perfect tense, the operative verb of the subordinate clause or dependent clause can be in any tense that conveys meaning accurately. Take this sentence, for example: “When the phone rings, she answers it at once.” The verb of the main clause, “answers,” is in the present tense, and the verb of the subordinate clause, “rings,” is also in the present tense; together, the two clauses form a grammatically correct and logical sentence. In this other example, “When you arrive from Tokyo, I will be at the airport to pick you up,” the verb of the main clause is in the simple future tense, while the verb of the subordinate clause is in the present tense; but the two clauses likewise form a grammatically correct and logical sentence.      

On the other hand, when the operative verb of the main or independent clause is in the past tense or past perfect tense, the operative verb of the subordinate clause could only be in the past tense or past perfect tense for the statement to be grammatically correct and logical. The proper construction of the sentence you presented should therefore be this: “When we got our first blog back in 2010, all we had in mind was to have a personal presence on the Internet.” Here, in accord with the past-tense “got” in the subordinate clause, the main clause uses the past-tense verb phrase “had in mind” in tandem with the past-tense “was” as linking verb for the infinitive phrase “to have a personal presence on the Internet” as predicate. 

Now take a look at this other sentence: “When he bought his desktop four years ago, practically all of his friends had already shifted to laptops”; what we have this time is a main clause with the past perfect “had already shifted” and a subordinate clause with the past-tense “bought”; together, they likewise form a grammatically airtight complex sentence. It is therefore not safe to say that when a sentence starts with “when” and the verb is in the past tense, the verb in the main clause will also be in the past tense. In fact, as has just been demonstrated, the verb in the main clause could be either in the past tense or past perfect.  

The CCC Foundation’s Guide to Grammar and Writing has a very comprehensive and highly instructive discussion of the sequence-of-tenses rule, even providing charts that show the correct tense relationship between clauses that have different time frames. Check it out now by clicking this link to the guide’s “Sequence of Verb Tenses” page.

Rejoinder from young mentor (March 8, 2014):

Hi sir… With that having been said, it is therefore safe to say that the main clause, usually, can be of any tense and the tense of the subordinate clause more often than not agrees with the tense of the main clause. Just a follow up question though: Should that be the case, then the example given above could be considered correct because the tense of the main clause dictates the tense of the subordinate clause. Another example: “I am happy when I saw him.” The main clause here is in the present tense and the subordinate clause is in the past tense. If I am to analyze this, the state of being happy still persists from the time the speaker saw the speaker. My understanding is that the subordinate clause can take any verb tense depending on the meaning that the speaker wants to convey. In reference to the sentence that I lifted from the posting of that Facebook member, can we possibly consider that statement as correct? Another example: “When I went to bed last night, I heard a noise outside my window.” The use of the past tense here is justified. From this example, since the action of going to bed precedes the hearing of the noise, the subordinate clause sets the time in the past. Can we say that if the speaker’s focus is the time the action took place, then the verbs should be in the past tense. However, if the idea in the main clause is still true or still being considered at the moment that the statement is uttered, the use of the present tense is justified. Can this give justification to the first example that I presented? Please do give me additional inputs about this. Thank you, sir.

My reply to youngmentor’s rejoinder:

I’m afraid that you didn’t quite get the essence of the sequence-of-tenses rule. I’m saying this because this paraphrase of yours of that rule is imprecise, almost trivial: “… it is therefore safe to say that the main clause, usually, can be of any tense and the tense of the subordinate clause more often than not agrees with the tense of the main clause.” Your use of the qualifiers “usually” and “more often than not” makes the prescribed course of action very fuzzy and not actionable at all. This is the danger of attempting to overgeneralize the sequence-of-tenses rule, which clearly operates by exception: “When the operative verb of the main clause or independent clause is not in the past tense or in the past perfect tense, the operative verb of the subordinate clause or dependent clause can be in any tense that conveys meaning accurately.”

Conversely, when the main clause isn’t in the past tense or past perfect tense, it could only be in the present tense or in the future tense, so a valid restatement of the sequence-of-tenses rule would be this: “When the operative verb of the main clause or independent clause is in the present tense or the future tense, the operative verb of the subordinate clause or dependent clause can be in any tense that conveys meaning accurately.” The tense of the subordinate clause will then be determined by the difference between the time expressed in the independent clause and the time expressed in the subordinate clause.

That’s admittedly a tough concept, so it needs particulars and specifics to be understood. I suggest that you study very carefully the sequence-of-tenses chart provided by the CCC Foundation’s Guide to Grammar and Writing. To clarify here how that concept works, I’ll focus only on the situations when the main clause is in the present tense, after which you can study the rest of the other possible situations listed in that chart. It’s also very important to keep in mind that complex sentences don’t exclusively use “when” to link the subordinate clause with the main clause. Indeed, depending on the time difference between them as well as the intended sense, the subordinating conjunction can range rather widely among these common choices: “before,” “after,” “during,” “as,” “that,” “while,” “because,” and “although.” We must free our mind from the wrong notion that only “when” can be used or is suitable in such situations.

Now, when the main clause is specifically in the present tense, there will be four possibilities for the tense of the subordinate clause depending on the intended sense, as follows:

1. For same-time action as in the main clause, the present tense can be used for the verb in the subordinate clause. Examples: “I get thrilled when I watch action movies.” “She is here although she thinks her presence isn’t necessary.” 
2. For an action earlier than that in the main clause, the past tense can be used for the verb in the subordinate clause. Example: “She’s angry because her boss berated her.” “I think that she already left.”
3. For an action in the main clause that extends from some point in the past to the present, the present perfect tense can be used for the verb in the subordinate clause. Example: “They doubt that he has met his sales quota.” “Why is he making all that fuss when has not met his sales quota?” 
4. For an ongoing action in the main clause, the future tense can be used for the verb in the subordinate clause. Example: “The police knows when the detainee will be released.” “The father expects that his son will finish college next year.” 

You said that your understanding is that the subordinate clause can take any verb tense depending on the meaning that the speaker wants to convey. This overgeneralization is definitely incorrect, as can readily be seen in this example: “She was asleep when I leave tomorrow” (past tense/future tense). The statement is obviously illogical and senseless. Indeed, only when the belief, declaration, or utterance by the speaker is in the present tense can the subordinate clause take any verb tense, as in the following examples: “She believes that the country needs a visionary leader” (present tense/present tense). “We think that the company had missed its sales targets” (present tense/past perfect tense). “They expect that the company will meet its midyear its sales targets” (present tense/future tense). Again, I would like to emphasize that it’s dangerous to make other generalizations about the sequence-of-tenses rule beyond those specified by the general rule. We must always keep in mind that the sense and logic of the statement—not the tense individually taken by the main clause and subordinate clause—are the overriding determinants in constructing complex sentences. 

This other example of the past tense/past tense combination for the subordinate clause and main clause is not only justified but absolutely correct: “When I went to bed last night, I heard a noise outside my window.” But again, I must warn you against making the generalization that “since the action of going to bed precedes the hearing of the noise, the subordinate clause sets the time in the past,” and that “if the speaker’s focus is the time the action took place, then the verbs should be in the past tense.” This generalization is easily rendered false by these perfectly acceptable variations of your sentences: “When I go to bed every night, I hear a noise outside my window” (present tense/ present tense). “When I go to bed at night, I would hear a noise outside my window” (present tense/frequent or customary action). 

As a rule then in constructing complex sentences, I can’t overemphasize this advice: Go for the sense and logic of the statement and choose the most suitable subordinating conjunction rather than unduly focus on the particular tense of the main clause and subordinate clause.

Click to read comments or post a comment

The proper use of the prepositions “in” and “on”

Question by instantresearcher, forum member (February 24, 2014):

Hi Mr. Carillo! Could you please enlighten me about the correct usage of the prepositions “in” and “on” especially in giving directions in a test?

“Write your answer (in, on) the blank...”
“Write your answer (in, on) the space provided...”
“Fill (in, on) the blank...”

Thank you so much!

My reply to instantresearcher:

The sentences you provided involve prepositions for indicating place and location on test material, which could be printed on a sheet of paper, written on a board or chart, or displayed on a computer screen. The general rule for preposition usage in such situations is “in” for an enclosed space, “on” for a surface, and “at” for a point.

A “blank,” in whatever medium is being used, is an empty surface, so “on” is the correct preposition for Sentence 1: “Write your answer on the blank.”

A “space” allotted for answers to a particular test item is normally enclosed by the test item before it and the test item after it, so “in” is the correct preposition for Sentence 2: “Write your answer in the space provided.”

Sentence 3 is, in practice, an exception to the general rule for the use of “in” and “on.” The context here is that the word “blank” consists of a set of spaces for the entry of data, in contrast to the sense of “blank” in Sentence 1 as simply empty surface. For the verb “fill,” native English speakers idiomatically use “in” to form the prepositional phrase “fill in” in this particular instance: “Fill in the blank.” (“Fill on the blank” is frowned upon as unidiomatic, and so with “Fill up the blank.”)

I must qualify that the three particular usages I presented above use the American English Standard; there may be notable variations in the British English Standard. Nonnative English speakers need to be aware that whatever English standard is used, preposition usage is essentially conventional, even quirkish at times, and that many preposition choices actually have no inherent or discernible logic of their own. 

For deeper grounding on preposition usage in American English, I suggest the following readings previously posted in the Forum:

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

Click to read comments or post a comment

Preposition usage for indicating place and location on test forms

Question by instant researcher, Forum member (February 24, 2014):

Hi Mr. Carillo! Could you please enlighten me about the correct usage of the prepositions “in” and “on” especially in giving directions in a test?

(1) “Write your answer (in, on) the blank.”
(2) “Write your answer (in, on) the space provided.”
(3) “Fill (in, on) the blank.”

Thank you so much!

My reply to instant researcher:

The sentences you provided involve prepositions for indicating place and location on test material, which could be printed on a sheet of paper, written on a board or chart, or displayed on a computer screen. The general rule for preposition usage in such situations is “in” for an enclosed space, “on” for a surface, and “at” for a point.

A “blank,” in whatever medium is being used, is an empty surface, so “on” is the correct preposition for Sentence 1: “Write your answer on the blank.”

A “space” allotted for answers to a particular test item is normally enclosed by the test item before it and the test item after it, so “in” is the correct preposition for Sentence 2: “Write your answer in the space provided.”

Sentence 3 is, in practice, an exception to the general rule for the use of “in” and “on.” The context here is that the word “blank” consists of a set of spaces for the entry of data, in contrast to the sense of “blank” in Sentence 1 as simply empty surface. For the verb “fill,” native English speakers idiomatically use “in” to form the prepositional idiom “fill in” in this particular instance: “Fill in the blank.” (“Fill on the blank” is frowned upon as unidiomatic, and so with “Fill up the blank.”)

I must qualify that the three particular usages I presented above use the American English Standard; there may be notable variations in the British English Standard. Nonnative English speakers need to be aware that whatever English standard is used, preposition usage is essentially conventional, even quirkish at times, and that many preposition choices actually have no inherent or discernible logic of their own.

For deeper grounding on preposition usage in American English, I suggest the following readings previously posted in the Forum:

Lesson #8 – Specific Rules for Preposition Usage

Lesson #7 – The Prepositions Revisited

Lesson #9 – Getting to Know the Prepositional Phrases

Lesson #10 – Dealing with the Prepositional Idioms

Click to read comments or post a comment

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 subjective, the 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)