BADLY WRITTEN, BADLY SPOKEN

The difference between double possessives and single possessives

Question from lyndontgabato, new Forum member (May 21, 2014):

Hi, 

I am confused between the two sentences below. Which is correct? 

“I am a friend of Anna’s.”
or 
“I am a friend of Anna.”

My reply to lyndontgabato:

Both “I am a friend of Anna’s” and “I am a friend of Anna” are grammatically and structurally correct possessive sentences.

The first construction, “I am a friend of Anna’s,” is the so-called double possessive or, in linguistic terms, the “post-genitive,” which simply means the preposition “of” is followed by a possessive-case or an absolute-possessive pronoun. In the double-possessive sentence at hand, the sense is that the speaker is one of the friends of Anna. This, you will note, has precisely the same sense as that of the second sentence, “I am a friend of Anna.”

If that’s the case, why bother using the double possessive construction at all? Why not just stick to the simpler single possessive—in this particular case the noun “Anna” without the apostrophe-”s”?

The reason is that over so many centuries of usage, native English speakers have found the double possessive useful as default usage that clearly distinguishes between possession of something as an attribute and possession as simple ownership of something. Both in the written and spoken form, the use of the apostrophe-”s” after the possessor noun makes it unnecessary for the speaker to elaborate on or clarify the intended sense of the statement.

Consider that someone has said this: “Amelia has a painting of my father.” This is an ambiguous statement that could either mean that Amelia has a painting done by the speaker’s father, or that Amelia possesses a painting she has done of the speaker’s father.

Now let’s add the apostrophe-”s” to the noun “father”: “Amelia has a painting of my father’s.” This time there’s no doubt that the speaker’s father—not Amelia—is the painter of the picture. Amelia only has that painting in her possession.

Always remember this general rule when the double possessive is used: What follows the preposition “of” in the double-possessive construction is invariably a definite human noun, not an indefinite, inanimate, or abstract noun. Following this rule, the use of the double possessive in this sentence is incorrect: “Alberto is a patron of the art gallery’s.” In this particular instance, only the single-possessive construction will be grammatically and semantically correct: “Alberto is a patron of the art gallery.”

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

---

Previous Feature:

The preposition “in” can be used to establish relationships in time

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (April 24, 2014):

Was it right that the headline below used in instead of after?

“Obama is the first American leader to visit Malaysia in decades.”

Why should it be so?

My reply to Miss Mae:

Yes, the preposition “in” is used correctly rather than “after” in this headline that you presented: “Obama is the first American leader to visit Malaysia in decades.”

Recall that in the rules of usage for prepositions that establish relationships in time, “after” is used with events that happen later than another event or point of time, as in “The overseas worker came home only after the holidays.” In the headline you presented, no earlier event is referred to, so the preposition “after” can’t be used.

But why use “in”?

It’s the convention in English to use “in” with months, years, decades, and centuries as points of time or as periods of time.

Usage of “in” with months, years, decades, and centuries as points of time: “The famous writer was born in April [in 1946, in the 1940s, in the 20th century].”

Usage of “in” with months, years, decades, and centuries as periods of time: “It was the first time the company defaulted in its loan payments in 25 years.” Of course, if the writer or speaker couldn’t precisely establish or recall the number of years, there’s no choice but to drop the number of years and just use the indeterminate “years” instead: “It was the first time the company defaulted in its loan payments in years.”

The same thing actually happened in the case of that headline about President Obama’s visit to Malaysia. Evidently due to space limitations for the headline, it had to drop the precise number of years from the time an American president last visited Malaysia. Indeed, the late Lyndon B. Johnson was the last U.S. president to visit Malaysia, going to that country in 1966 at the height of the Vietnam War. Had there been enough headline space for the number of decades since that time, the headline would likely have been written more precisely as follows:  “Obama is the first American leader to visit Malaysia in almost five decades.” Alternatively: “Obama is the first American leader to visit Malaysia in almost 50 years.”

Now that we’re on the subject of the usage of prepositions that establish relationships in time, we might as well review the other uses of “in” in this respect:

“In” is used with the following times of the day: “morning,” “afternoon,” “evening”: “She waters her roses in the morning [in the afternoon, in the evening].” 

“In” is used with dates that do not carry the specific day: “The Spanish explorer reached the Philippines in March 1521.” (When the exact date is indicated, on the other hand, recall that the preposition is changed from “in” to “on”: “The Spanish explorer reached the Philippines on March 17, 1521.”

RELATED READING IN THE FORUM ABOUT PREPOSITIONS:
Lesson #8 – Specific Rules for Preposition Usage

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

Can “meantime” be uttered at the beginning of a sentence?

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (March 24, 2014):

Can “meantime” be uttered at the beginning of a sentence?

That’s what the sportscaster I had a crush on said this morning. Shouldn’t it have been “in the meantime” if that adverb is used at the start of a sentence?

My reply to Miss Mae:

No, I don’t think that “meantime,” which has the same sense as “meanwhile,” should be uttered at the beginning of a sentence, and neither should it be used as a stand-alone adverb anywhere else in a sentence. For it to work properly, “meantime” has to be prefaced with the words “in the” to form the prepositional phrase “in the meantime,” which is the exact equivalent of the adverb “meanwhile.” You don’t say “It’s still three minutes before the start of the ballgame. Meantime, here’s a rundown of the team rankings so far.” Instead, you say: “It’s still three minutes before the start of the ballgame. In the meantime, here’s a rundown of the team rankings so far” or, even more succinctly, “It’s still three minutes before the start of the ballgame. Meanwhile, here’s a rundown of the team rankings so far.”

And while we are at the subject, although both “in the meantime” and “meanwhile” can be used at the start of a sentence, I would like to emphasize that they work properly only if that sentence immediately follows a sentence that states another event, action, process, or period, as in these examples: “You do the groceries now. In the meantime, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” “You do the groceries now. Meanwhile, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” Of course, you’ll also recall that each of those two sentences can be combined into just one sentence by linking the component clauses with a semicolon, as follows: “You do the groceries now; in the meantime, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” “You do the groceries now; meanwhile, I’ll get some tools from the hardware section.” All of these examples clearly show that both “in the meantime” and “meanwhile” denote a transition between a “before” and an “after” scenario; without a “before” scenario as an opening statement, neither “in the meantime” nor “meanwhile” can function properly as a transitional device.

So while there’s nothing wrong with starting an “after” sentence with either “in the meantime” or meanwhile,” that sportscaster-crush of yours would be ill-advised to ever begin a sportscast with an opening spiel that starts with the words “in the meantime” or “meanwhile.” Without a “before” statement or scenario preceding it, that statement definitely will make that sportscaster sound silly, even nonsensical. And for him to do that habitually would be proof that perhaps his English isn’t good enough for sportscasting—a sorry state of affairs that, well, might just vaporize your crush on him.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

Do we use “most expressively” or “more expressively”?

Question by Espie C., visitor of the Forum’s Facebook page (March 10, 12014):

Hi, do tell which of these two sentences is correct because I myself am not sure:
  
“The last contestant sang most expressively than the other contestants.” 

“Most” or “more”?

My reply to Espie C.:

In that sentence, either “most” or “more” can be used to yield practically the same sense, as follows:

1. “The last contestant sang more expressively than the other contestants.”
2. “The last contestant sang most expressively among the contestants.”

(Note that the word “other” has to be knocked off in Sentence 2 to make its syntax beyond reproach.)

I’d say though that using “more expressively than” is more idiomatic than using “most expressively among.”

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

How to construct sentences with multiple subordinate clauses

Question from Miss Mae, Forum member (February 23, 2014):

Is there a rule or something on using subordinate clauses more than once in a sentence, as in the example below?

“Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” ~weekly newspaper

My reply to Miss Mae:

Whether a sentence only has a single subordinate clause or several subordinate clauses, there definitely are rules for linking them with the main or independent clause. Remember that by definition, a subordinate or dependent clause is a clause that augments an independent clause with additional information, but which cannot stand alone as a sentence. In a particular sentence, a subordinate clause either modifies the main (independent) clause or serves as a component of it. The subordinate clause will typically be introduced by a subordinating conjunction, as what “when” does in the sentence “The workers decided to strike when management rejected their demand for higher pay,” or by a relative pronoun, as what “who” does in “The military academy dismissed the cadet who came to class two minutes late.” In the first sentence, the main clause is “the workers decided to strike” and the subordinate clause is “when management rejected their demand for higher pay”; in the second sentence, the main clause is “the military dismissed the cadet” and the subordinate clause is “who came to class two minutes late.”

Now, depending on the additional information needed to put a sentence in the proper context, it’s perfectly possible for a sentence to have two or more subordinating clauses. For example, the first sentence presented above could take this expanded form: “The workers decided to strike when management swiftly rejected their demand for higher pay and when labor officials summarily ignored their union’s demand for arbitration.” Note that in the expanded sentence, the addition of the second subordinate clause “when labor officials summarily ignored their union’s demand for arbitration” didn’t require any punctuation after the first subordinate clause “when management swiftly rejected their demand for higher pay.”

The second sentence, on the other hand, could take this expanded form: “The military academy dismissed the cadet who came to class two minutes late, who allegedly lied about the reason why, and who later questioned the harsh punishment meted him by an honor committee.” In this expanded sentence, the three relative clauses—“who came to class two minutes late,” “who allegedly lied about the reason why,” and “who later questioned the harsh punishment meted him by an honor committee”—are each set off by commas for structural soundness and clarity. Based on how this expanded sentence was structured, we can say that one rule to follow when there are two or more relative clauses in a sentence is that they must be properly punctuated for grammatical and structural correctness.

Now we are in a position to analyze the sentence that you quoted from a weekly newspaper: “Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” This sentence actually doesn’t fit the bill of a sentence with more than one subordinate clause; in fact, it only has one subordinate clause, “although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” The clause “but adults are not exempted” is not a subordinate clause but a coordinate clause that uses the coordinating conjunction “but” to link it to the main clause “bronchial asthma is common among children.” This linkage means that the clause “bronchial asthma is common among children” and “adults are not exempted” are coordinate clauses; together, they form a compound clause, “bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted,” which becomes a compound-complex sentence when the subordinate clause “although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former” is linked to them.

For clarity, however, I would think that it would be highly advisable to punctuate the compound-complex linkage with a comma, as follows: “Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not exempted, although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” Even with this correction, though, I must say that the sentence suffers from a wrong word choice. “Exempted” is definitely not the right word; “immune from it” would be closer to the intended sense. I would therefore rewrite that sentence this way: “Bronchial asthma is common among children but adults are not immune to it, although the latter can deal with it more responsibly than the former.” 

Having answered your specific question, I don’t wish to leave the subject giving the impression that this is all there is to know about subordinating clauses, whether there’s only one or multiples of them. I therefore would like to show two more examples of how punctuation plays a major role in the construction of sentences with two or more subordinate clauses. 

To begin with, a subordinate clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction can be positioned either after or before the main clause. 

Here’s an example of subordinating clauses positioned after the main clause: “The foreign student was denied admission to law school even after she passed the entrance exams and although she had already paid the school fees.” If the subordinating clauses are positioned before the main clause, here’s how that sentence would be structured: “Even after she passed the entrance exams, and although she had already paid the school fees, the foreign student was denied admission to law school.” It’s perfectly all right not to punctuate the two subordinate clauses with a comma, but as we can see, the statement becomes more emphatic if the subordinate clauses are punctuated with a comma.

Admittedly, subordinate clauses introduced by the relative pronouns “who,” “whose,” “which,” and “that” are much tougher to handle than those introduced by subordinating conjunctions. The need for a comma to punctuate the link between the main clause and the relative clause or clauses is dependent on whether those clauses are restrictive (essential) or nonrestrictive (nonessential). As this is a pretty complicated grammar aspect, I won’t attempt to take up the matter in detail here; instead, I would like to refer you to the very comprehensive discussion of relative clauses in the following earlier postings of mine in the Forum:

Getting to know the relative clauses better - I

Getting to know the relative clauses better - II

I trust that this has adequately clarified the matter of handling multiple subordinate clauses for you.

Click to post a comment or read comments

Click here to see all postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Rejoinder by Miss Mae, December 28, 2013:

It seems that I have more than my grammatical lapses to think of in my quest for achieving good English.

As you had pointed out, the reason I have thought something was amiss in the sentence below is that it is constructed in British English meant for British English-speaking readers:

Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.

So would it be wise if we just stick to one kind of English? Globalization is just around the corner, after all...

My reply to Miss Mae:

Even with globalization, my advice is to stick to American English anywhere in the Philippines and when speaking or writing for target audiences in American English-speaking countries. When intending to live, work, or study in Great Britain or in any of the Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, etc.), you’ve got to learn to speak and to write British English as well as you can. You’ll be amazed by its many differences from American English in vocabulary, spelling, idioms, and syntax. I don’t think there’s any way for British English or American English to meld into just one kind of English. Regardless of globalization, there’s just too much national pride and prejudice involved on both sides of the language divide for that to happen in the foreseeable future.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

When using a parenthetical is necessary in a sentence

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (February 8, 2014):

Is the parenthetical necessary in the sentence below?

“For all its contradictions—maybe even because of them—the region has something for everyone.” (From a government web portal)

My reply to Miss Mae:

Before taking up your question, let’s clarify first what a parenthetical is.

By definition, a parenthetical is any amplifying or explanatory word, phrase, or sentence that’s set off from a sentence by some form of punctuation. Its distinguishing characteristic is that the sentence remains grammatically correct even without it, but it isn’t necessarily optional or semantically expendable. It may be needed to put the statement in a desired context, to establish the logic of the sentence, or to convey a particular tone or mood for the statement. Whether it’s optional or necessary largely depends on the kind of punctuation chosen for it.

The most basic parenthetical is one that’s set off from the sentence by a pair of commas, like this one: “Jose Rizal, who was the seventh of 11 children, was born in 1861 to a prosperous haciendero couple in the Philippines.” Here, the parenthetical is the nonrestrictive relative clause “who was the seventh of 11 children.” Recall that a nonrestrictive clause provides information that’s not absolutely needed to understand the sentence; in other words, it is nondefining information. Thus, the sentence will remain grammatically and semantically intact even without it: “Jose Rizal was born in 1861 to a prosperous haciendero couple in the Philippines.” 

A second type of parenthetical is one that’s set off from the sentence by a pair of dashes, as in the sentence you presented: “For all its contradictions—maybe even because of them—the region has something for everyone.” Here, the pair of dashes folds into the main sentence this subordinate idea, “maybe even because of them.” The pair or dashes provides a much stronger break in the thought or structure of the sentence than that provided by a pair of enclosing commas. 

Such parentheticals won’t work when punctuated by a pair of commas instead of a pair of dashes: “For all its contradictions, maybe even because of them, the region has something for everyone.” What we have here is a run-on sentence—a comma splice—because the pauses provided by the pair of commas are much too brief to indicate the sudden shift from the major developing thought to the subordinate idea.

This brings us to the third kind of parenthetical, one that’s set off from the sentence by the curved marks we know as the parenthesis. The question, though, is if the punctuation provided by the parenthesis will work in the sentence you provided. Let’s see: “For all its contradictions (maybe even because of them), the region has something for everyone.” Well, the sentence obviously remains grammatically airtight, but the use of parenthesis instead of dashes clearly implies that the writer or speaker doesn’t attach as much importance to the qualifying idea as he would when he uses double dashes instead.

Now we are ready to answer the question you asked at the outset: Is the parenthetical necessary in that sentence?

It really all depends on the writer’s intention or style. By using the pair of dashes as punctuation, the writer evidently wanted to dramatize the alternative or contrasting idea expressed by the phrase “maybe even because of them.” But note that the writer could as well have chosen to be just matter-of-fact about that alternative by using the conjunction “or” to indicate it, as follows: “For all its contradictions or maybe even because of them, the region has something for everyone.”

This time we find it’s not absolutely necessary to use the phrase “maybe even because of them” as a parenthetical after all.

FURTHER READINGS ON PARENTHETICALS:
A unified approach to the proper use of punctuation in English - Part I
A unified approach to the proper use of punctuation in English - Part II
A grammar conversation on parenthetical usage
---------
This essay first appeared in Jose Carillo’s “English Plain and Simple” column in the February 15, 2014 issue of The Manila Times © 2014 by Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Click to post a comment or read comments

Click here to see all postings in this section
(requires registration to view & post)

Rejoinder by Miss Mae, December 28, 2013:

It seems that I have more than my grammatical lapses to think of in my quest for achieving good English.

As you had pointed out, the reason I have thought something was amiss in the sentence below is that it is constructed in British English meant for British English-speaking readers:

Some staffed foreign NGOs, often in the area of women’s health, which organizations the Taliban permitted to continue.

So would it be wise if we just stick to one kind of English? Globalization is just around the corner, after all...

My reply to Miss Mae:

Even with globalization, my advice is to stick to American English anywhere in the Philippines and when speaking or writing for target audiences in American English-speaking countries. When intending to live, work, or study in Great Britain or in any of the Commonwealth countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, etc.), you’ve got to learn to speak and to write British English as well as you can. You’ll be amazed by its many differences from American English in vocabulary, spelling, idioms, and syntax. I don’t think there’s any way for British English or American English to meld into just one kind of English. Regardless of globalization, there’s just too much national pride and prejudice involved on both sides of the language divide for that to happen in the foreseeable future.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

---

Critique of the awful English of a college magazine in India

Forum member Miss Mae did the grammar critique below of the awful English of the foreword of a college magazine published by the NMSSVN College in Nagamalai, Madurai, India. A scanned copy of the foreword was sent to the Forum last August 8, 2013 by Prof. R. Muthukumar, a business administration professor in that college.

MISS MAE’S CRITIQUE:

There seems to be a problem with how this “Foreword” was written. It should have introduced Prof. R. Muthukumar’s college magazine. So how could a page of acknowledgements pass for one?

Anyway, there are nine other problems in this “Foreword,” namely (boldfacing of problematic grammatical element mine):

1. Capitalization: “We are very delighted to say that Our Magazine is an outcome of hard work of credential people to bring out a veritable publication.” (“O” in Our and “M” in Magazine should not be in capital letters.) 

2. Word Usage: “We are very delighted to say that our magazine is an outcome of hard work of credential people to bring out a veritable publication. (The word should be “credible” instead.) 

3. Wrong Spelling: “It is an anunciation that our college have a collection of versatile people who have an acuity and acumen to speak about prevalent issues of the society.” (It must be how it should be spelled in British English. But I checked. “Annunciation” is really misspelled here.)

4. Wrong Tense: (Same sentence as in Item 3 above) “It is an annunciation that our college have a collection of versatile people who have an acuity and acumen to speak about prevalent issues of the society.” (“College” is singular and should be paired instead with “has,” the singular form of “have.”) 

5. Misuse of article: “The articles strike a propinquity in dealing with sensitive and unique ideas.” (As you have explained in When do we need to use the article “a”, the articles a and an should be used with count nouns only. “Propinquity” is an abstract non-count noun.)

6. Word Meanings: “Kudos to the Editorial board members for meritorious and sincere effort into bringing out a meticulous publication.” (According to thefreedictionary.com, “meritorious” is an adjective describing an action that deserves reward or praise. “Sincere,” on the other hand, is an adjective denoting an action that is genuine and true. But should the Editorial Board members really be congratulated for preparing excessively and publishing a magazine without any pretense?) 

7. Word Usage: “Indebt gratitude should be showered on the management for their encouragement and co-operation rendered for the publication of this Annual Book.” (There’s no such word as “indebt” in thefreedictionary.com;  there’s the phrase “in debt” though and the participial form “indebted.” But even if the word “indebt” is acceptable—or the phrase “indebt gratitude,” for that matter—I still think that it was such a highfalutin expression of praise for something the school’s management should really have done. )

I also find peristrephic too big a word for a Foreword in this sentence: “They have been peristrephic and alert all the time to tap out the talents of the faculty.” (“Peristrephic” means turning around, according to thefreedictionary.com.) 

8. Spelling: “Hence once again we bow down our heads for their untiring efforts taken for the upliftment of the staff members and for the progress of our college.” (Upliftment is an Indian English word meaning “improvement of a person's moral or spiritual condition.” Shouldn’t the Editorial board members stick to one variant of English only?)

9. Inclusion: “We also thank the Edison Printers for having done this work in an excellent manner.” (But this is a Foreword!)

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

After 3 years, the English of a college organ in India remains awful

Here’s clear, incontrovertible proof that whether individually or institutionally, achieving proficiency in English simply doesn’t happen overnight but takes years of continuing study, rigorous application, and sustained practice.

A little over three years ago, on August 8, 2010, Prof. R. Muthukumar, a business administration professor of NMSSVN College in Nagamalai, Madurai, India, sent to the Forum the following scanned image of the foreword page of the college magazine:

THEN (circa 2010):

Last August 8, 2013, Prof. Muthukumar sent to the Forum the scanned image of the foreword page of the 2013 issue of that same magazine, shown below, with the following note: “With an indomitable spirit my college Editorial Board has done it again—in this year’s Magazine!”

NOW (circa 2013):

Comments about the English of the foreword above will be most welcome.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

The problem with the chosen test answer is its faulty syntax

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (June 19, 2013):

Note: The sentence was from TOEFL Structure and Written Expression Test #1.

My reply to Miss Mae:

Your question is about Test Item #78 of TOEFL Structure and Written Expression Test #1. It belongs to the tests under Part B. Written Expression. The directions for these tests are as follows:

In these tests, each sentence has four underlined words or phrases. The four underlined parts of the sentence are marked A, B, C and D. Identify the one underlined word or phrase that must be changed in order for the sentence to be correct. Then, on your answer sheet, find the number of the question and fill in the space that corresponds to the letter of the answer you have chosen.

Now, Test Item #78 is as follows:

The correct answer choice for this test is the underlined word or phrase that must be changed in order to be correct; in other words, it is the grammatically wrong part of the sentence. By inspection, we will find that there’s nothing grammatically wrong with how each of these grammatical elements are used in the sentence: (A) “American,” (B) “famous,” and (D) “within.” In the case of (C) “such as,” however, there’s something wrong with the syntax of the expression formed by using it: “…famous for iconic images such as paintings as ‘American’.” Specifically, the form “such as paintings as” is grammatically faulty and awkward. For the whole sentence to express its idea correctly, that form needs to be grammatically corrected as follows: “…famous for iconic images in such paintings as ‘American’.” Answer Choice (C) “such as,” which is grammatically faulty, is therefore the correct answer.

It’s possible that you got confused in answering that particular test question because the explicit directions for both Part B. Written Expression and Part A. Structure were inadvertently not provided for this particular set of TOEFL practice tests. We are sorry for this oversight, and we have now provided those explicit directions for the benefit of those who’d be likewise taking these practice tests.

Thank you for your question and for the opportunity it has given us to find out that the directions to those two parts of the test have been overlooked.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

Watch out for subject-verb agreement in incomplete sentence tests

Question by Miss Mae, Forum member (June 17, 2013):

Could you please explain why the dependent clause in the sentence below requires the past form of continue?

My answer: D
Correct answer: A

Note: The sentence was from TOEIC Practice Test #1 - Incomplete Sentences

My reply to Miss Mae:

Based on its construction, the sentence in question needs a verb to make sense. Answer Choice “(B) continuing” couldn’t be the correct answer because the progressive form of the verb is grammatically faulty here. Answer Choice “(C) continuously” is an adverb and doesn’t fit into the sentence construction. This leaves only Answer Choice “(A) continued” and Answer Choice “(D) continues” as the only possible answers.

On inspection, we find that the subject of the dependent clause is the compound subject “strong winds and torrential rains.” This subject is plural, so Answer Choice “(D) continues” will result in a subject-verb disagreement; of course, it could have been a correct answer if it were in the present-tense plural form “continue.” This being the case, Answer Choice “(A) continued,” with the verb in the past tense, is the only possible correct answer. Recall that in English grammar, the past tense form of the verb is the same regardless of whether the subject is singular or plural.

Rejoinder from Miss Mae (June 18, 2013):

So if the answer listed in D is “continue,” it would be right?

My reply to Miss Mae:

Yes, absolutely. In English-testing parlance, such an answer choice is called a distractor—ananswer that can be correct in an altered context. It is meant to test grammatical proficiency and sensitivity to the nuances of the language.

Click here to discuss/comment

Click here to see all postings in this section

Reporting English misuse:

You can report the English misuse by e-mailing a verbatim transcription or an image in GIF or JPEG format to jcarilloforum@gmail.com. When doing so, please be mindful of the laws against libel and oral defamation. Our interest is not to humiliate English-language offenders but to help them rectify the error, so there’s no need to identify them in your messages. Just indicate the city, district, street, and general location where you saw or found the particular English misuse to make it easier for those concerned to be alerted about it.

We will also need your full name, residence, e-mail address, and telephone number so we can confirm with you before the posting is made on this page. Just let us know if you don’t want to be identified in the posting so we can withhold your identity. Please keep in mind that this page will be moderated and will not entertain scurrilous reports nor those sent in by anonymous sources.

That said, you can now get started in doing volunteer police work for the sake of good English! It should be a truly gratifying educational experience and you and other English lovers can have lots of fun besides!