Jose Carillo's Forum

YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

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

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

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

Hi, there!

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

My reply to reza:

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Confused over the present perfect continuous tense

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

Hi there,

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

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

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

My reply to spelling:

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

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

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

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

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

Rejoinder by spelling (July 5, 2012):

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

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

Thank you!

My reply to spelling’s rejoinder:

You’re most welcome!

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

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

2. Are all linking verbs intransitive?

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

My reply to r_a:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linking verbs are of two kinds:

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

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

Distinction between action verbs and stative verbs

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

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

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

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

Confusion over stative verbs and dynamic verbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

All linking verbs are intransitive verbs

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

Not all stative verbs are intransitive verbs

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

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

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

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

Let’s analyze this statement closely.

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Figuring out the usage of the English articles

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

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

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Analyzing a disputable sentence construction

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

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

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

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

Rejoinder from Mwita Chacha (May 30, 2012):

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

My reply to Mwita Chacha’s rejoinder:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

My reply to Mwita Chacha:

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

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

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

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

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

When there are compelling reasons for using passive voice sentences

Dealing with the vexing inverted syntax of passive-voice sentences

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How to reduce adverb clauses to adverb phrases

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

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

Thank you for your time.

My reply to Na30r:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How helping verbs, auxiliary verbs, and linking verbs differ

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

Hello!

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

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

I’m confused. Please explain.

Thanks.

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

Hello, Mr. Joe Carillo

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

My reply to r_a (April 20, 2012):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

Hello,

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

Two passages seem odd to me:

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

These past 10 years underscores the bonds between all Americans.

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

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

Thanks in advance for your explanation!

My reply to Mariese:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These past 10 years underscores the bonds between all Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Singular-plural conundrums; choice between gerunds and nouns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My reply to English Maiden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

My reply to melvinhate:

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The correct use of the semicolon

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Aardvark!

My reply to aadvarklee:

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

We will recall that semicolons have four other uses:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

My reply to English Maiden:

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

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

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

Rejoinder by English Maiden (March 22, 2012):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

A questionable line from the lyrics of a famous song

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

Hi, sir!

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

“All I hear ARE raindrops.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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

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

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

My reply to English Maiden:

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What sequence of tenses should we use in complex sentences?

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

Hi, Sir!

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

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

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

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

My reply to English Maiden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Why some intransitive verbs appear to take an object

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

My reply to r_a:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Grammar SOS!

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

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

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

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

My reply to English Maiden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How literal adverbial phrases differ from idiomatic ones

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

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

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

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

My reply to English Maiden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Getting to know the 4 types of conditional sentences

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

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

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

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

My reply to English Maiden:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Are electronic documents considered published?

Question by melvinhate (January 16, 2012):

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

My reply to melvinhate:

Are electronic documents considered published? I would think so.

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

Status as a “Printed Publication”

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

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The proper tenses for the two clauses in complex sentences

Question by English Maiden, Forum member (December 30, 2011):

Sir, which would be the right statement to make in each of the following situations:

1. I just got off the phone with a stranger...
(A) “That is the weirdest call I’ve had in a long time.”
(B) “That was the weirdest call I’ve had in a long time.”
(C) “That was the weirdest call I had in a long time.”
(D) “That was the weirdest call I'd had in a long time.”

2. I just finished watching a really good movie...
(A) “(*insert title of the movie) is the best movie I’ve seen in years!
(B) “* was the best movie I’ve seen in years!”
(C) “* was the best movie I had seen in years.”
(D) “* was the best movie I saw in years.”

I would really appreciate if you could answer my question and provide an explanation as to which of the alternative answers are wrong and which are right.

My reply to English Maiden:

The correct statements to make in the two situations you presented are as follows:

1. I just got off the phone with a stranger...
(B) “That was the weirdest call I’ve had in a long time.”

The statement in B combines a main clause in the past tense (“that was the weirdest call”) and a relative clause in the present perfect (“that I’ve had in a long time”). Keep in mind that the sentence “That was the weirdest call I’ve had in a long time” is an ellipted or streamlined form of the complex sentence “That was the weirdest call that I’ve had in a long time,” with the relative pronoun “that” dropped to make the statement more concise and easier to articulate. The past tense “was” is called for in the main clause because the call was completed right before the time of speaking, so is now a thing of the past, while the present perfect is called for in the relative clause because the action of the verb “have” in the sense of possession has continued from an unspecified time in the past up to the present time.

2. I just finished watching a really good movie...
(A) “The King’s Speech is the best movie I’ve seen in years!”

The statement in A combines a main clause in the present tense (“The King’s Speech is the best movie”) and a relative clause in the present perfect (“that I’ve seen in years!”). Keep in mind that the sentence “The King’s Speech is the best movie I’ve seen in years!” is an ellipted or streamlined form of the complex sentence “The King’s Speech is the best movie that I’ve seen in years!”, with the relative pronoun “that” dropped to make the statement more concise and easier to articulate. The present tense is called for in the main clause because the speaker’s perception that The King’s Speech is the best movie she has seen in years is being made at the time of speaking, while the present perfect is called for in the relative clause “that I’ve seen in years!” because the condition has subsisted from an unspecified time in the past up to the time of speaking.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How the expletive “there” works in inverted sentences

Question from Hairstyler, Forum member (December 26, 2011):

How does the word “there” function in the following sentence structure?

There +verb [live, exist, remain, come, arise, appear, enter] + noun.”

My reply to Hairstyler:

Depending on the verb used, “there” can function as an adverb or as an expletive in this sentence structure:

There + live (exist, remain, come, arise, appear, enter) + noun.

“There” as adverb

 As an adverb, “there” works in the sense of (a) “in or at that place,” (b) “to or at that place,” (c) “at that point or stage,” (d) “in that matter, respect, or relation,” or (e) “interjectionally expressing satisfaction, approval, encouragement or sympathy, or defiance.” 

For instance, the sentence “There lives the king” can be construed as the inverted form of the sentence “The King lives there,” with “there” working in the sense of “in or in that place.” When expressed interjectionally as “There lives the king!”, however, that sentence becomes an expression of satisfaction that the king is still alive after fears that he had died.

The sentence “There appears the king” or “There remains the king” can similarly be construed to be the inverted form of “The king appears there” or “The king remains there.” However, take note that we can’t use the verb “come” for that sentence structure, we need to replace it with the verb “go” to form the inverted sentence “There goes the king” and its normal structure “The king goes there.”  

The expletive or anticipatory “there”

In contrast, in the sentence “There exists a monster that feeds on newly borns,” “there” works as the expletive “there” or the so-called anticipatory “there.” In this expletive sense, “there” occupies the position of the subject or object of a verb in normal English word order and anticipates a subsequent word or phrase that supplies the needed meaningful content (this definition is from the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary). It works in much the same way as the expletive “it” in this sentence: “It was a cold night when the baby was born.” Note that in expletive “there” sentences, “there” generally can be dropped to make the sentence more concise; in particular, the sentence “There exists a monster that feeds on newly borns” can be reduced to “A monster feeds on newly borns.” (The intended emphasis or drama vanishes in this “there”-less version, though.)

In the sentence “There remains the matter of the king’s vindictiveness,” “there” also works as an expletive rather than as an adverb; so with “there” in the sentence “There appears to be a conspiracy against the king” and “There arises a conspiracy against the king.” Note that the sentence “There remains the matter of the king’s vindictiveness” can be restructured into “The matter of the king’s vindictiveness remains” and “There arises a conspiracy against the king” can be restructured into “A conspiracy against the king arises.” However, this restructuring can’t be done in the case of “There appears to be a conspiracy against the king”; the construction “A conspiracy against the king appears” is semantically dysfunctional. We need to be extra sensitive to the sense of the specific verb used in “there” sentences. 

(For more on the usage of the expletive “there,” check out “The often-derided expletive ‘there’ can sometimes be put to good use” in My Media English Watch.)

We can see from the above examples of “there” usage that how the word “there” works—whether as an adverb or as an expletive—depends on the particular verb used and on how the sentence is constructed or punctuated.

Rejoinder from Hairstyler (December 27, 2011):

Please clarify whether the following sentence belongs to inverted form and are correct or not.

(1) “Long, long ago, there lived near the sea an old fisherman and his wife.”
(2) “There stood a tall tree on the top of the hill.”
(3) “There followed an uncomfortable silence.”

My reply to Hairstyler:

Yes, these three sentences are all grammatically correct and they are all inverted sentences that use the expletive-“there”:

(1) “Long, long ago, there lived near the sea an old fisherman and his wife.”
(2) “There stood a tall tree on the top of the hill.”
(3) “There followed an uncomfortable silence.”

See how the expletive “there” can be taken out from those sentences to give them the normal subject-verb-predicate structure:

(1) “Long, long ago, an old fisherman and his wife lived near the sea” or “An old fisherman and his wife livednear the sea long, long ago.”
(2) “A tall tree stood on the top of the hill.”
(3) “An uncomfortable silence followed.”

Further rejoinder from Hairstyler (December 27, 2011):

Please clarify whether the usage of inversion in “there” structure is used for emphasizing the verb.

My reply to Hairstyler:

Yes, definitely. Inverted sentences allow us to abandon the normal subject-verb-complement (S-V/C) sequence so we can deliver the verb or its complement wherever we feel it can do its work most emphatically. For example, feel the difference in the emotional power between “Long, long ago, there lived an old fisherman and his wife” and its normal sentence-structure equivalent: "An old fisherman and his wife lived near the sea long, long ago." Of course, using the expletive-"there" isn't the only way to do inversion. Compare the heightened feeling in this inverted sentence, "So intense was his anger that he left his friends in a huff," to the matter-of-fact tone of its S-V/C counterpart: "He left his friends in a huff because his anger was so intense." Putting the complement "so intense was his anger" ahead of the subject and the verb makes such a big difference in emotional power!

Click to read responses or post a response

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

As a writer, how do I improve my English grammar?

E-mail from JC, a Filipino freelance writer based in New Zealand (December 21, 2011):

I’m most thankful to you for sharing your knowledge about English grammar through your Forum. You’re helping me a lot. How I wish I could be as good as you! I’m a writer who’s always struggling with grammar. I have left my university job at the Central Philippine University for a freelance adventure here in New Zealand.

If I may ask, how do I improve my English grammar? What are your suggestions—apart, of course, from browsing your English-usage website and learning from it? Would going back to university for formal study help?

Merry Christmas!

My reply to JC:

Merry Christmas, too, JC! I hope your New Zealand adventure is proving to be a great and rewarding experience for you!

You ask how you might be able to improve your English grammar. May I suggest that you widen this objective to include English usage, meaning not just observance of grammar rules but the use of the language itself? And since you are a writer, I think you should specifically aim to make yourself a better, more readable writer in English.

To be a good writer, you need to have a respectably wide English vocabulary. As the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said about language, the limits of our language are the limits of our mind, and all we really know is what we have words for. You need not attempt to memorize the entire 750,000-word English lexicon, though; just make it a point to continually enrich your vocabulary with words or idioms that your target readers can easily understand. And each time you encounter a new word or idiom in your readings, resist the temptation to put off for later finding out precisely what it means. Check out its definitions and usage right away from a respectable dictionary.

Make sure, too, that you are using the right English words. Now that you’re abroad, keep in mind that American English and British English don’t have the same spelling and meanings for a sizeable number of words. In the Philippines where American English is the standard, use as your reference an American-English dictionary like, say, the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary or the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. But in New Zealand where British English is the standard, get yourself an Oxford English Dictionary. Don’t just wing it with your English words and spelling from now on.

Next, make yourself thoroughly familiar with the various tools of English for putting words together into grammatically and structurally correct, coherent, and clear statements. Don’t be content with just being knowledgeable with the English content words—the nouns, pronouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and interjections. You absolutely need to master the rules for using them, but always remember that they only work as carriers of the meaning that reside in each of them. As important is putting them together with the English function words—the prepositions, the conjunctions, and the conjunctive adverbs. They are the logical operators of the language, and unless you are proficient in using them, you really can’t hope to graduate from jotting down just a few grammar-perfect sentences to writing coherent, logical, and persuasive narratives and expositions that people would want to read and pay for.

Now to your last question: Would going back to the university help to improve your English grammar? I don’t think so, JC. It certainly can broaden your outlook and teach you a respectable profession, vocation, or craft, but I doubt if it can improve your English grammar that much. University study just isn’t designed for that. I really think you’ll be much better off embarking on a purposive, no-nonsense self-study of English grammar and usage and doing lots of writing practice along the way.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The proper syntax for using “waterloo” figuratively

Question by melvinhate, Forum member (December 23, 2011):

Which one of these sentences is correct: “This study is humbly dedicated to those whose waterloo is English” or “This study is humbly dedicated to those whose English subject is their waterloo”?

My reply to melvinhate:

You ask which of these sentences is correct:

“This study is humbly dedicated to those whose waterloo is English.”
or
“This study is humbly dedicated to those whose English subject is their waterloo.”

I would say neither is syntactically correct, taking into account that the noun “waterloo” is a generic term for “a decisive or final defeat or setback.” One could have many waterloos in life other than English, so it’s not semantically correct to say “whose waterloo is English” or “whose English subject is their waterloo” in that very specific, single sense. To properly convey the idea of English being just one decisive setback to those being addressed, I think you need an active verb like, say, “find” in that statement and reconfigure the sentence as follows:

“This study is humbly dedicated to those who find English their waterloo.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Should “practice” be spelled with a “c” in the last syllable?

Question e-mailed by Isabel H. (December 13, 2011):

Hi, Joe: In your note about the Forum’s Students Sounding Board feature last week, you wrote, “Make yourself more grammar-savvy and practice, practice.”

Here I’ve been telling my students that there’s a difference between spelling “practice” with a “c” and with an “s” (as you’ve spelled it). Am I right or wrong?  

Cheers!

Isabel H. 

My reply to Isabel:

The longstanding spelling for “practice” whether as a verb or a noun is with a “c” in the second syllable, but using “s” has always been an acceptable alternative. At least this is the usage I've observed in the Philippines, which as you know uses the American English standard; I’m not very familiar with current spelling preferences for that word in British English. At any rate, now that you’ve called my attention to this matter, I notice a growing tendency among writers in Philippine media to use “c” for “practice” as a noun, and to use “s” for “practise” as a verb. Since there’s no hard-and-fast rule on this, though, I think the choice between “c” and “s” is largely a matter of style. In my case, I’m more comfortable using “c” whether “practice” is used as a noun or a verb. Every now and then, however, I’d catch myself using “s” unconsciously. When this happens, I’d change it to "c" particularly if I use the word two or more times in the same exposition. I think what’s really important is to be consistent in spelling that word—that’s all.

Response by hill roberts, Forum member (December 16, 2011):

Yes, we use “c” in Europe. I myself had to switch to British spelling thirty-odd years ago when I started teaching English in a private capacity since Europeans follow the British spelling and not the American one. I’ve got so used to it that it has become automatic.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How plain and simple English and advertising language differ

Question sent as private message by Totodan, new Forum member (December 5, 2011):

Hi, Joe! I recently bought your book Give Your English the Winning Edge. Written at the topmost part of the cover, right above the title, is the statement: “This time, excellent English is now within your easy reach!”

GYEWE

There is something about the statement that makes me uncomfortable. I think it could have done away with either the phrase “this time” or the word “now.” Having both of them in that statement sounds like excessively emphasizing the present, don’t you think?

I hope I don’t sound irreverent, Joe, knowing how punctilious and careful you are in your work. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

But let me state on record that I find the book extremely authoritative and an outstanding supplement to your earlier work, English Plain and Simple

Warmest regards to you and to all Forum readers!

My reply to Totodan:

I’m delighted to know that you have bought a copy of my book, Give Your English the Winning Edge. I’m sure you’ll find it a reliable informative resource in your continuing quest for better English.

That comment of yours is very perceptive, Totodan, and I’d like to assure you that you’re not being irreverent at all in calling my attention to the language of that blurb for my book. In fact, I’m glad that you’ve given me this opportunity to explain why I phrased that blurb precisely this way:

“This time, excellent English is now within your reach.”

You said that this blurb makes you uncomfortable for sounding like it’s excessively emphasizing the present. Your feeling is that it would read better if it does away with either the phrase “this time” or the word “now,” as follows:

“Excellent English is now within your reach.”

or:

“This time, excellent English is within your reach.”

I’m sure that with this opportunity to look at all three variations of the blurb, you can begin to feel and fully appreciate the difference in their shades of meaning.

To begin with, both of your suggested versions have only one overt time frame in mind: the present. 

The first, “Excellent English is now within your reach,” denotes a present condition or state without alluding to a previous one; it simply declares that at present, excellent English is now within the reach of those being addressed. I would say that from an advertising standpoint, it’s a ho-hum, almost trivial statement that’s not particularly worthy of a second look.

The second, while grammatically correct, is semantically problematic. Read it more closely to see what I mean: “This time, excellent English is within your reach.” Without the implicit inference to a previous condition or state (the silent “then” implied by the adverb “now” in your first version), there’s a certain disconnect between the qualifier “this time” and the clause “excellent English is within you reach.” Indeed, without “now” in the main clause, the adverbial modifier “this time” becomes grammatically superfluous. In fact, that “now”-less version of the blurb, “This time, excellent English is within your reach,” is a trivial declarative statement—one definitely not worthy of being used as a come-on for the book.

This brings me to why I decided to use this more attention-getting blurb instead:

“This time, excellent English is now within your reach.”

That statement explicitly operates on two time frames: (1) the time (“the last time”) when the book being touted wasn’t available yet, which can be inferred from the use of “this time,” and (2) the present continuing condition denoted by the adverb “now” in the main clause. We can better understand the sense intended by that statement by going over the following bit of dialogue:

Speaker #1: “I don’t have the courage to propose to Sally. When I courted her four years ago, she dismissed me as nothing but a good-for-nothing AB undergrad.”
Speaker #2: “But that was the last time. This time, you are now a full-fledged lawyer. Go for it!”

Now, see how the drama in Speaker #2’s retort all but vanishes when we take out “this time” from the second sentence:

Speaker #1: “I don’t have the courage to propose to Sally. When I courted her four years ago, she dismissed me as nothing but a good-for-nothing AB undergrad.”
Speaker #2: “But that was the last time. You are now a full-fledged lawyer. Go for it!”

See also the same thing happen when we take out “now” from that second sentence:

Speaker #1: “I don’t have the courage to propose to Sally. When I courted her four years ago, she dismissed me as nothing but a good-for-nothing AB undergrad.”
Speaker #2: “But that was the last time. This time, you are a full-fledged lawyer. Go for it!”

I hope that by this time, it’s already clear why I phrased that blurb for my book that way. We can say that this is actually a little demonstration of the difference between plain and simple English, on one hand, and the language of advertising, on the other. The first primarily aims only to be clearly understood; the other, to catch your attention by using much more emphatic language in the hope that you’ll buy the idea—in this particular case, to buy the book.

Rejoinder by Totodan (December 7, 2011):

As I said, Joe, I’d be happy to be proven wrong, and having now seen the blurb in that perspective, I am indeed sufficiently convinced. I guess that is one shortcoming I have, this lack of appreciation of the exacting language required in successful advertising. This is not to say that I find the English used in advertising quite complicated. It's just that for far too long I have been exposed to too much corporatese and office gobbledygook, and so as not to acquire those bad habits, I have trained myself—both as writer and as teacher to my staff—to in the most concise manner. I'm glad you have explained it to me in the way that you did. This time, I shall now always keep in mind to have that perspective.  I hope I said that right?

My reply to Totodan:

That’s right, Totodan! I’m delighted that you’ve now gotten the hang of it.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Does the pattern “...because of which ...” exist in English?

Question by Hairsyler, Forum member (December 8, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

Please let me know if the pattern “....because of which ...” exists. I rarely see that pattern.

My reply to Hairstyler:

Yes, the pattern “because of which” exists and is legitimate usage in English grammar. It means “on account of which,” as in this sentence: “I regret reading that horror novel, because of which I hardly slept last night.” Note that the comma before the subordinate clause is a must in such constructions in the same way as in its equivalent sentence using “on account of which”: “I regret reading that horror novel, on account of which I hardly slept last night.”

Without that comma, both "because of which" and "on account of which" constructions become dysfunctional, turning into run-on sentences:

“I regret reading that horror novel because of which I hardly slept last night.”
“I regret reading that horror novel on account of which I hardly slept last night.”

P.S. Some English speakers don’t feel comfortable using the “because of which” pattern. They’d rather use its semicolon-punctuated equivalent, as follows:

“I regret reading that horror novel; because of it, I hardly slept last night.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Some more tough choices on article usage in English

Question by English Maiden, Forum member (November 27, 2011):

Sir, I’m not quite sure which kind of articles to use in the following sentences:

“My mother is (a/the) perfect mother.”
“This is (a/the) perfect time to go shopping.”
“These are (no article/the) perfect books to read in my free time.”
“We need to come up with (a/the) perfect backup plan.”

Please explain to me which kind of articles to use and why.

P.S. Also, why can we say or write “I had A FEAR of falling from high places when I was in high school” during the first mention of the noun FEAR or when we are establishing for the reader/listener the existence of such a fear, but not “I have AN ABILITY to spell my name backwards,” given the exact same instance or intent as with the 1st sentence?

My reply to English Maiden:

All of the four “perfect”-using sentences you presented should use the article “the.” They are socially acceptable idiomatic overstatements that would lose their cogency if the article “a” or no article is used instead. So even if nothing’s perfect and you know in your heart that they are not exactly truthful, don’t hesitate to say those statements as follows:

“My mother is the perfect mother.”
“This is the perfect time to go shopping.”
“These are the perfect books to read in my free time.”
“We need to come up with the perfect backup plan.”

As to your question about the usage of the perfect tenses in the two sentences you presented, the difference between those sentences is as follows:

When you say “I had a fear of falling from high places when I was in high school,” you need to use the past perfect “had a fear” because based on that declaration of yours, that fear was a subsisting (continuing) condition during the time that you were in high school, and it can be inferred from that statement of yours that you no longer have that fear at present (today).

In contrast, when you say “I have an ability to spell my name backwards,” you need to use the present perfect “have an ability” because based on that declaration of yours, that ability to spell you name backwards has been a longstanding ability of yours that subsists up to the present. The present perfect is the tense that denotes that continuing condition.

Rejoinder from English Maiden:

Thank you for your explanation for using the before the word “perfect.” It is clear to me now. But what if I don’t want to express cogency or make my sentence sound compelling, would it be okay to precede the word perfect with the indefinite article using the same structure, as with "This is a perfect time to go shopping”? Or is that sentence grammatically and semantically wrong?

Also, I wasn’t asking about the use of the past perfect or present perfect in the sentences I presented with the subjects “fear” and “ability.” What I wanted to clarify was the use of articles in those sentences. I notice that the noun fear can occur with the indefinite article, as in “I have a fear of heights,” but the noun ability usually takes the definite article, even if it’ s being used in an indefinite, non-specific sense, as in “I have don’t have the ability to sing." Why is that?

You see, sir, I’m still having so much trouble with the definiteness and indefiniteness, and specificity and generality of nouns. For some reason, I can’t make heads or tails of when the noun, especially when it is countable and in the plural, is being used in an indefinite or definite sense, or in generic or specific reference. I don't think I even fully understand what those terms mean in the first place. What exactly do those four terms—definite, indefinite, generic, and specific—mean anyway? If you could explain to me in detail and simple terms the rules that govern article usage in the English language, I would really appreciate it.

And finally, sir, I need your opinion on this tweet that I just posted: “My uncle has a weird habit of talking to and feeding lizards in his room.” Is my use of the indefinite article before the noun “habit” correct? What about my not using an article before the noun phrase “lizards in his room”? Is it correct as well? And suppose I had written that tweet this way: “My uncle has a weird habit of talking to and feeding the lizards in his room.”

Would there be any difference in meaning if I chose to use the definite article “the” before the noun “lizard”? Quite frankly, sir, I can’t think of what difference in meaning, if any, putting the article the in that tweet would make. Please really help me understand. I am really extremely confused!

P.S. Sorry to post yet another question alongside this topic. It’s still related, don't worry. Smiley This consciousness of English grammar and rules that recently sprung up within me has taken its toll on my speech and writing. Now, I’m having difficulty with using words I’ve used with so much ease before. The words “courage” and “time” are an example. In the sentences that follow, what is the difference between the sentences that have the indefinite article before the words courage and time, and those that occur without it?

“I don’t have THE courage to sing.”
“I don’t have courage to sing.”

“I don’t have THE time to get a haircut.”
“I don’t have time to get a haircut.”

I used not to worry about using these words before, sir. I just want to get my confidence back. Please help me.

My reply to English Maiden’s rejoinder:

To be thoroughly conversant with the usage of the articles “a,” “an,” and “the,” you need a full-dress review of the nature and kinds of nouns in the English language. You will recall that there are seven kinds of nouns: common nouns, proper nouns, collective nouns, abstract nouns, compound nouns, count nouns, and mass nouns. There are specific rules for indicating the indefiniteness, definiteness, specificity, and particularity of each of these kinds of nouns. Click this link to the eHow Family Education website (http://www.ehow.com/list_6520007_seven-kinds-nouns.html) for its nifty, short and sweet description of each of them.

For the usage of the articles in modifying nouns, click this link to the Purdue Online Writing Lab (http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/540/01/). It makes a comprehensive discussion of the usage of English articles depending on the sound that begins a particular noun, the choice of article for count and noncount (mass) nouns, and the types of nouns that don’t need to be preceded by articles. I’m sure that after studiously going over the discussions in those two websites, your confusion over the usage of articles will forever be a thing of the past.

As to this tweet that you have just posted, “My uncle has a weird habit of talking to and feeding lizards in his room,” it’s a grammar-perfect sentence. It correctly uses of the indefinite article “a” for the noun “habit” and correctly omits using any article before the noun phrase “lizards in his room” Had you written that sentence as “My uncle has a weird habit of talking to and feeding the lizards in his room,” it would have given the weird impression that he knows those lizards intimately and that he knows precisely which and how many of them are regular denizens of his room.

Without the article “the” before “lizard,” on the other hand, it would indicate that his relationship with those lizards hasn’t really gotten out of hand; he just enjoys feeding them regardless of whether or not he knows them intimately and whether they are regular denizens of his room or just strangers out to get a free meal.

From this, we can see how profound the impact of article usage is to the subjects or objects of our sentences and, even more important, to what it is precisely that we want to say in English.

I noticed just now that you’ve made a P.S. regarding your confusion over the article usage for the following sentences: 

“I don’t have THE courage to sing.”
“I don’t have courage to sing.”

“I don’t have THE time to get a haircut.”
“I don’t have time to get a haircut.”

I’m sure that after going to the two websites I indicated earlier in this post, you’ll get your confidence back and find it a breeze figuring out which versions are correct in the sentence pairs you presented above.

Go for it and let me know what happens!

Rejoinder from English Maiden:

Thanks for that explanation, sir. It was really, really helpful. But I am afraid I still am not sure which of the sentences below are the correct ones. I’ll just take a guess. Sentences 1 and 4 are the ones that are correct. Please reply and tell me if I'm right or wrong. Thank you.

(1) “I don’t have THE courage to sing.”
(2) “I don’t have courage to sing.”

(3) “I don’t have THE time to get a haircut.”
(4) “I don’t have time to get a haircut.”

My reply to English Maiden’s rejoinder:

Sentence 1 is correct; Sentence 2 isn’t and sounds stilted as well.

Both Sentence 3 and Sentence 4 are correct. When the speaker uses the article “the,” he or she is referring to the specific length of time it takes to have that haircut; without the article “the,” he or she is referring to having a haircut in general, regardless of how long it might take. Be aware, though, that the difference is very slight and is often only in the speaker’s mind. The listener will probably not even notice that difference.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

When it’s a tough call whether a noun needs a definite article

Question by English Maiden, Forum member (November 25, 2011):

My question has to do with how to decide whether a noun or noun phrase modified by a prepositional phrase or relative clause should take definite article “the” or no article at all. In the sentences below, are the prepositional phrases and relative clauses modifying the nouns “definite” enough to take the article “the,” or is that article not needed or incorrect in these sentences? Or is that “the” optional, meaning that the sentence can work perfectly well with or without the indefinite article?

1. “Haters only hate THE things that they can’t get and THE people they can’t be.”
2. “Prevent me from knowing THE things that I don’t really have to know.”
3. “I will check out THE hot shopping spots in South Korea.”
4. “I hate THE people who don’t hold the elevator door open for you, no matter how loudly you say ‘Wait, I'll get in’.”
4. “What are THE things to consider when going abroad for a business trip?”

I’ve read each sentence aloud twice, first as written and second with the definite articles removed, and both versions of all five sentences seem correct to me. Is there really ever any difference? Please help to clear my mind.

P.S. Please add to my examples this sentence in the Facebook log-in page: “Facebook helps you share and connect with THE people in your life.” Is the modifying phrase “in your life” enough to make the noun “people” definite, hence to take the article “the”? To me, it’s not, because as a reader, I don’t know which “people in my life” the writer of that sentence is referring to. So, could it be that the correct way to write that sentence is by dropping the article “the,” as in “Facebook helps you share and connect with people in your life”?

My reply to English Maiden:

In all those five sentences of yours, the determining factor in whether to use the article “the” for the object noun phrases is the speaker’s or writer’s prior and specific knowledge or awareness of the fact or circumstance indicated or previous actual experience with the situation described. With that prior knowledge or awareness or previous experience, the article “the” is a must; the modifying phrase “in your life” alone isn’t enough to make the noun “people” definite. Without that prior knowledge or awareness or previous experience, the article “the” is unnecessary or optional to the sentence. Take a look at the two versions to see the semantic difference:

1. With “the”: “Haters only hate the things that they can’t get and the people they can’t be.”
    Without “the”: “Haters only hate things that they can’t get and people they can’t be.”

2. With “the”: “Prevent me from knowing the things that I don’t really have to know.”
    Without “the”: “Prevent me from knowing things that I don’t really have to know.”

3. With “the”: “I will check out the hot shopping spots in South Korea.”
    Without “the”: “I will check out hot shopping spots in South Korea.”

4. With “the”: “I hate the people who don't hold the elevator door open for you, no matter how 
    loudly you say ‘Wait, I’ll get in.’”
    Without “the”: “I hate people who don't hold the elevator door open for you, no matter how   
    loudly you say ‘Wait, I’ll get in.’”

5. With “the”: “What are the things to consider when going abroad for a business trip?”
    Without “the”: “What are things to consider when going abroad for a business trip?” 

In the case of the Facebook statement you quoted, the article “the” is absolutely needed for the phrase “people in your life,” as follows “Facebook helps you share and connect with the people in your life.” With that “the,” the reference is only to the important people in your life—the people that particularly matter to you. Without that “they,” the reference is to all the people you’ve associated or gotten in touch with in your life, no matter how trivial or inconsequential the association or contact. We can be sure that Facebook didn’t mean it this way, for it would mean connecting with practically all of the people who’ve figured in our life—a staggering number that could be in the tens or hundreds of thousands. Friending all of them would hideously overwhelm even an unabashedly mass-friending medium like Facebook.

Rejoinder by English Maiden (November 26, 2011):

Thanks again and again for your prompt answers to my grammar queries. I somehow understand what you mean, but I wouldn’t say I completely understand the hints you provided. Isn’t it that the only way a noun becomes definite in speech and in writing is if it is known to both the speaker/writer and the listener/reader? Suppose I tweet “I visited THE hot shopping spots in South Korea,” given that I have prior knowledge and experience of these shopping spots I’m pertaining to. But if I’m the only one who knows about the shopping spots I’m talking about in that tweet, wouldn’t it leave my readers or followers confused and guessing about which shopping places I’m referring to? And so on that note, would it be more appropriate not to use the article “the” at all?

My reply to English Maiden’s rejoinder:

At the outset, assuming that they are strangers to each other, the only thing commonly known between the speaker/writer and the listener/reader is language—how it works and the meanings that arise from the various combinations of its words. There is therefore no way for the listener/reader to know precisely what’s in the speaker’s/writer’s mind—in particular, whether a noun used is meant to be definite or indefinite—until he or she has written the statement to begin with. 

Now, when you tweet “I visited THE hot shopping spots in South Korea,” the reader on Twitter obviously will perceive you as someone who wants to make the impression of being extremely knowledgeable about the hot shopping spots in South Korea, having presumably visited all or most of them. It makes no difference whether your reader knows everything or doesn’t know anything about those hot shopping spots, or whether you are just making a tall claim to begin with. And there need not be any confusion or guessing about that declaration of yours, because it’s not as if you made that statement ex cathedra—not subject to clarification or challenge like a papal edict. In fact, if the Twitter reader (who just might happen to be a well-informed Seoul resident) is interested at all in your tweet, he or she will likely tweet back: “Precisely which shopping spots are those? And how do you know they are ‘hot’?” Then a real conversation starts on Twitter wherein you’ll be obliged to support your contention that you have indeed “visited THE hot shopping spots in South Korea.” Since it’s highly improbable that you’ve visited all or most of those ‘hot’ shopping spots, you’d likely be forced to scale down your claim to, say, “Well, I actually visited only four of them in Seoul and I thought they were ‘hot’ because there were so many people in them…” Then you may get a follow-up tweet like, say, “Which four did you actually visit? And how big was the crowd in each of them during your visit?” And the Twitter conversation continues until the reader and you have clarified and exhausted the subject to your mutual satisfaction.

My point in the rather elaborate explanation above, English Maiden, is that you really shouldn’t put too much store in a single sentence or two as the be-all and end-all of communicating an idea—which I’m afraid is the communication culture that Twitter inadvertently promotes. Because of the 140-word limit to each tweet, the tweeter is constrained to give an unwarranted sense of factuality or finality to every tweet he or she makes. In a real-world conversation, however, everything said is at best tentative, subject to being qualified or modified for greater accuracy in the course of the conversation. There’s much less pressure for the speaker to overstate or exaggerate with a strong declarative statement like “I visited THE hot shopping spots in South Korea”; more likely, the norm for that opening statement will be the more unprepossessing and modest “I visited hot shopping spots in South Korea”—without the “the.” After all, there will be lots of room to qualify the statement to a level of accuracy closer to the truth. This level of qualification, however, is something that’s difficult to achieve in a medium like Twitter, which I think is much more suited to brief announcements rather than to discussions of complex ideas. 

This being the case, for modesty’s sake as well as for semantic correctness, I think it would be more appropriate not to use the article “the” at all in that sample tweet of yours. A bare-bones “I visited hot shopping spots in South Korea” or a qualified “I visited a few hot shopping spots in South Korea” definitely will be much more advisable.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The application and grammatical attribute of “whoever’s”

Question by Hairstyler, Forum member (November 24, 2011):

Please help me to describe the application and attribute of “whoever’s” in the follwing sentences:

1. “Whoever’s this is is to be returned.”
2. “The office is cleaned by whoever’s turn it is that day.”

My reply to Hairstyler:

The use of “whoever” in these two sentences you presented isn’t permissible at all:

1. “Whoever’s this is is to be returned.”
2. “The office is cleaned by whoever’s turn it is that day.”

The pronoun “whoever,” which means “whatever person—no matter who,” can be used in any grammatical relation except that of a possessive; that is the prescribed rule in English. This means Sentence #2 above is an inherently grammatically flawed construction, for the phrase “whoever’s turn it is that day” uses the disallowed possessive form “whoever’s.” Another serious flaw in Sentence #2 is that it makes the noun “turn” in “whoever’s turn it is that day” the doer of the action of the verb “cleaned.” This is not possible in reality, of course; in the context of that sentence, only a person can do that cleaning job. And even if we acknowledge Sentence #2 as possible colloquial usage, it needs to be recast to the following form to be grammatically acceptable: “The office is cleaned by whoever has the turn for that day.”

The use of “whoever’s” in Sentence #1 is likewise grammatically flawed because it uses the the disallowed possessive form “whoever’s.” Worse, the use of two successive “is’s” by that sentence is syntactically very clumsy. Here’s a possible rewrite that can salvage that sentence into acceptable form: “Whoever found this (“bag,” “purse,” “iPod,” whatever) has to return it to its owner.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Do we use the article “a” or “they” for nouns preceded by “perfect”?

Question by English Maiden (November 27, 2011):

Sir, I’m not quite sure which kind of articles to use in the following sentences:

“My mother is (a/the) perfect mother.”
“This is (a/the) perfect time to go shopping.”
“These are (no article/the) perfect books to read in my free time.”
“We need to come up with (a/the) perfect backup plan.”

Please explain to me which article to use and why.

Also, why can we say or write “I had A FEAR of falling from high places when I was in high school” during the first mention of the noun FEAR or when we are establishing for the reader/listener the existence of such a fear, but not “I have AN ABILITY to spell my name backwards,” considering that the situation and intent are the same as those of the first sentence?

My reply to English Maiden:

All of the four “perfect”-using sentences you presented should use the article “the.” They are socially acceptable idiomatic overstatements that would lose their cogency if the article “a” or no article is used instead. So even if nothing’s perfect and you know in your heart that they are not exactly truthful, don’t hesitate to say those statements in the following manner:

“My mother is the perfect mother.”
“This is the perfect time to go shopping.”
“These are the perfect books to read in my free time.”
“We need to come up with the perfect backup plan.”

As to your question about the usage of the perfect tenses in the two sentences you presented, the difference between those sentences is as follows:

When you say “I had A FEAR of falling from high places when I was in high school,” you need to use the past perfect “had a fear” because based on that declaration of yours, that fear was a subsisting (continuing) condition during the time that you were in high school, and it can be inferred from that statement of yours that you no longer have that fear at present (today).

In contrast, when you say “I have AN ABILITY to spell my name backwards,” you need to use the present perfect “have an ability” because based on that declaration of yours, that ability to spell you name backwards has been a longstanding ability of yours that subsists up to the present. The present perfect is the tense that denotes that continuing condition.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How gerunds function as subject complement

Question by hairstyler, Forum member (November 13, 2011):

Dear Carillo,

Please help me explain the function of the gerund as a subject complement in the following example:

(1) “What she is going through is called being in labor.”

Please help me clarify if the underlined word in the following sentences is a gerund or participle:

(2) “I saw him wearing a red shirt.” 
(3) “I dislike him/his wearing a red shirt.”

My reply to hairstyler:

In Sentence #1, “What she is going through is called being in labor,” the gerund phrase “being in labor” is not a subject complement. It’s functioning as an adverbial modifier of the verb “called.”  That gerund phrase will function as a subject complement if the verb “called” is dropped so the sentence will read as follows: “What she is going through is being in labor.” Here, “being in labor” is now a subject complement linked to the subject “what she is going through” (a relative noun clause) by the linking verb “is.”

In Sentence #2, “I saw him wearing a red shirt,” the word “wearing” is neither a gerund nor a participle. It’s the progressive form of the verb “wear,” indicating a continuing past action, and the phrase “wearing a red shirt” functions as an adjective phrase modifying the pronoun “him.”

In Sentence #3, using the pronoun “him” will make the sentence read as follows: “I dislike him wearing a red shirt.” Here, the word “wearing” is the progressive form of the verb “wear,” indicating a continuing past action as in Sentence #2 above; the phrase “wearing a red shirt” is an adjective phrase modifying the pronoun “him.” On the other hand, when the pronoun “his” is used, the sentence will read as follows: “I dislike his wearing a red shirt.” This time, the phrase “his wearing a red shirt” is a gerund phrase that functions as an adverbial modifier of the verb “dislike.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Keeping up with “be” as a very versatile but highly irregular verb

Question from English Maiden, Forum member (November 6, 2011):

Hi, Sir! I have always wondered why the verb “be” (e.g., “is,” “was,” “were,” “am,” “been,” etc.) is called as such? I know that the verb “be” is used as an auxiliary verb and can also be used as a main verb, but I don’t understand why the forms of this verb are collectively known as “be.” Please shed some light on this matter for me. Thanks loads!

My reply to English Maiden:

The verb “be” happens to be one of the most versatile and most often used words in the English language. As you say, it’s used as an auxiliary verb and can also be used as a main verb, but it’s incorrect to call it the collective word for the various forms it takes in the language. It’s a unique word by itself that also happens to be a highly irregular verb—meaning that it doesn’t obey the usual conjugation rules for regular verbs but changes into altogether new words when doing particular grammar tasks. In particular, as an intransitive verb, “be” has so many denotations or meanings and takes on different forms; as a verbal auxiliary, it has four distinct uses in the formation of the various tenses of verbs, also taking on different forms and even working with other verbal auxiliaries to evoke a specific tense and sense for a verb. You can appreciate how versatile and hardworking “be” is by going over the definitions below that I have excerpted from the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary

Having clarified the nature and functions of “be,” I can now tell you that the various forms of “be” that you mentioned—“is,” “was,” “were,” “am,” “been”—are not its collective in the true sense of that word. They are just inflections of “be,” or the changes in form that “be” undergoes to mark the case, gender, number, tense, person, mood, or voice of the sentence where it is used. As such, they are unique words in themselves, distinct from “be” and each with a specific functional role in the language. 

be
intransitive verb  

1 a : to equal in meaning  : have the same connotation as  : SYMBOLIZE  <God is love>  <January is the first month>  <let x be 10>  b : to have identity with  <the first person I met was my brother> c : to constitute the same class as  d : to have a specified qualification or characterization  <the leaves are green>  e : to belong to the class of  <the fish is a trout> —  used regularly in senses 1a through 1e as the copula of simple predication
2 a : to have  an objective existence  : have reality or actuality  : LIVE  <I think, therefore I am>  <once upon a time there was a knight>  b : to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position  <the book is on the table>  c : to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted —  used only in infinitive form  <let him be>  d : to take place  : OCCUR  <the concert was last night>  e : to come or go  <has already been and gone>  <has never been to the circus> f archaic   : BELONG, BEFALL
verbal auxiliary  
1 —  used with the past participle of transitive verbs as a passive-voice auxiliary  <the money was found>  <the house is being built>
2 —  used as the auxiliary of the present participle in progressive tenses expressing continuous action  <he is reading>  <I have been sleeping>
3 —  used with the past participle of some intransitive verbs as an auxiliary forming archaic perfect tenses  <Christ is risen from the dead — 1 Corinthians 15:20(Douay Version)>
4 —  used with the infinitive with to to express futurity, arrangement in advance, or obligation  <I am to interview him today>  <she was to become famous>

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How the predicted future differs from the simple future tense

Question by English Maiden, Forum member (November 4, 2011):

Hi, Joe!

I hope this is not asking for too much, but could you please explain in detail the differences in the use of the forms “will + the base form” and “be going to + the base form” when making reference to the future. I have consulted several English grammar books, but I still find myself confused. For example, I can't seem to tell the difference in meaning, if any, between the following sentence pairs:

“I am going to/gonna forget about you someday.”
“I will forget about you someday.”

“I am going to/gonna be a recording artist someday.”
“I will be a recording artist someday.”

I’m going to/gonna watch a movie with friends tonight.”
“I will see a movie with friends tonight.”

I can cite more examples, like lines from songs and movies you know. Please help me understand. Thank you in advance.

My reply to English Maiden:

We learn early in grammar school that in English, verbs have the handicap of not being able to inflect or morph by themselves into the future tense. To compensate for this, however, English came up with no less than six ways of evoking the future, as follows:

(1) The simple future tense, which puts the auxiliary verb “will” ahead of the verb stem, as in “will take” in “The chairman will take his retirement next month,” and
(2) The future perfect tense, which uses the so-called temporal indicators to situate actions and events in various times in the future, as in the use of the future perfect “will have taken” in “By this time next month, the chairman will have taken his retirement.”

In both cases, instead of inflecting itself, the verb “take” took the expedient of harnessing one verb (“will”) or two auxiliary verbs (“will have”), respectively, to make its two visions of the future work.

Then English came up with four more grammatical stratagems to evoke the future tense, as follows:

(3) The arranged future, also known as the present continuous;
(4) The predicted future;
(5) The timetable future, also known as the present simple; and
(6) The described futures, also known as the future continuous.

The future-tense type that you say confuses you—the one that uses the form “be going to + the verb’s base form”—is Form #4 above, the predicted future. As in the first example you have given, “I am going to forget about you someday,” this form of the future tense uses the verb’s infinitive form preceded by the auxiliary phrase “going to.” It serves as a categorical forecast of what will happen based on what the speaker knows about the evolving present. (The alternative sentence you provided, “I am gonna forget about you someday,” uses “gonna,” which, of course, is a colloquial contraction of “going to.”)

So how does the predicted future form differ from the simple future form below that uses “will forget”?

“I will forget about you someday.”

The difference is that the simple-future form using “will” simply states that something will happen in the future, while the predicted-future form using “going to” categorically declares that the speaker will make a purposive effort to make the stated future outcome happen.

There are two other uses of the “going to” future-tense form:

(1) To express what people want to do, as in “I’m going to think over your suggestion.” This form of the purposive future suggests that the speaker had thought about the action before speaking about it, as opposed to deciding on it spontaneously, in which case the simple future tense using “will” is more appropriate: “I will think over your suggestion.”

(2) To express something that the speaker believes is impossible to avoid or prevent: “You know that the circus is going to close this Friday.”

Statements in the predicted future form are shaped both by the information the speaker has about that future and how he or she wants that future to be. They can use a temporal indicator (as “someday” in your example) but don’t necessarily require it, as in “I am going to forget about you.” When precise time frames are provided, the simple future tense is often preferable: “I will forget about you someday.”

For a better understanding of the “be going to” form of the future tense, I am posting in this week’s edition of the Forum “The Six Ways That English Reckons with the Future.” That essay introduces Section 7 – “Mastering the English Tenses” of my book Give Your English the Winning Edge. The nine chapters in that section of the book provide an intensive discussion of the various future-tense forms in English and the usage of the adverbs of time.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

“Stabbed dead” or “stabbed to death?”

Forum member ooliveros e-mailed the news alert below last November 2, 2011 along with this question:

“Stabbed dead” or “stabbed to death?”

Charice Pempengco’s father stabbed dead after drinking session

Victim, ‘killer’ both drunk, say investigators

CAMP PACIANO RIZAL, Laguna – The estranged father of international singing sensation Charice Pempengco was stabbed dead in San Pedro, Laguna before midnight Monday, police said on Tuesday...

My reply to ooliveros:

Saying it either way is acceptable journalistic usage: “stabbed dead” or “stabbed to death.” Both are widely used idioms for “Died after being stabbed” in much the same way as “shot dead” or “shot to death” are used for “Died after being shot.”

As in your case, of course, what uncomfortably comes to my mind from reading or hearing “stabbed dead” is that the victim was “stabbed when already dead” (how macabre!) or that the assailant “kept on stabbing the victim until he or she died” (how gruesome!). For a long time now, though, these haven't been the intended senses for “stabbed dead” or “stabbed to death,” as evidenced by the following comparative Google hits of their usage in the sense of “Died after being stabbed”:

“Stabbed dead” – 185,000
“Stabbed to death” – 12,900,000

The comparative Google hits for their counterpart “death by shooting” idioms are as follows:

“Shot dead” – 14,000,000
“Shot to death” – 13,800,000

This preponderance of “stabbed/shot dead” and “stabbed/shot to death” usage should dispel once and for all our lingering doubts about their grammatical and semantic validity.

In English as in most languages, usage trumps logic over the long haul.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Checking “sandwich generation” as a brand-new dictionary entry

Question by VrackGrl27, new Forum member (October 30, 2011):

Hello ,

There are lots of new words coming in today in the Webster Dictionary and just as recently the word “sandwich generation” came in under Miscellaneous. What does this mean exactly? And can you please show me an example as to how to use this properly in a sentence? Thank you.

My reply to VrackGrl27:

It’s my first time to hear the term “sandwich generation,” having lived all my life in a part in the world where it’s rarely written about or heard, so I decided to do some quick research. It turns out that The Sandwich Generation—a proper noun—stands for “a generation of people who care for their aging parents while supporting their own children.” This definition is from “The Sandwich Generation,” the personal website of Carol Abaya who describes herself as a nationally recognized expert on the subject as well as on aging and elder/parent care issues.

The Abaya website says that the term “sandwich generation” was added to Merriam-Webster in July 2006; it’s not to be found in my Merriam-Webster’s 11th  Collegiate Dictionary, which, alas,  turns out to have been published in 2003 or about three years before Ms. Abaya coined the term. The online Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary does have an entry defining “sandwich generation” exactly as in Ms. Abaya’s website, and noting that the term had its first known use in 1987. 

At any rate, here’s something that should enlighten everybody about what the “sandwich generation” is all about. Ms. Abaya classifies those falling under the sandwich generation as follows:

(1) Traditional: those sandwiched between aging parents who need care and/or help and their own children.
(2) Club Sandwich: those in their 50s or 60s sandwiched between aging parents, adult children and grandchildren, or those in their 30s and 40s, with young children, aging parents and grandparents.
(3) Open Faced: anyone else involved in elder care.   

So, as you requested, VrackGrl27, I’m now in a pretty good position to use the term properly in a sentence. Here goes:

“I learned today that by age, I should by rights now be a fully qualified member of the Sandwich Generation, but also that I’m unclassifiable as a Club Sandwich because I’m not in the ‘50s or 60s sandwiched between aging parents, adult children and grandchildren’ nor in the ‘30s and 40s, with young children, aging parents and grandparents.’ Neither am I a Traditional because I’m not ‘sandwiched between aging parents who need care and/or help and their own children,’ nor Open Faced because I’m not ‘involved in elder care.’”

Well, by that analysis, it turns out that under the definition of the Sandwich Generation, I was a briefly a member of it two or so decades ago, but not anymore by a twist of fate and demographics!

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The problem with faulty and unparallel phrase constructions

Question by roylic, Forum member (October 23, 2011):

Hi, Joe,

I’m having problem reconciling these two phrases: “to harvest knowledge” and “to being educated.” If I understand correctly, “to harvest” is an infinitive, and “to being” is a gerund. Can you use them in one sentence? Is it being consistent?

Here is the original text:

“Last but not least I wish to say that the purpose of university is to harvest knowledge and to being educated, so it is obvious that everyone can find a reason for attending university.”

Thank you.

My reply to roylic:

You’re having a problem reconciling those phrases because the construction of that sentence is grammatically and semantically faulty:

“Last but not least I wish to say that the purpose of university is to harvest knowledge and to being educated, so it is obvious that everyone can find a reason for attending university.”

The first fault of that sentence is that it compounds two grammatical elements in different voices; this results in the sense of inconsistency you noted in that sentence. The first infinitive phrase, “to harvest knowledge,” is in the active voice with the noun phrase “the purpose of the university” as subject, while the second infinitive phrase, “to being educated,” is in the passive voice with the same noun phrase as subject. This second infinitive phrase is semantically faulty because it doesn’t make sense to say that “the purpose of the university” is “to being educated.” A university doesn’t seek to be educated; rather, it aims to educate. So the correct way to say this is “the purpose of the university is to educate,” with “educate” in the active voice and the noun “university” as the doer of the action. 

The second fault of that sentence is its confusing unparallel construction, putting in a series two grammar elements of different structures. The parallelism rule provides that you can compound or add up two or more grammatical elements in a series only if they are of the same grammatical structure—whether all nouns, pronouns all in the same case, all gerund forms, all infinitive forms, all participial phrases, or all clauses in the same voice, etc. (Click this link to this forum posting, “Lesson #11 – Using Parallelism for Clarity and Cohesion,” for a comprehensive discussion of parallelism.”)

Taking all of the above considerations into account, that sentence you presented should therefore be grammatically corrected and its serial infinitive phrases made parallel, as follows:

“Last but not least I wish to say that the purpose of university is to harvest knowledge and to educate, so it is obvious that everyone can find a reason for attending university.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Why are subject complements introduced or not introduced by “as”

Question by hairstyler, Forum member (October 20, 2011):

Dear Carillo,

(1) “The accident was reported as having been caused by carelessness.”
(2) “She was seen bringing her son in the car.”

Please help me describe the above-mentioned sentences, particularly why in the first sentence, the subject complement is introduced by “as,” and why in the second sentence, the complement is not introduced by “as.”

Thanks a million,
Hairstyler

My reply to hairstyler:

Here’s my grammar take on the two sentences you presented:

(1) “The accident was reported as having been caused by carelessness.”

In the sentence above, the phrase “having been caused by carelessness” is introduced by the adverb “as” so that phrase can function as an adverbial modifier of the verb “reported,” describing the cause of the subject “accident.” When the adverb “as” is used before a participial phrase (“having been caused by carelessness” in this case), it conveys the sense of “when considered in the relation or form” specified by that participial phrase. This is precisely the sense of the sentence in question here.

(2) “She was seen bringing her son in the car.”

In the sentence above, the phrase “bringing her son in the car” is not introduced by the adverb “as” because it functions as an adjective complement in that sentence. It modifies not the passive verb form “was seen” but the subject “she.” 

To understand why this is so, think of that sentence in the active voice: “I saw her bringing her son in the car.” In this form, it’s very clear that the phrase “bringing her son in the car” doesn’t modify the verb but its object “her.” Putting the sentence in the passive voice doesn’t change that function of that phrase as an adjective complement.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Rare use of the function word “that”

Question by Hairstyler, Forum member (October 5, 2011):

I have never encountered the following usage of “that”:

“Who that you have ever seen can do better?”

Please help me describe the function of “that” in that sentence.

Thanks a million,
Hairstyler

My reply to Hairstyler:

I don’t think the sentence you presented is constructed properly:

“Who that you have ever seen can do better?”

That sentence has faulty syntax, its construction is stilted, and its use of “that” as a relative pronoun is dysfunctional. In fact, that usage of “that” isn’t only rare; it isn’t a grammatically valid usage at all.

Here are four ways of constructing that sentence correctly:

“Who have you seen can do better?” 
“Who among those you have seen can do better?”
“Have you ever seen someone who can do better?”
“Have you ever seen anybody who can do better?”

Click to read responses or post a response

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




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

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Page last modified: 13 July, 2012, 10:45 a.m.