YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

Where should we punctuate drop quotes in a sentence?

Question from Miss Mae, Forum member (April 14, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

I keep forgetting to ask you about where to place commas after a quote. I already understand where should it be when used to mark statements, but I'm not sure where to place them if they were not intended to introduce a quote. Sigh! I wish I could explain my query further, but I'm afraid I would just confuse you more. Please just take a look at this sentence: If I don’t “wake up,” I wouldn't have to bear with those. Should the punctuation mark be placed before the quotation mark or after it? But it is not really a statement…

Respectfully,
Miss Mae

My reply to Miss Mae:

To clearly understand how to handle quoted material in English, let’s take a close look at the sentence you presented:

The words you placed inside quotation marks in that sentence, “wake up,” is what’s called a drop quote or orphan quote. A drop quote or an orphan quote usually consists of one or a few words that the writer decides to enclose within quotation marks for any of these reasons:

(1) It’s an indication that the writer means something else other than the usual denotation of the word or phrase being used in that sentence; in other words, the writer intends a figurative rather than a literal meaning to that word or phrase. In the sentence you presented, for instance, the negative sense of the drop quote “wake up” may mean “not regaining consciousness” or “dying” after, say, a delicate surgical operation. In this case, that sentence can literally be stated as follows: “If I die, I wouldn’t have to bear with those.”
(2) It’s a quick summation in a few words of an idea, as in the drop quote “a wakeup call” in the sentence, “The sharp drop in his popularity rating was ‘a wakeup call’ for the politician to make himself more publicly visible.”
(3) It’s a capsule description in a few words of a concept, as in using the drop quote to describe a certain still unproven body of knowledge being presented in a dissertation, as in this sentence: “Critics disparagingly called the young cleric’s paper that attempted to rebut Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection as the “Theory of Unnatural Evolution.” 

Now, your question is: Considering that the drop quote is not really a complete statement, should the punctuation mark (the comma in this case) be placed before the closing quotation mark before or after it?

There are actually two prevailing styles with respect to the placement of the punctuation mark for drop quotes and for most quoted material for that matter. The first is the American English style, which is to place the punctuation (the comma in this case) inside the closing quotation mark, as was done in your example:

If the drop quote is found at the end of the sentence, the period will be placed inside the closing quotation mark, as follows:

In British English, however, that comma is placed outside the closing quotation mark, as follows:

If the drop quote is found at the end of the sentence, the period will be placed outside the closing quotation mark, as follows:

You’ll find a lively and instructive general discussion of the use of quotation marks by clicking this link to the Capital Community College’s Guide to Grammar and Writing. The important thing is to be clearly aware of whether you are using American English or British English, as there are distinct differences in how each of them handles not only punctuation but the kind of quotation marks used.

RELATED READING:
Lesson #13 – Dealing with Quotations and Attributions

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The strange case of the missing “on” in sentences using “agreed”

E-mail from I.H., a Filipina writer and teacher based in Hong Kong (April 11, 2011):

Hi Joe—This is for you to ponder at your leisure. For some time, being a constant listener to the BBC World Service here in HK, I keep hearing reports about agreements signed between countries, two parties, etc.
 
Somehow, it bothers me that the preposition “on” isn’t used in such sentences as “The two sides agreed a strategy…” or “The Democrats and Republicans agreed a plan to…”
 
Why is it that I always think it’s correct and it would sound better if the verb “agreed” in these cases were always followed by “on.”  I’m sure you can elucidate on this.

My reply to I.H.:

I’m not surprised by your discomfort over the absence of the preposition “on” in those BBC news reports using the verb “agreed.” This is because everyone who learned English in the American standard—including you and me, of course—will always think that in such sentences, “agreed” is an intransitive verb in the sense of “to come to terms.” As such, “agreed” can’t have a direct object to act on; it needs a preposition as a grammatical intermediary to the direct object (this direct object is what’s known in English grammar as the object of the preposition). In the two sentences you presented, that preposition will be “on,” so those two sentences will be constructed as follows in the American English standard: 

“The two sides agreed on a strategy…”
“The Democrats and Republicans agreed on a plan to…”

In British English, however, the verb “agree” is used transitively in the sense of “to settle on by common consent.”* This is why BBC, which as we know is the bastion of British TV broadcasting, doesn’t use “on” after “agreed” in sentences like those you presented. (I would think that most mass media in the United Kingdom don’t use “on” likewise in such instances.) The verb “agreed” being transitive in those sentences, they can have direct objects and act on them. In the first sentence, in particular, the direct object of the verb “agreed” is “strategy,” so the verb can act on it without need for the intermediary preposition “on”: “The two sidesagreed a strategy…” In the second sentence, the direct object of the verb “agreed” is the noun phrase “a plan to…”, so the verb can act on this noun phrase without need for the intermediary preposition “on”: “The Democrats and Republicans agreed a plan to…”   
 
It will take some doing, but you just have to get used to this odd-sounding usage while based in Hong Kong or when reading publications that use British English. To paraphrase the old-age adage, when in Britain, do as the British do.
-----------
*This is based on Definition 2 of “agree” by the Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
agree “transitive verb 2 chiefly British: to settle on by common consent: ARRANGE  <I agreed rental terms with him — Eric Bennett>”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Questions about word usage and grammar lessons learned

Questions sent by e-mail by Miss Mae, Forum member (April 4, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

We  lost our Internet connection over here for almost a week, so my grammatical queries had piled up ( in the “Reminders” slot of my cell phone, at least). Here they are:

1. “New adage” - Thanks to Messrs. Strunk & White, I have been warned against the phrase “old adage” in writing. But what if it “adage” is paired with the word “new,” as in “new adage”? Should I just take it as an old saying given a modern interpretation? That was from a column...

2. “Though” and “too” - Should there always be a comma before and after the words “though” and “too”? Some writers don’t seem to observe that.

3. “Either” and “neither” - Can they be written without their partners “or” and “nor”? What if I like to describe an idea in two sentences? Example: “He’s not exactly poor. He’s not entirely rich, either.” Of course, I could just write that as “He’s not exactly poor but he’s not entirely rich.” But I wonder if I can get away with what I would naturally prefer.

I've also listed the grammar lessons I learned from you last month. How I wish their number confirms that I am learning!

1. Turning verbs into nouns can make abstract statements more convincing; smoothen transition; mellow down statements; emphasize direct objects; and replace needless introductory remarks (“the fact that...”)
2. When a main verb is used together with a helping verb, it is the helping verb that takes the tense.
3. “None” is treated as singular when it means “not one” but plural when it means “not any.”
4. Indefinite clauses are marked with a pair of commas.
5. Dependent clauses must contain valid verbs and subjects in them.
6. “Motivate” is to people as “enhance” or “promote” is to attributes and virtues.
7. Perfect tenses are used to describe actions that were just completed or were still happening.

My reply to Miss Mae:

About your first three questions:

1. “New adage”

I don’t think Messrs. Strunk and White in The Elements of Style were entirely right in their warning against using the phrase “old adage.” If we follow the contemporary definition provided by my digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, the noun “adage” means “a saying often in metaphorical form that embodies a common observation.” An adage isn’t necessarily old then. Of course, it must have been in common use for some time, and many of them would be “old” from our normal reckoning, but some could, in fact, be of vintage fairly recent enough not to merit being considered “old.” So, an adage could be “new” or “newer” compared to the really old and time-worn ones, in which case “new adage” may not exactly be a contradiction of terms.

You asked: Should we just take “new adage” as an old saying given a modern interpretation? I don’t think so; that would be semantically off.  When we word an age-old adage in contemporary terms, it’s much better to say, “To paraphrase an age-old adage…” or “To state an age-old adage in contemporary terms…”   

2. “Though” and “too”

No, a comma isn’t always needed before and after the words “though” and “too”?

In the case of “though,” it’s obvious it isn’t needed when used as a conjunction in the sense of “in spite of the fact that,” as in “Though he likes to eat pineapples, he’s terrified of peeling one.” “He’s terrified of peeling pineapples though he likes to eat them.” As an adverb in the sense of “however” or “nevertheless,” however, “though” needs to be set off by a comma from a qualifying phrase that immediately follows it, as in this sentence: “She has always loved her younger sister though, even if the sibling rivalry between them is so strong.” We must keep in mind, though, that there’s no need for a comma before the adverb “though” in sentences of this form:  “She has always loved her younger sister though.”

In the case of the adverb “too” in the sense of “also” and “besides,” a comma isn’t needed in such sentence constructions as “They sold their summer cottage and their old sedan too.” But when “too” immediately follows the noun it modifies, it needs to be set off by a pair of commas: “They, too, were involved in the controversial transaction.”

3. “Either” and “neither” - Can they be written without their partners “or” and “nor”?

Yes, “either” and “neither” can be used without their partners “or” and “nor,” respectively.

The sentence you yourself provided is a good example of the use of “either” without its usual partner “or”: “He’s not exactly poor. He’s not entirely rich, either.” In such constructions, though, you need to knock off the comma before “either”: “He’s not exactly poor. He’s not entirely rich either.” This sentence is a more emphatic construction than this one that you proposed, “He’s not exactly poor but he’s not entirely rich,” but, yes, you can get away with the sentence construction that you naturally prefer. It’s all a matter of style and emphasis.

In the case of “neither,” it doesn’t always need its partner “nor,” as in these sentences: “She has not gone to Rome and neither have I.” “To fight or to surrender. Neither is palatable to the besieged dictator.” “Amy says she won’t join the picnic? Well, me neither.” (In fact, the “neither”-“nor” tandem is mandatory only in sentence constructions in this form: “Neither Amy nor myself will be joining the picnic.”)

As to the lessons you learned from the Forum last month, here are my comments:

1. Turning verbs into nouns can make abstract statements more convincing; smoothen transition; mellow down statements; emphasize direct objects; and replace needless introductory remarks (“the fact that...”)

Yes, but only in the contexts specified in my discussion of the subject. (“Turning verbs into nouns isn’t always bad for English prose,” March 12, 2011)

2. When a main verb is used together with a helping verb, it is the helping verb that takes the tense.

That’s absolutely right! (“A rather curious state of affairs in the grammar of “do”-questions,” December 11, 2010)

3. “None” is treated as singular when it means “not one” but plural when it means “not any.”

That’s absolutely right! (The pronoun “none” can mean either “not one” or “not any,” December 4, 2010)

4. Indefinite clauses are marked with a pair of commas.

I’m sure you meant “nondefining” or “nonessential” instead of “indefinite,” in which case your understanding is correct that they need to be set off by at least a comma (when the  nondefining clause is at the tail end of the sentence) or by a pair of commas (when the  nondefining clause is sandwiched inside the main clause). (“Guideposts for using ‘who,’ ‘that,’ and ‘which’ to link relative clauses,” April 2, 2011)

5. Dependent clauses must contain valid verbs and subjects in them.

That’s absolutely right! (“Guideposts for using ‘who,’ ‘that,’ and ‘which’ to link relative clauses,” April 2, 2011)

6. “Motivate” is to people as “enhance” or “promote” is to attributes and virtues.

Yes, but only in the contexts specified in my discussion of the subject. (“Was Manila’s anti-Reproductive Health Bill rally interfaith or ecumenical?”, March 26, 2011)

7. Perfect tenses are used to describe actions that were just completed or were still happening.

More accurately, the perfect tenses express an action or state completed at the time of speaking or at a time spoken of; if the action is still happening, the tense that will properly express it is the present progressive tense, not the perfect tense. (“How the perfect tenses situate events as they unfold in time,” February 20, 2011)

Based on this, Miss Mae, I think you’re doing beautifully in your grammar review.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

“Mail” being a mass noun, isn’t the plural word “emails” wrong?

E-mail from Forum member bance33 (March 27, 2011):

Hi Joe, I appreciate receiving your regular email for the English Forum. Thanks! I just want to comment on the widespread use of the word “emails.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe “mail” is a mass noun that shouldn’t have an s in its plural form.

My reply to bance33:

Being of the old English school like you, I was until recently a holdout for “e-mail” as a mass noun that shouldn’t have an “s” in its plural form. But seeing many respectable newspapers increasingly use the plural form “e-mails” (sometimes even without the hyphenation), I thought it was the better part of valor to capitulate to the popular usage. I don’t flinch anymore when using “e-mails” when referring to several pieces of the stuff, as in “The editor received 124 e-mails yesterday about the newspaper’s inaccurate reporting.” In the Internet realm, after all, it doesn’t sound right to look at e-mail in the same physical sense as snail-mail and then to write “The editor received 124 pieces of e-mail yesterday about the newspaper’s inaccurate reporting.” Indeed, using the word “pieces” to refer to letters in digital form now seems to me a semantic aggravation, so I must now concede that the plural “e-mails” does make that sentence crisper and more concise: “The editor received 124 e-mails yesterday about the newspaper’s inaccurate reporting.”

RELATED READING:
AP Stylebook finally changes “e-mail” to “email”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How do we position the apostrophe-s when a noun gets in the way?

Question from Miss Mae, Forum member (October 12, 2010):

I’m currently keeping a blog about soap operas in the Philippines. In one of my entries, however, I caught myself confused how to attribute properly. How should it be done when there’s an apostrophe? Here’s my sentence: “During Jhun Dimaano’s burial (Kier Legaspi), the mother of Aries Abad (Matt Evans) prohibited Rosa (Empress Schuck) to accompany her mother, Cecille Dimaano (Mickey Ferriols), outside.” Is there any other way to go about it or should I just paraphrase?

My reply to Miss Mae (March 25, 2011):

Sorry for having overlooked this posting of yours, which I can see dates back to October 12 last year. It got buried by several subsequent postings in the “You Asked Me This Question” discussion board and I never got to read it. Thanks for calling my attention to it even if so belatedly.

As you will recall, the possessive form apostrophe-s (’s) is simply a concise form of the possessive form “object + of + subject possessing it.” The possessive phrase “Jhun Dimaano’s burial” is therefore just a shorter form of the longer phrase “the burial of Jhun Dimaano.”

Of course, I can see why you aren’t comfortable with the apostrophe-s form in the sentence you presented: “During Jhun Dimaano’s burial (Kier Legaspi), the mother of Aries Abad (Matt Evans) prohibited Rosa (Empress Schuck) to accompany her mother, Cecille Dimaano (Mickey Ferriols), outside.” The noun “burial” indeed gets in the way between the possessive form “Jhun Dimaano” and the parenthetical attribution to the actor playing the role, “Kier Legaspi,” such that “Kier Legaspi” appears to modify the noun “burial” and not the noun “Jhun Dimaano.” 

One seemingly quick grammatical fix is to move that role attribution ahead of the noun “burial,” as follows: “During Jhun Dimaano’s (Kier Legaspi’s) burial, the mother of Aries Abad (Matt Evans) prohibited Rosa…” It’s a very awkward fix, though, since it absurdly implies that the performer himself, “Kier Legaspi,” gets buried and not just the role he is playing.

The best way is to use the longer phrase form for that possessive apostrophe-s: “During the burial of Jhun Dimaano (Kier Legaspi), the mother of Aries Abad (Matt Evans) prohibited Rosa (Empress Schuck) to accompany her mother, Cecille Dimaano (Mickey Ferriols), outside.”

This time, both grammatically and semantically, it’s crystal clear who actually gets buried in that soap opera.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Must we go back to the first noun to find the antecedent?

Question sent in by e-mail by Mr. Jim K. (March 15, 2011):

Jose,

Thank you for your article on antecedents in English, “To do perfect sentences, we need to identify antecedents properly.” I have searched and searched English grammar textbooks and the Internet concerning the "agreement in CASE" without much success. I have studied Bible Chronology for about 20 years now. My concern with grammar involves a long passage in the Book of Daniel Chapter 9:25-27, which I have broken down as follows:

[Jim then classifies and charts in great detail the various grammar elements of the above passage]

It seems to be a matter of grammar by which we can determine who the "he" of verse 27 is:  Verse 26 speaks of (1) the Messiah (singular) and (2) the people (plural) of the prince. The "he" of verse 27 is not plural so cannot be speaking of the "people of the prince." "Of the prince" is a prepositional phrase of which the "prince" is the object. The antecedant of the pronoun "he" in verse 27 cannot not be the "prince," for it is the object of the prepositional phrase which acts as an adjective describing the "people."

Verse 26 has only two personal nouns to which the "he" of verse 27 can reference: The "Messiah," and the "people." They are both subjects within that lengthy sentence. The "prince" is the object of the prepositional phrase which describes the "people." The phrase acts as an adjective. Nouns within the phrase cannot be the subject of a sentence. The pronoun "he" in verse 27 can either be the "Messiah" or the "people." Since it is singular, it must be the "Messiah." 

[Jim then presents in great detail another view of the passage from a subject-verb standpoint]

Here are a few questions concerning the rule involving "agreement in case":
1. Some consider the one who confirms the covenant to be "the prince that shall come" since the prince is the nearest NOUN and agrees with Person and Number.

IS THERE ACTUALLY A RULE IN ENGLISH GRAMMAR THAT SAYS YOU MUST GO BACK TO THE FIRST NOUN TO FIND THE ANTECEDENT?

2. Where else can I find documentation (as a textbook) on the subject that shows "agreement in case"?

I would really appreciate any help you can give me in this matter. Edward Pusey has written a book on "Daniel, The Prophet" in which he says "[the prince had not been the subject of any former sentence]" (p.227).

Jim K.

My reply to Jim K.:

Dear Jim,

I’m afraid that I don’t have the competence to say with certainty who the doers of the action are in that apocalyptic passage from the Book of Daniel. This is actually the problem with nebulously written English text or English badly translated from the original foreign-language text; often, you really can’t figure out who does which to whom because the translator or writer of the original text had not bothered to make himself or herself clear enough.

By logic, all I can confidently ascertain is that the antecedent for the pronoun “he” in the line “And he shall confirm the covenant” is the noun “Messiah.” This, of course, is assuming that “the prince” is distinct from “Messiah”; you’d be the better judge of that. The noun “people,” which is in the plural forum, obviously can’t be the antecedent of the singular pronoun “he” in that passage, and this is regardless of whether “people” is the subject or just an object of a phrase (there's absolutely no rule in English grammar that specifies that an antecedent can only be a subject and never object of a preceding phrase). You are the Bible expert in this particular case, though, so I’m sure you can use these basic grammar observations to put two and two together in that passage.

Now, regarding this question of yours, “Is there actually a rule in English grammar that says you must go back to the first noun to find the antecedent?”, the answer is a categorical no. The proper basis for determining the antecedent is the sense and logic of the sentence or train of sentences in an exposition. No matter how many nouns may come between a pronoun and its antecedent, it is the evident meaning or the sense intended by the writer that prevails. In a badly constructed sentence or passage, of course, there are bound to be grammatical or structural mistakes, so it’s the responsibility of the editor of the publication to rectify them to make everything clear for the reader. The problem is when some scriptural text with defective grammar is reverentially considered grammar-perfect despite evidence to the contrary; people then spend an inordinate amount of time trying to guess the writer’s intent instead of making the simple grammar fix that could clarify things very quickly for everyone.

Sincerely,
Joe Carillo

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How much paraphrasing can a writer do to direct quotes?

Question sent by e-mail by Miss Mae (March 7, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

It's embarrassing, but I was only able to appreciate one of your grammar prescriptions today.

You have advised to keep the operative verb of a sentence as close as possible to the subject. I heeded that, but was not fully convinced. Why disrupt the flow of a writer's thoughts?

But as I was reading a news article today, I realized by myself how the distance of a subject to its action can disorient. My question is, how much right a writer has in paraphrasing direct quotes? I used to do it whenever I think the material would sound better. It didn't occur to me to reconsider since what I would do is for the good of the story.

I'm referring to this statement from the National Statistics Office: “The series of price hikes in gasoline and diesel nationwide, higher electricity and water rates and increased land transport fares in many regions including NCR [National Capital Region] also contributed to the uptrend.”

As you might say, the operative verb contributed is 21 words away from the subject price hikes. I would rather have it written as: “The series of price hikes also contributed to the uptrend, such as in gasoline and diesel, electricity and water rates, and land transport fares in many regions including NCR [National Capital Region].”

Am I right, Sir? In an exercise we did in college, I remember elongating a single sentence our professor asked us to turn into a headline. His threat to expel me if I continue doing that as well as your admonition for putting subjects and verbs close together made me observe your grammar prescription faithfully.

I hope you would answer my question.

Curious,
Miss Mae

My reply to Miss Mae:

A news reporter or feature writer obviously has to be judicious in reporting statements made by respondents or news sources, whether those statements are actually uttered by them (perhaps tape-recorded and transcribed afterwards)  or made in the form of press releases. When the statements are crystal clear, there’s actually no need for heavy paraphrase; all that needs to be done is simple transcription to the news or feature format. Of course, the story can be made more readable and interesting by presenting as direct quotes particularly telling or emphatic parts of the statement that happen to be grammar-perfect in every way. Of course, when a statement is too convoluted for comfort or is grammatically flawed, it has to be clarified through a suitable paraphrase and can no longer be presented nor passed off as a direct quote.

The big question, though, is how much paraphrasing should be done to a convoluted or grammatically faulty statement. There’s no easy general answer to this question, of course, for much will depend on the quality of the writing and the particular grammatical elements involved. 

But simply for illustrative purposes, let’s take the case of that particular statement you presented from a news story in The Manila Times. To put that statement in context, I have added the lead sentence and the sentence right before that statement:

You pointed out that in the second sentence above, the operative verb “contributed” is 21 words away from the subject “price hikes.” Because of this, the readability of that sentence isn’t as good as it should be. Following the principle that for optimum sentence clarity, it’s best to make the operative verb as close as possible to its subject or doer of the action, you therefore suggested the following paraphrase for that sentence:

 “The series of price hikes also contributed to the uptrend, such as in gasoline and diesel, electricity and water rates, and land transport fares in many regions including NCR [National Capital Region].”

It’s a good try but I must say that it isn’t good enough. Your rewrite has indeed brought the verb “contributed” practically adjacent to the noun “price hikes” as doer of the action, but I don’t think it has improved the readability of that statement that much; on the contrary, it has introduced very significant distortions to the sense of the original sentence. The use of the enumerative phrase “such as” is particularly problematic because its antecedent noun is unclear; it can’t be “uptrend” and it can’t be “price hikes” either, so what we have here is nothing less than a dangling modifying phrase. This is like jumping from the frying pan to the fire, so to speak.

I think the following paraphrase clarifies the original sentence much better while scrupulously remaining faithful to its intended sense:

“Also contributing to the uptrend were the series of price hikes in gasoline and diesel nationwide, higher electricity and water rates, and increased land transport fares in many regions including the National Capital Region.”

Now see how this paraphrase blends so smoothly with the sentences that precede it in the passage:

This paraphrase uses the inverted sentence technique, where the operative verb (“contributing’) precedes the doers of the action (the long noun phrase preceded by the phrase “the series”). It’s a rather advanced composition strategy in English for handling subjects or doers of the action that are stated in a longwinded enumerative form, but it’s actually routinely used by experienced journalists as an effective continuity device for narratives.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

In a “when”-clause, different “or” elements need not be parallel

Question by browncomputer, new Forum member (February 21, 2011):

In this sentence, there is an underlined part. You will find alternatives for the underlined portions and choose the alternative that you think is best. If you think that the original version is best, choose NO CHANGE.

“Its forehead, for example, may wrinkle when the dog is confused or waiting for a signal from its owner.” 

(A) No Change
(B) confusing
(C) confused by some
(D) confused with

The correct answer is A but I thought it was D because i thought the parallelism with the preposition should be maintained. Thank you so much for helping me.

My reply to browncomputer:

The answer couldn’t be “(D) confused with”; it’s “(A) No change.” There’s really no rule requiring parallelism for grammatically different “or” elements in a “when”-clause. In this particular case, the first element is the adjective “confused,” while the other element, “waiting for a signal from its owner,” is a verb phrase in the progressive form”—elements that are mutually exclusive. If the preposition “with” is added to the phrase “the dog is confused,” the sentence would require an object of the preposition that isn’t there or isn‘t grammatically called for. We must keep in mind that in this particular subordinate clause construction; the idea in “the dog is confused” is complete in itself, independent of the idea in the “or” phrase that follows it, “waiting for a signal from its owner.” 

Perhaps the logic of this explanation would become clearer if we restate the original sentence this way: “Its forehead, for example, may wrinkle when the dog is confused or when the dog is waiting for a signal from its owner. Here, we have two mutually exclusive “when”-clauses, “when the dog is confused” and “when the dog is waiting for a signal from its owner.” Clearly, when these two clauses are compounded into “when the dog is confused or waiting for a signal from its owner,” there’s absolutely no room for the preposition “with” anywhere in that compound construction.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Can “which” also be used to refer to persons and not just to things?

Question sent in by e-mail by Miss Mae, Forum member (February 22, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

Hi! I have just finished reading the 59th chapter of your third book, Give Your English the Winning Edge, and came upon this line: “...that hoary rule that limits [‘which’ and ‘who’] to inanimate nouns and personal nouns, respectively, doesn't necessarily apply.”

That took me by surprise because I have been strictly observing “which” for things and who for “persons.” I also do not put commas before and after a clause introduced by “who.” How can I tell when should I do that?

Thanking you in advance,
Miss Mae

My reply to Miss Mae:

Yes, it does seem surprising that “which” can also be used to refer to persons and not just to things, but this is precisely one of the functions of “which” that was discussed in that chapter of Give Your English the Winning Edge: as a reference word linking dependent clauses or phrases to their antecedent nouns, and doing so either as intermediate subjects or objects of those dependent clauses.

Here’s the example I gave of the relative pronoun “which” as subject of the dependent clause: “Voters have to decide which of the candidates can serve the national interest best.” Here, “which” works as a subordinating conjunction, serving as the subject of the dependent clause “which of the candidates can serve the national interest best” and as the object of the verb “decide” in the main clause “voters have to decide.”

The hoary convention, of course, is to use “who” in that sentence because the noun it refers to is “people,” but among native English speakers, to use “which” in that sentence is more idiomatic than saying it with “who,” as in this version: “Voters have to decide who among the candidates can serve the national interest best.” Both versions are grammatically correct, of course, but note that the “who” version requires adding the preposition “among,” which I must say just puts another grammatical wrinkle to the construction—a wrinkle that native English speakers would rather avoid for the sake of simplicity and ease of articulation. Indeed, for many English speakers, it’s oftentimes hard enough to choose between “who” and “which,” so why further complicate matters by having to choose between “among” and “between” as well? Obviously, the use of “which” instead of “who” in that sentence construction greatly simplifies matters for them.

As to your practice of not using a comma before and after a clause introduced by “who,” I must warn you that it’s not a grammatically correct practice at all. Before deciding on the use of that comma, you need to determine first whether the clause introduced by “who” is a defining (essential) clause or a nondefining (nonessential) clause.

A defining clause is, of course, one that the sentence can’t do without, as in this sentence: “The woman who discovered radium as a chemical element died from overexposure to its radiation.” In this sentence construction, the comma isn’t needed before the clause. The clause “who discovered radium as a chemical element” is a defining or essential element of the sentence, and dropping it would seriously alter the intended meaning of the sentence, as we can see in this version with the defining clause gone: “The woman died from overexposure to its radiation.” This time, the woman has become nondescript—just any woman for that matter.

On the other hand, a nondefining clause is one that the sentence can drop without distorting or ruining the meaning it needs to convey, as in this sentence: “Marie Curie, who discovered radium as a chemical element, died from leukemia due to overexposure to radiation.” See how that sentence can stand by itself even without that nondefining clause: “Marie Curie died from leukemia due to overexposure to radiation.” The comma before and after the clause are absolutely needed as grammatical markers to indicate that the clause is a nondefining or nonessential one.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Is the phrase “unfinished ending” oxymoronic or paradoxical?

Question from Sky, Forum member (February 14, 2011):

Is this sentence, “It’s as though there’s an unfinished ending to what could have been a great story,” oxymoronic or paradoxical?

My reply to Sky:

By definition, an “oxymoron” is a combination of contradictory or incongruous words, as in “open secret” and “exact estimate,” while a “paradox” is a statement that’s seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true, as in “To obey this rule, you’d have to ignore it” and “I can resist anything but temptation.”

In the sentence you presented, “It’s as though there’s an unfinished ending to what could have been a great story,” it looks like the phrase “unfinished ending” may either be oxymoronic or paradoxical. I don’t think it qualifies as either, though. In the context of that sentence, there’s really no contradiction or incongruity between the words “unfinished” and “ending”; the storyteller might have deliberately decided to let the story hang without a formal ending, or he might have died before he could supply its ending, so the unfinished narrative or hanging last chapter would be a natural outcome and not at all oxymoronic. There’s also no paradox either in the phrase “unfinished ending,” for there’s nothing in it that seems opposed to common sense yet is probably true; the unfinished ending referred to is, in fact, simply a plain conjecture on the part of the writer and there’s really nothing paradoxical about it.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What’s the difference between “on behalf” and “in behalf”?

Question from jun balbin, new Forum member (February 6, 2011):

May I ask what the difference of “on behalf” and “in behalf” is?

My reply to jun balbin:  

As I explained in a posting in the Forum’s “Getting to Know English” section way back in March 2009, “on behalf” and “in behalf” are both correct usage, and today they tend to be used interchangeably, particularly in American English. But The American Heritage Book of English Usage cites this traditional rule: use “on behalf of” to mean “as agent of, on the part of,” and use “in behalf” to mean “for the benefit of.” Examples: “Robert accepted the ‘Best Performer’ trophy on behalf of his sister Angela, who was on a European singing tour.” “The Class of ’92 held a benefit concert in behalf of the flood victims.” The two phrases are actually very close in meaning. In my case, I prefer “on behalf of” and will not worry about my choice at all.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The perfect tenses are my “major, major” English grammar setback

I received the following e-mail from Forum member Miss Mae (February 6, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo, 

Ironically, when I became aware of my grammatical sins in college, I grew more confused. In fact, I am not sure till now of the proper usage of the auxiliary verbs “has,” “have,” and “had.” Whenever I have to use those words, I find myself considering first if the subject of the verb they are helping is still alive and kicking. If I remain unsure, I would try every grammatical strategy I know just to avoid using these auxiliary verbs.

This very confusion has been affecting my quest for plain and simple English, which of course is your advocacy. Could you please help me put my doubts to rest? I had tried to avoid asking you this question, but I think it’s high time I did. Please help.

Respectfully,
Miss Mae

My reply to Miss Mae:

I perfectly understand your confusion over the usage of “have” as verbal auxiliary. I must say, though, that the best grammatical strategy for dealing with its three forms—“have,” “has,” and “had”—is not to avoid using them but to understand them thoroughly. I therefore think that your decision to ask about their proper usage is a major step forward.

Let’s begin by looking at the grammatical uses of “have” as verbal auxiliary. We will recall that “have,” “has,” and “had” are used with the past participle form of the verb to form its present perfect tense, past perfect tense, and future perfect tense. The past participle is, of course, the form that the verb takes to express completed action, such as “repaired” for “repair,” “taken” for “take,” and “bought” for “buy.”

Present perfect usage when the doer of the action is in the third person

For the present perfect, the verbal auxiliary “have” is used when the doer of the action is in the third-person plural, as in “The job applicants have taken an English refresher course.” When there’s only one doer of the action in the third-person, the form “has” is used instead, as in “The job applicant has taken an English refresher course.” “Amelia has taken an English refresher course.” “She has taken an English refresher course.”

Present perfect usage when the doer of the action is in the first person or second person

Take careful note, though, that when the doer of the action is in the first person (“I” and “we”) or in the second person (“you” in both its singular and plural forms), the verbal auxiliary “have” is used in the present perfect, as in these examples: “I have taken an English refresher course.” “We have taken an English refresher course.” “You have taken an English refresher course.” (This irregularity in usage often confuses English learners because “I” and “you” are actually pronouns in the singular form, yet they use the plural form “have” as doers of the action in the perfect tense. You need to get used to this irregularity to become confident in your usage of the perfect tenses.)

Past perfect usage

For the past perfect tense, whether singular or plural and regardless of whether the doer of the action is in the first person, second person, or third person, the verbal auxiliary “have” consistently takes the form of “had,” as in: “The job applicant had taken an English refresher course.” “The job applicants had taken an English refresher course.” “I had taken an English refresher course.” “We had taken an English refresher course.” “Ofelia and Fred had taken an English refresher course.”

Future perfect usage

For the future perfect tense, the verbal auxiliary “have” is preceded by another auxiliary, “will,” and this is whether the doer of the action is singular or plural and regardless of whether the doer of the action is in the first person, second person, or third person, as in these examples: “The job applicant will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “The job applicants will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “I will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “Helen will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “They will have taken the English refresher course by next month.” “Both of us will have taken the English refresher course by next month.”

I hope this explanation has adequately clarified the usage of the auxiliary verbs “have,” “has,” and “had” for you.

P.S. To give this discussion a more comprehensive perspective, let me very briefly define here what the perfect tenses are in the first place. The perfect tenses describe an action or occurrence more fully as it has unfolded or is unfolding in time. The term “perfect” is used here not in the sense of “flawless or exact in every detail” but of “perfected” or “completed” action. The perfect tenses—the present perfect, the past perfect, and the future perfect—denote events or states that have ended, are ending, or will end in time. Precisely at what point in time that end had occurred or will occur will determine which of the perfect tenses will be used.

The timelines for the perfect tenses are discussed extensively in Section 10 of my book English Plain and Simple: No-Nonsense Ways to Learn Today’s Global Language (Manila Times Publishing, 498 pages).

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How a correct multi-tense sentence differs from a mixed-tense one

Question from royljc, Forum member (January 26, 2011):

I have two more sentences for you to look at. Are these two grammatically correct?

(1) “Lenin had lived in Europe for three years at time of the workers' uprising in czarist Russia. He was then hurriedly ushered into the motherland by his followers to lead the October Revolution.”

(2) “I had lived in Africa when as a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.”

My reply to royljc:

About the two sentence constructions you presented for grammatical analysis:

(1) “Lenin had lived in Europe for three years at time of the workers' uprising in czarist Russia. He was then hurriedly ushered into the motherland by his followers to lead the October Revolution.”

The first sentence correctly uses the past perfect tense in “had lived in Europe” but is marred by the  absence of the article “the” in the phrase “at time,” which should correctly read “at the time.” This looks to me simply a proofreading error, though.

(2) “I had lived in Africa when as a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.”

This sentence deftly combines the past perfect in “I had lived in Africa” with the present perfect in “I have not the remotest remembrance” and with the past tense in “what life was like then.” This sentence construction clearly indicates that the speaker is talking at the present time (now) about the fact that he had lived in Africa as a boy (past perfect), and is declaring that he has no clear recollection (present perfect) of what life was line then (simple past).

(P.S. This isn’t a case of tense mixing, when different tenses are wrongly combined to form a grammatically flawed sentence, as in this grammatically incorrect mixed-tense sentence from an English workbook presented by a Forum member in this week’s Use and Misuse section: “Children are charmed by the Pied Piper’s music wherever he went.” Both verbs should either be both in the past tense, “Children were charmed by the Pied Piper’s music wherever he went,” or both in the storybook-style present tense: “Children are charmed by the Pied Piper’s music wherever he goes.”)

There’s a  minor grammatical wrinkle in that otherwise well-wrought sentence in (2), though. The phrase “when as a boy” looks and sounds garbled in the absence of the words “I was,” which I suspect were inadvertently mangled in transcription. See how much more smoothly that sentence reads when the phrase “when as a boy” is corrected to “when I was a boy”:

“I had lived in Africa when I was a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.” 

Another fix for that grammatical flaw in the original sentence is to simply drop the conjunction “when”:

“I had lived in Africa as a boy, but that was ages ago and I have not the remotest remembrance of what life was like then.” 

Click to read responses or post a response

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

“All over town” and “all over the town” mean different things

Question from royljc, Forum member (January 22, 2011):  

Hi, Joe,

I'm having problem defining these two phrases: “all over town” and “all over the town.” Are they the same or different?

Thanks for your help.

My reply to royljc:

The phrases “all over town” and “all over the town” mean different things.

“All over town” can literally mean “in many places in town,” as in “The building inspections were done all over town,” or figuratively mean “known to many” or “widely known,” as in “The nasty gossip about the philandering high official that was aired on TV was all over town before the day was over.” In both cases, “all over town” signifies presence in many places in town but not everywhere in it.

On the other hand, “all over the town” means physically everywhere in the town without exception, as in “Snow fell all over the town throughout the night, blanketing everything in sight with eight inches of dirty-white precipitate.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Are there circumstances when a modifier can dangle legitimately?

Question sent in by e-mail by Mr. Roy Kagle (January 10, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo: 
 
The Harbrace College Handbook (4th Edition 1956, page 285) mentions two circumstances when a modifier may "dangle" legitimately, to wit:
 
(1) when the gerund, infinitive or participle (in the subordinate clause) expresses a "general truth," and
(2) when a noun and participle constitute a subordinate clause which is grammatically (and semantically) independent of the rest of the sentence.
 
I cannot recognize and distinguish between these two exceptions. Would you mind providing me with clearer explanations of these exceptions and with tests for distinguishing between them?
 
Wouldn't you consider "when the main clause is in the imperative mood" a third exception? Consider the sentence, "After closing the window, shut up and sit down."  In this sentence, the subject is unmentioned but completely understood as the party/parties to whom the command has been directed.  

When the subject is understood, even without being mentioned, a modifier should be allowed to "dangle."  What are your thoughts here?
 
Are there any other exceptions for the generally proscribed "dangling modifier?"
 
You seem to have a genius for addressing tough grammatical issues and for imparting your understanding of these matters to other people. Many thanks for helping me with mine.
 
Roy Kagle

My reply to Roy:

Since I don’t have a copy of the Harbrace College Handbook and have had no opportunity to read its discussion of dangling modifiers, I’m afraid I can’t comment on what it cites as the two grammatical situations when modifiers can dangle legitimately. In the absence of specific examples for those situations, I can’t even fathom why the handbook makes those two exceptions at all and—like you—can’t even distinguish between them. As far as I am concerned, danglers will always be danglers no matter the subject matter and the dangle happens because of a flaw in the positioning of the modifying phrase. That handbook’s special prescriptions about danglers are very intriguing, though, so I would be greatly interested to read them and formally comment on them here in the Forum. Could you possibly send me a scanned copy of the pertinent pages of the book?
 
You presented the following sentence in the imperative mood as a possible third situation when a modifying phrase may dangle legitimately: “After closing the window, shut up and sit down.” This imperative sentence is, of course, an elliptical construction where the second-person subject “you” has been dropped from the following sentence: “(You) shut up and sit down after closing the window.” What we have here is a simple sentence with a compound predicate (“shut up and sit down”) modified by the prepositional phrase “after closing the window” functioning as an adverbial modifier. There’s really no dangling modifier in this simple sentence; everything is in its proper place. I therefore don’t think that sentences in the imperative mood qualify at all as a grammatical situation when a modifying phrase may dangle legitimately.

For your last question, you asked if there any other exceptions to the proscription against dangling modifiers. I don’t think there should be any exceptions at all; as I said earlier, danglers will always be danglers no matter the subject matter of the sentence and I think it’s foolhardy to be making exceptions to the proscription against them. At any rate, you may want to check out this earlier post of mine in the Forum about misplaced and dangling modifiers. Two chapters of my book English Plain and Simple, “Wrong Place, Wrong Time” and “Rx for Strays, Danglers, and Squinters,” also discuss the problem with dangling modifiers.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The pronoun “each” is singular no matter its position in a sentence

This e-mail was sent to me by Jonathan Valdez, Forum member (January 9, 2011):

It could be that I misread or misunderstood the "rule book," but in the following excerpt from a brief, shouldn't it be "each demonstrates" (because "each" is closer to the verb demonstrate than "Those...guides...")? 

The meaning of the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption
7(C) “turns on ‘the language itself, the specific
context in which that language is used, and the broader
context of the statute as a whole.’ ” Nken v. Holder, 129
S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009) (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil
Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997)). Those basic interpretive
guides each demonstrate that Exemption 7(C)’s protection
for “personal privacy” extends only to individuals.

Thanks.

Jonathan

My reply to Jonathan:

You are correct. That sentence should read as follows: “Those basic interpretive guides each demonstrates that Exemption 7(C)’s protection for ‘personal privacy’ extends only to individuals.” But it’s not, as you say, because “each” is closer to the verb “demonstrate” than "Those...guides...” It’s simply because the subject of the verb “demonstrate” is the singular pronoun “each.” 

Another way of constructing that sentence is this: “Each of those basic interpretive guides demonstrates that Exemption 7(C)’s protection for ‘personal privacy’ extends only to individuals.” As in your corrected construction, it’s not the proximity of the verb to the referent noun that’s the determining factor for subject-verb agreement here but the logic of the sentence.

In both sentence constructions, of course, the intended meaning is that each one of those guides individually and separately demonstrates “that Exemption 7(C)’s protection for ‘personal privacy’ extends only to individuals.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Isn’t “reiterate” a redundant form of the verb “iterate”?

Question sent in by e-mail by Danny Dangcalan, new Forum member (January 10, 2011):

Hi, Sir Joe!

I often read the word “reiterate” in newspapers. Isn’t this redundant? To “iterate” means “to say or do again,” so doesn’t adding “re” to it make it redundant? (I don't know if this has been discussed in The Forum, for I haven’t back-read much.)  

Danny

My reply to Danny:

No, I don’t think the word “reiterate” becomes a redundancy by combining the prefix “re-“ with the word “iterate.” They are actually different verbs with a common root word, iterare, but with different denotations. 

My digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary defines “reiterate” as follows:

It defines “iterate” as follows:

From these very similar definitions, it thus looks like “reiterate” is wholly similar to “iterate” in meaning, but the two actually have a different sense in actual usage. The verb “reiterate” commonly denotes the conscious act of people in stating or doing something over again or repeatedly, but “iterate” usually denotes the automatic act of machines like computers and calculators in stating or doing something over again or repeatedly. People “reiterate” questions and answers, but machines “iterate” them.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

A horribly misplaced modifying phrase in a newspaper editorial

This e-mail was sent to me by Oscar Lagman (January 9, 2011):  
           
Hi Joe,

Here is an item for you. In the editorial of today’s issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, there is this line:

“Manila Police District PO3 Antonio Bautista Jr is facing the same rap, for violating a woman arrested for vagrancy right inside the police headquarters.”

The way the sentence is constructed, one of the three different acts could have taken place in the police headquarters: the violation of the woman, the arrest of the woman, and the vagrancy. Don’t you think it would have been correct and clearer if the phrase “right inside the police headquarters” were placed after the word “violating”?

I think that early in our correspondence, I wrote that the diagramming exercises drilled into us by our Grade 5 English Grammar teacher, Bro. Felix, taught me where to place dependent clauses and prepositional phrases.

Regards,

Oscar        

My reply to Oscar:

You’re absolutely right about this badly constructed sentence:

“Manila Police District PO3 Antonio Bautista Jr is facing the same rap, for violating a woman arrested for vagrancy right inside the police headquarters.”

It has horribly misplaced the modifying phrase “right inside the police headquarters,” making the victim of the alleged rapist-policemen look stupid by making it appear that she had committed vagrancy right inside the police headquarters. If that’s the case, some wags would say, she deserved her sordid fate in the hands of that police officer.

But we know that this isn’t the case at all. Evidently, it was the violation of the woman that took place inside the police headquarters, not her arrest for vagrancy—which, of course, must have taken place elsewhere. This is why the following suggested sentence construction of yours looks much more consonant with the circumstances of the case:

“Manila Police District PO3 Antonio Bautista Jr is facing the same rap for violating right inside the police headquarters a woman arrested for vagrancy.”

The general rule about modifying phrases is, of course, this: position them as near as possible to the word, phrase, or clause they modify. In this case, the modifier is the adverbial phrase “right inside the police headquarters” and it modifies the verb “violating.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Another look on a still unresolved subject-verb agreement question

Comments by kassyopeia, new Forum member (January 9, 2011):

Hi Jose,

I was going to start a new thread, but your latest column topic seems so closely related to what I wanted to talk about that I'm replying here instead. Feel free to split this off if you don't agree, of course. 

I came across several discussions concerning the use of the singular "has" in the sentence "Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]", and was confused and intrigued by the manner in which you broke it down at one point, namely in this post (slightly modified by me):
(1) "Many people" - subject
(2) "discover" - verb
(3) "to their dismay" - ?
(4) "that their many years of formal study of English" - direct object of (2)
(5) "has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]" - predicate complement of (4)

The argument, as I understood it, was then that the verb in (5) should agree with the phrase (4), which is singular. However, this analysis (and, thence, the argument based upon it) does not look valid to me, though I'm not entirely sure if that's because it is flawed, or merely because my understanding of it is.

Either way, this is how I would deconstruct the sentence in question:
(1) "Many people" - subject
(2) "discover" - verb
(3) "to their dismay" - ?
(4) "that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]" - substantive clause, acting as direct object of (2) (cf. example #1 in your post above)
(4.1) "their many years of formal study of English" - noun phrase, acting as subject of (4)
(4.2) "has not given them the proficiency level demanded [...]" - verb phrase, acting as predicate of (4)
(4.2.1) "has not given" - negated compound verb
((4.2.2) "them" - pronoun, acting as indirect object of (4.2.1)
(4.2.3) "the proficiency level demanded [...]" - noun phrase, acting as direct object of (4.2.1)

"Predicate complement", as far as I could discover, is rather loosely defined as a phrase that is necessary to complete a predicate, in addition to the "predicator" (the verb). So there are several items in the list to which the term could be applied, but the original usage, which refers to an entire predicate, is not one of them.

Finally, I'd like to offer a possible explanation for the cause of the confusion, using another of the examples (#4) from your post above: "That the accused is guilty is a foregone conclusion." This construction, as stated, can be broken down into the subject "that the accused is guilty" and the predicate "is a foregone conclusion" - which is superficially quite similar to the attempted breakdown of the "many people" sentence. The reason that it works for the former and fails for the latter rests in the fact that such a subject must be a clause, not a phrase; that is, it must in turn consist of a subject ("the accused") and a predicate ("is guilty"). For "many people" to allow this analysis, there would have to be at least two predicators in the fragment subordinate to "that", but there is only one, namely "has not given".

Am I on to something, or did I just misinterpret your earlier post?

PS: All this being said, I have no quarrel with the usage of "has" instead of "have", per se. The other line of reasoning you gave, concerning the semantically singular nature of the noun phrase "their many years of formal study of English", definitely has merit. And that battle has been fought and re-fought often enough, in any case.

My reply to kassyopeia:

You’ve stated your case very clearly regarding my use of the singular “has” in the sentence “Many people discover to their dismay that their many years of formal study of English has not given them the proficiency level demanded by the job market, by the various professions, or by higher academic studies.” I have done the same for my position on the matter in several posts in the Forum, particularly in the discussion thread for “On the subject-verb agreement question” that started in May 17, 2009.

Several academics and grammarians have agreed with my position regarding that sentence and my analysis of its construction, but I must acknowledge that several others—like you—disagree with my analysis. At this point, I think it’s best for us just to agree to disagree on this matter. Of course, the Forum will continue to welcome arguments pro and con until this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The proper placement of modifying clauses or modifying phrases

Question by roylic, Forum member (December 29, 2010):

Hi, Joe,

I am not sure if the following sentence, “A great many people came that day to express their solicitude, among them was the wise man” is correct. The reason I think it may be wrong is that the “among them…” phrase is supposed to indicate “A great many people” not “solicitude.”

Therefore, I think the following construction may be better: “A great many people came that day to express their solicitude. Among them was the wise man.”

Am I wrong on this? Please help.

My reply to royljc:

“A great many people came that day to express their solicitude, among them was the wise man.”

The original construction above is actually a run-on or fused sentence—a comma splice, in fact—because a comma is inadequate for punctuating the two clauses. You are therefore correct in spinning off the clause “among them was the wise man” as another sentence; it makes the statement much clearer. But this construction would be advisable only if the statement is a stand-alone sentence—meaning that it’s not followed by another sentence as part of an exposition or narrative. In such situations, spinning off a modifying clause as another sentence could disrupt the flow of the exposition or narrative.

A simpler fix is to replace the comma with a semicolon: “A great many people came that day to express their solicitude; among them was the wise man.” But there’s a much better construction and stylistic alternative than this: converting the clause “among them was the wise man” into an absolute phrase modifying the noun phrase “a great many people,” as follows: “"A great many people, among them the wise man, came that day to express their solicitude.” This way, no problems of continuity arise because every idea in the original statement is contained in the same sentence. Another sentence can then be added to the statement without any disruption in the flow of the exposition or narrative.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What are substantive clauses and attributive clauses?

Question from Sky, Forum member (December 19, 2010):

What are substantive and attributive clauses? Thanks.

My reply to Sky:

Yours is a tough but very important grammar question that has never been asked in this Forum. There’s therefore no doubt in my mind that English learners and teachers alike will benefit from a discussion of the subject, so I’m making sure that my answer to your question is as instructive and comprehensive as I can make it.  

Substantive clauses

A substantive clause is an entire clause that serves as the subject or object of a verb. Such clauses are introduced by the relative pronouns “that” and “who” or by the interrogative words “why,” “where,” and “when.”

Here are some examples of substantive clauses:

(1) Substantive clause in a statement: “Despite his acquittal, many believe that the accused is guilty.” Here, “that the accused is guilty” is the substantive clause, functioning as direct object of the verb “believe.”
(2) Substantive clause in a command: “King Herod decreed that all first-born males be killed.” Here, “that all first-born males be killed” is the substantive clause, functioning as direct object of the verb “decreed.”
(3) Substantive clause in indirect questions: “She inquired where the residence of the village chief might be.” Here, the question “where the residence of the village chief might be” is the substantive clause, functioning as direct object of the verb “inquired.”
(4) Substantive clause as subject in a sentence: “That the accused is guilty is a foregone conclusion.” Here, “that the accused is guilty” is the substantive clause, functioning as subject of the sentence.

Attributive clauses

On the other hand, an attributive clause is an entire clause that adds more information about a noun; in other words, the clause serves as a modifier of that noun. An attributive clause can either be restrictive or nonrestrictive.

Restrictive attributive clauses serve to specify precisely which noun is being referred to. For restrictive attributive clauses, the relative pronoun “that” is used, never “which” (at least in American English); when the antecedent noun is a person, the relative pronoun “who” is used.

Here are examples of attributive clauses:

(1) Restrictive attributive clause: “She liked the laptop that she saw in the computer shop last night.” Here, “that she saw in the computer shop last night” is the restrictive attributive clause and it modifies the noun “laptop.”

(2) Restrictive attributive clause (for a person as antecedent noun): “The writing contest winner was the young girl who wrote about a thin, beardless Santa Claus.” Here, “who wrote about a thin, beardless Santa Claus” is the restrictive attributive clause and it modifies the noun “girl.”

Nonrestrictive attributive clauses provide more information about the antecedent noun, but it’s presumed that the specific noun being referred to is already known by the reader either by context or logic. For nonrestrictive attributive clauses, the relative pronoun “which” (never “that”) preceded by a comma is used; when the antecedent noun is a person, the relative pronoun “who” is used. A nonrestrictive attributive clause is optional to the sentence; the sentence will remain grammatically and structurally sound without it.

Here are examples of nonrestrictive attributive clauses:

(1) Nonrestrictive attributive clause: “Many people from the provinces flock to Manila, which is the capital of the Philippines.” Here, “which is the capital of the Philippines” is the nonrestrictive attributive clause, modifying the antecedent noun “Manila.”

(2) Nonrestrictive attributive clause (for a person as antecedent noun): “Let us all congratulate Mr. Roberto Cruz, who as we all know has topped the medical licensure exam.” Here, “who as we all know has topped the medical licensure exam” is the nonrestrictive attributive clause, modifying the antecedent noun “Mr. Roberto Cruz.” 

I hope that this discussion has adequately clarified the distinction between substantive clauses and attributive clauses for you.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Figuring out what highly figurative language means

Question from royljc, forum member (December 4, 2010):

Hi Joe,

I’m having trouble understanding “one shivering consciousness,” much less “one shivering consciousness looks over ...”

Here’s the whole sentence: “I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness -- that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss.” (Source)

Please help. 

My reply to royljc:

The literary passage you quoted uses highly figurative language, not plain and simple English. The phrase “one shivering consciousness looks over” can be interpreted in plainer terms as “one fearfully looks over.” That whole sentence can then be paraphrased as follows: “I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness—that terrible loneliness that comes when one fearfully looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss.” We must be mindful, of course, that the passage loses some of its emotional intensity when paraphrased this way. I have therefore supplied it only in aid of understanding, not as an intended revision or improvement of the original passage.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Preposition of of belonging vs. preposition of location

Question from royljc, Forum member (December 4, 2010):

Hi Joe,

Here is another one. I thought the correct answer to the following question is on instead of of as indicated underneath the question. Please help. Thanks in advance.

10. Don’t miss this opportunity _______ traveling to Japan. 
a) at
b) to
c) of
d) on

(Source)

My reply to royljc:

The answer couldn’t be “on,” for in the sentence “Don’t miss this opportunity on traveling to Japan,” the preposition “on” indicates the location of something or a position in close proximity to something. A positional relationship isn’t the intended sense in that sentence, though; the correct sense is to indicate belonging or a possessive relationship between the noun “opportunity” and the phrase “traveling to Japan” as object of the preposition. That sense is correctly supplied by the preposition “of”:  “Don’t miss this opportunity of traveling to Japan.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

When “it” functions as a regular pronoun rather than an expletive

Question from royljc, forum member (November 30, 2010):

Hi, Joe,

I ran into the confusing question shown below. Can you tell me why Selection (a) is the correct answer? I have not seen a type of sentence like “It being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match” before.
 
“_______ a rainy day, we had to abandon the match.”
(a) It being
(b) Being
(c) Having been
(d) It been

My reply to royljc:

The correct answer to the above filling-the-blank question is “(a) It being.” In the sentence “It being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” the pronoun “it” is used as the subject of a sentence that has the progressive form of “be” as the verb and “a rainy day” as subject complement. It has practically the same sense as “This being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” with the pointing adjective “this” taking the place of “it.”

But why is “it being” the correct answer in that sentence? It’s because it’s the only answer that will make sense for that sentence. Answer choice “(b) Being” is wrong because in the sentence “Being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” the modifying phrase “being a rainy day” would be a dangling modifier; it could not logically modify the pronoun “we” in the main clause. Answer “(c) Having been” is also wrong because “Having been a rainy day” is similarly a dangling modifier, with no noun to logically modify the subject or the main clause of the sentence. And answer choice “(d) It been” is also wrong because it wrongly uses the present perfect for “be,” which is “has been,” not “been” alone. (Even if “has been” is used in that sentence, the sentence “It has been a rainy day, we had to abandon the match” would still be grammatically and structurally wrong because it’s a run-on or fused sentence. The correct construction would be “It has been a rainy day, so we had to abandon the match.” The coordinating conjunction “so” is needed for the sentence to make sense.)  

We must take note that the “it” in the correct answer for the sentence in question is an authentic neuter pronoun that refers to the noun “day.” This is in contrast to the expletive “it” in the sentence “It is raining, so we had to abandon the match.” Here, “it” is a syntactic expletive, a filler subject used by the impersonal verb “is” to express a condition or action without reference to an agent. As such, “it” performs a syntactic role that contributes nothing to meaning.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Why Oxford Dictionary chose “refudiate” as “Word of the Year”

Question by maria balina, Forum member (November 29, 2010):

Hi, Mr. Carillo!

Why did the Oxford Dictionary choose “refudiate,” a word mangled by Sarah Palin, as “Word of the Year”? Can you please tell me the objective in choosing a word for the year?

My reply to maria balina:

I don’t know the detailed methodology of how the New Oxford American Dictionary chooses its so-called “Word of the Year,” but in its media release through PR Newswire-US Newswire last November 16, 2010 announcing “refudiate” as “Word of the Year for 2010,” it gave the following general description of the selection process: 

“Among their other activities, lexicographers at Oxford University Press track how the vocabulary of the English language is changing from year to year. Every year, the New Oxford American Dictionary Word of the Year is debated and chosen, with the selection made to reflect the ethos of the year and its lasting potential as a word of cultural significance and use.”

Here’s its specific justification for its choice of “refudiate” as “Word of the Year for 2010”:

Was the choice of “refudiate” as “Word of the Year” by the OUP-US politically motivated? I don’t think so, but it definitely has huge marketing and publicity value for OUP-US considering the popularity of the personality associated with the new linguistic coinage. And, of course, Sarah Palin’s political supporters understandably seized the opportunity to turn a word choice debacle on the part of the former US vice-presidential candidate into a wordsmithing triumph. They did so—and are continuing to do so even today—by making big publicity hoopla for “refudiate” in the US and international media as an inspired word creation rather than the wrong word choice that it really was in the beginning.  

By way of background, the New Oxford American Dictionary, NOAD for short, is a single-volume dictionary of American English compiled by American editors at the Oxford University Press. It is published by Oxford University Press USA (OUP USA), which is Oxford University’s second major publishing center after OUP UK. A nonprofit corporation, OUP USA publishes works that further Oxford University’s objectives, including its objectives of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. 

Read the OUP USA media release on “refudiate” as “Word of the Year for 2010” now!

Check out the corporate website of OUP USA website now!

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What are the rules for the copyrights to books?

Question by bonruiz, new Forum member (December 3, 2010):

Sir, I would like to know the rules regarding copyrights of book publications. I am at present coming up with some books in English Grammar, Vocabulary, Writing, and Reading Comprehension, which I would like to market someday. Are there royalty-free topics or pictures in the Internet? Where can I find an easy guideline for book publications? How broad is the scope of plagiarism? Thank you very much.

My reply to bonruiz:

You can get the rules governing copyrights in the Philippines by clicking this link to the Copyright Law of the Philippines, and a copy of the copyright application with the Philippine National Library by clicking this other link.

There are hundreds of websites offering royalty-free photos, but as far as I know, they are only for private one-time use and not for use in publications for mass distribution like books. In any case, most of the photos use foreign models, situations, and locations so they would generally be unsuitable for use in an English-usage book for Filipino audiences. There are also a few Philippine-based suppliers of royalty-free photos but the rules governing their use are essentially the same as those of foreign suppliers. For your book, however, I would suggest that you seriously consider getting a professional photographer in the Philippines to work with you in coming up with Filipino-specific pictures of high quality.

I’m not aware of any freely available printed guidelines for getting a book published in the Philippines, but you can check out these two foreign websites to give you a general idea:

(1) EHow Guidelines for Publishing a Book
(2) ASTD Press Book Publishing Process Overview

As to plagiarism, I couldn’t find any website in the Philippines devoted to explaining its basic. I suggest you look up the definition of plagiarism and the basic law governing it in the United States by clicking this link to USLegal.com.

Good luck on your English-usage book project!

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Three grammatically correct versions of the same sentence

Question from royljc, new Forum member (November 24, 2010):

Hi Joe,

I know there is something wrong with the follow sentence but I’m having trouble explaining it.

Here is the sentence: “As is vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

Can we correct it this way?: “As being vividly depicted in the cartoon, Two people are playing football.”
 
or this way?: “As vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

My reply to royljc:

There’s really nothing wrong with this sentence that you presented:

“As is vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

It’s a perfectly grammatical sentence that denotes a stage of an action or situation as captured in a stationary or nonmoving illustration.

We can also render that sentence in this other way that you suggested:

“As vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

This version is actually an elliptical construction of the first sentence above, one that eliminates the verb “is” in the coordinate clause “as is vividly depicted in the cartoon” without changing its meaning.

Now, about your other question: Is the following version of that sentence also correct?

“As being vividly depicted in the cartoon, two people are playing football.”

Yes, that sentence is also grammatically correct, but its use of the progressive verb form “being vividly depicted” denotes a slightly different sense and situation. It means that the action being depicted in the cartoon is in progress right at the very moment of speaking. It’s either that the cartoonist is currently drawing the cartoon and the observer is describing the process, or that the observer is describing the action that’s currently unfolding in an animated cartoon show.

In sum, royljc, all three sentences are correct for their respective contexts.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Do we say “call on” or “call in” to summon someone onstage?

Question e-mailed by Esther Fabular, new Forum member (November 7, 2010):

Hi, Sir, I am confused by the use of “call on” or “call in” when calling speakers or presenters during programs. I hope you can help me with this concern. 

My reply to Esther:

When asking speakers or presenters to go on stage or in front during programs, the proper phrasal verb to use is “call on,” as in “May I call on Dr. Cruz to deliver his closing remarks?” In this sense and context, “call on” means to indirectly order or request someone to do a particular activity; it has the same sense as the more polite form “ask,” as in “May I ask Dr. Cruz to deliver his closing remarks?” It presumes that the person being requested to do the activity is just nearby, maybe backstage or in front among the audience. (The brusque, impolite equivalent of “call on” is, of course, “Dr. Cruz, please deliver your closing remarks now”—something that even an uncouth audience will find embarrassing.) 

We shouldn’t use the phrasal verb “call in” in such situations. It means to summon for assistance or consultation someone who isn’t present or isn’t near the speaker at the point of speaking, as in “I want to call in Dr. Reyes for an emergency meeting.” And such statements are rarely addressed directly to the person concerned; instead, they are said to other people simply by way of information.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Understanding sentences with a reduced nonrestrictive clause

Question from pedestrian, new Forum member (November 2, 2010):

Hi, Jose,

Glad to have this platform for learning English!

I can understand the meaning of the sentence below; however, I cannot write a sentence like that myself. The most important thing is that I don’t understand the sentence structure. I just know there is a main clause in that sentence. What is the structure of the other part of that sentence that’s separated by a comma?

“The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%, slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, lower than the average.”

My reply to pedestrian:

Let’s look closely at the sentence you presented:

“The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%, slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, lower than the average.”

That sentence is actually the “reduced” form of the following complex sentence with a nonrestrictive or nonessential relative clause:

“The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%, which is slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, and lower than the average.”

The main clause is, of course, ““The percentage of people from couple-with-children family in poverty is 12%”; and the nonrestrictive clause is “which is slightly higher than the average, more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family, and lower than the average.” This nonrestrictive clause functions as an adjective clause modifying its antecedent noun “12%” as its subject.

In the version you presented, however, the nonrestrictive clause has been reduced to a modifying phrase through the elimination of the relative pronoun “which” and the operative verb “is” of that clause. In English, adjective clauses that use the relative pronouns “who,” “which,” and “that” generally can be reduced by dropping the relative pronoun and the form of the verb “be” used in the adjective clause. The reduction, which is meant to make the sentence more concise, converts the adjective clause into an adjective phrase, which, of course, is a simpler construction than an adjective clause. The reduction, however, can be done only if it doesn’t alter or distort the intended meaning or sense of the sentence. (Click this link to my previous posting in the Forum that discusses the reduction of adjective clauses to adjective phrases more extensively.)
 
In the “unreduced” version of the sentence you presented, there’s actually a series of three adjective clauses independently modifying “12%”, as follows:

1. “which is slightly higher than the average”
2. “which is more 5 % than that of couple-without-children family”; and
3. “which is lower than the average”

However, since they are constructed in serial enumerative form, only one “which is” is used for all of them. Of course, there should also be the conjunction “and” to indicate that the third item in the serial enumeration is the last, but this “and” was eliminated by the writer perhaps for stylistic purposes. This omission of “and” in such situations is called asyndeton, which is sometimes resorted to by some writers for emphasis or dramatic effect.

I hope that this has adequately explained the structure of the sentence you presented.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What’s the logic of defining a noun by using its equivalent verb?

Question from sandyelf, new Forum member (October 27, 2010):

What is “choice”? Specifically what is the definition of the word “choice” without using choose in the definition? Could this be a subject-verb type problem? I do not find the extant definitions of the word “choice” to be adequate. You can’t say that choice is the act of choosing, could you? Maybe it could be some sort of special transitive verb. I don’t know but something doesn’t feel right about it being a noun. Why is the word “love” a noun but the word “hate” transitive? I’m not following the logic here and I need someone, anyone, to explain why this is? Help!

My reply to sandyelf:

Your observation about the typical dictionary definition of the word “choice” is correct: it does use the verb “choose” to explain what the noun means, which, of course, looks very much like a dog or a cat chasing after its own tail. This, however, is the usual way that dictionaries structure their definitions of words; they expect users of the dictionary to first seek out and know the definition of the counterpart verb of the noun. 

In the case of the noun “choice,” we need to first find the verb “choose” in the dictionary. My digital Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary, in particular, defines the transitive verb “choose” as “select freely and after consideration,” as in “choose a career,” or “to have a preference for,” as in “choose one car over another.” It then defines the intransitive verb “choose” as “to make a selection,” as in “finding it hard to choose,” or “to take an alternative,” as in “when earth is so kind, men cannot choose but be happy.” We will notice that dictionaries make an effort not to use the noun equivalent of the verb in such primary definitions; indeed, in the case of “choose,” they use the close synonyms “select” and “prefer” to establish the denotation and sense of that verb.

The dictionaries actually expect that once we’ve gone over the definition of the verb “choose,” we will then move over to the definition of its noun counterpart “choice.” Here, we will find that the dictionaries freely use our previous understanding of the denotations and sense of the verb “choose” to define its counterpart noun. This is the well-established methodology and logic of most—if not all—of the leading English-language dictionaries in defining words, and once we understand this, we wouldn’t find it not feeling right ever again that a verb often becomes its counterpart noun.

Try out this definition-search process for “love” and “hate” in your dictionary. You’ll discover that the dictionaries work like clockwork when defining words—they routinely define nouns on the basis of the foundation definitions of their counterpart verbs.

Click to read responses or post a response

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