YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

Do conditional sentences backshift in reported speech?

Question posted as a private message by Pipes, Forum member (May 3, 2011):

Hi Joe: Ever since I became a member of your forum, I have become more conscious of my grammar. Thus, I would like to consult with you about this sentence that I myself wrote: ‘Some people said that we could have had claimed the crown had it not been for her answer.’ I am extremely doubtful of the tense of the verb in that reported-speech sentence. Verbs are simply my waterloo. Hope you could help me out with this.”

My reply to Pipes:

On close scrutiny, I find this reported-speech sentence of yours to be in the wrong tense: “Some people said that we could have had claimed the crown had it not been for her answer.”

The extra auxiliary verb “had” in “could have had claimed the crown” is superfluous. The correct past conditional form of that verb phrase is “could have claimed the crown,” so that sentence should read as follows: “Some people said that we could have claimed the crown had it not been for her answer.” This is because when “had” follows “could have,” it functions not as an auxiliary verb but as a transitive verb in the sense of “to acquire or obtain,” as in “We could have had breakfast had it not been for my early meeting with my boss.”  

I can see now why you got the tense wrong in your reported-tense sentence. You appear to have applied the normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech, which prescribes that “when an utterance is in the form of reported speech and the reporting verb is in the past tense, the operative verb of that utterance generally backshifts one tense into the past.” This rule, however, applies only when directly quoted statements of simple fact are converted into reported speech, not when third-conditional statements are converted to reported speech like the one in your sentence. (This previous posting of mine in the Forum, “The proper way to construct sentences for reported speech,” should help clarify the usage of this rule for you.)

Instead, the applicable rule here is that specifically for third conditional sentences (no possibility). That sentence of yours falls under this type of sentence, which talks about a condition in the past that didn’t happen, thus making it impossible for a wished-for result to have happened. (which I explained in another previous posting in the Forum, “Do better than a calculated guess in handling conditional sentences.”) 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,” as in this example: “If I had saved enough money, I would have bought that house.”

Alternatively, of course, that sentence can be constructed as follows: “I would have bought that house if I had saved enough money.” Another equivalent form of “if” conditional sentences of this kind is this “had” construction: “I would have bought that house had I saved enough money,” a form that’s similar to the conditional statement in your reported-speech sentence.

Now, the rule is that a third conditional statement in a directly quoted utterance doesn’t backshift in tense when converted into reported speech. Let’s assume, for instance, that the example I gave in the preceding paragraph is this directly quoted utterance: “I would have bought that house had I saved enough money.” In reported speech, it would take this form: He said he would have bought that house had he saved enough money. The quoted utterance won’t backshift one tense to the form that your grammatically flawed sentence took: He said he would have had bought that house had he saved enough money.

In short, the tense of third-conditional statements in directly quoted statements doesn’t backshift at all in reported speech. Indeed, this type of conditional is impervious to the normal sequence-of-tenses rule for reported speech.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What kinds of noun are “God,” “eternity,” and “ocean?”

Another question posted as a private message by Pipes, Forum member (May 6, 2011):

What kinds of noun are “God,” “eternity,” and “ocean”?

Isn’t “God” both a proper and common noun? “eternity” a common and abstract noun? And “ocean” a common noun? Hope you could enlighten me on this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.

My reply to Pipes:

The noun “god”—with the first letter in lower case—is a common noun and refers in general to “a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship.” “God”—with the first letter capitalized—is a proper noun that refers to a specific supreme being worshipped by the faithful of a particular religion.

The words “eternity” and “ocean” are, of course, common nouns, although poets sometimes refer to them figuratively as living entities, making them proper nouns by capitalizing the first letter, as in “Eternity, I await your coming!” and “Oh, Ocean, you've been alternatively kind and cruel to us!”

Both “god” and “eternity” are abstract nouns, being nouns that denote a concept rather than a physically tangible being or thing; “ocean,” on the other hand, is a concrete noun because it has a physical existence that can be perceived by the senses.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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)