Jose Carillo's Forum

YOU ASKED ME THIS QUESTION

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

Some more puzzling Victorian English sentence patterns

Further questions from Hairstyler, Forum member (August 26, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

I don’t understand the sentence pattern below; please help me solve it. Thanks a million.

(1) “An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.”

I don’t understand the reason why the above sentence has two “is” simultaneously and the subordinate clause haven’t a verb. Is it a special structure? Please state.

(2) “For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them, be they ever so great.”

I studied the “more ... than...” structure sometime ago, but I don’t know if a noun applied between the “more ... than…” is correct. Please explain if inversion occurs in the subordinate clause.

(3) “No one must know the extent of a wise person’s abilities, lest he be disappointed.”

I don’t understand whey subordinate clause use the verb “be” after the noun “he.”

Thanks you a million.

My reply to Hairstyler:

(1)
I’m not surprised that you find the following sentence difficult to understand:

An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

It’s because it has an abstruse construction that makes it almost a fused or run-on sentence (“Fused sentences are very serious and annoying grammar violations”), and one that’s made more confusing by inadequate punctuation. This also explains why, as you pointed out, that sentence appears to be using the linking verb “is” simultaneously for no grammatically valid reason.

The first step to unraveling that sentence grammatically is to recognize that its first clause, “an ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness,” is meant to be some rule being quoted verbatim. As such, that whole clause should be set off by a pair of quotation marks to make it a grammatically legitimate part of that sentence, as follows:

An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

We can see that when that quoted statement is set off by the pair of quotation marks, it becomes a noun form that serves as the subject of the main clause whose predicate is “the first and highest rule of all deeds and words.” In short, from a sentence structure standpoint, there’s actually only one linking verb “is” in that main clause—the one that links that quoted statement to the predicate of the main clause. Structurally, the other “is” doesn’t count because it’s integral to the quoted statement that’s functioning as the grammatical subject of that clause.

Now, these words that follow the first clause of that sentence in question may look like a subordinate clause but it really isn’t: “the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post. It’s actually a coordinate clause of the first clause, and together they form a compound sentence that normally would read as follows:

An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, and the higher and more numerous your posts, the more it will be necessary to follow that rule.

However, to make the statement more concise and punchy, not only was the second coordinate clause inverted but it was also reduced or ellipted—some words were dropped from it, including the coordinating conjunction “and” and the linking verb form “to be”—as follows:

An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, [and] the more necessary [it has to be] to be followed the higher and more numerous your posts.

For an explanation of how ellipses work, click this link to “Understanding the advanced grammar of elliptical sentences.”

(2)
Yes, a noun applied between the comparative “more ... than” is grammatically correct, as in the case of “veneration” in this sentence you presented: 

For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them, be they ever so great.

The comparison being made is, of course, between two subjects, “veneration” and “accurate knowledge of (the extent of his talents).” But I don’t think inversion has been done to that sentence. What happened is simply that the adverbial modifier “be they ever so great” was moved to the tail end of the sentence for greater impact. The normal position of that adverbial modifier is as follows:

For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents, be they ever so great, arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them.

(3)
Regarding the use of the verb “be” after the noun “he” in the following sentence:

“No one must know the extent of a wise person’s abilities, lest he be disappointed.”

The word “lest” is being used in that sentence as a subordinating conjunction that means “so as to prevent any possibility, and “lest” is a subordinating conjunction that requires that particular clause to be in the subjunctive mood, which in turn is a form that requires the linking verb “is” to always take the subjunctive form “be” regardless of whether the subject is singular or plural (“The proper use of the English subjunctive”).

POSTSCRIPT:
I have determined that the three quotations submitted by Hairstyler for deconstruction are also from the Oraculo manual y arte de prudencia (The Art of Worldly Wisdom), written in 1637 by the Spanish-born Jesuit priest Balthasar Gracian (1601-1658) and translated into English by the Australia-born British folklorist and literary critic Joseph Jacobs in 1892. This is the same source of samples of Victorian English sentence patterns that Hairstyler earlier posted in the forum for deconstruction.

I must say for the record, though, that Hairstyler disingenuously fudged Gracian’s Aphorism 92—the quoted statement in Item #1 above—when he submitted it for deconstruction. Its exact wording in the Jacobs translation is as follows:

xcii Transcendant Wisdom.

I mean in everything. The first and highest rule of all deed and speech, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous our posts, is: an ounce of wisdom is worth more than tons of cleverness. It is the only sure way, though it may not gain so much applause. The reputation of wisdom is the last triumph of fame. It is enough if you satisfy the wise, for their judgment is the touchstone of true success.

In other words, Hairstyler took extreme grammatical liberties with Gracian’s ideas in that aphorism and with the text of Joseph Jacob’s translation of it—something that’s very unseemly from someone who had presented himself as a serious student of English needing help in his self-improvement efforts. Sad to say, at least in the case of Gracian’s Aphorism 92, Hairstyler deliberately created even more serious grammatical complications than the original already had, thus wasting not only my time and effort but also those of Forum members following the discussion thread. It appears now that Hairstyler was more interested in putting my English sentence deconstruction skills to a test rather than in truthfully seeking understanding of the peculiar grammar of the original passage.

Even under these circumstances, though, I stand by my detailed deconstruction above of Gracian’s Aphorism 92 as rewritten by Hairstyler. But I must warn Hairstyler that the underhanded practice of fudging original passages in the literature for grammatical deconstruction in the Forum is unwelcome and will be dealt with severely the next time it’s done.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

When English doesn’t seem to use the English grammar we know

Further questions from Hairstyler, Forum member (August 29, 2011):

Firstly, thank you for your help again. I really don’t know how to thank you. Again and again, thanks a million!

(1) “It is preposterous to take to heart that which you should just throw over your shoulders.”  

I know the sentence structure “it is +adj.+ for + N + to + V,” but not what the word “which” represents and why “that” is positioned before “which.” Please explain.
 
(2) “Much that would be something has become nothing by being left alone, and what was nothing has become of consequence by being made much of.”

Please help me by explaining why the word “being” is positioned before “left alone” and “made much of.”

Do they belong to the category of adjective attribute, so we need to add “being” before them to make them a noun attribute?  Please clarify.

My reply to Hairstyler:

I was wondering why you were coming up with so many abstruse and convoluted English sentences—people don’t talk or write English like that anymore—so I was tempted to check where you were getting all of them. I wasn’t surprised when I found out that the two latest puzzling sentence constructions you posted in the Forum are from a Victorian English translation of a book written originally in Spanish. They are from Oraculo manual y arte de prudencia (The Art of Worldly Wisdom), written in 1637 by the Spanish-born Jesuit priest Balthasar Gracian (1601-1658) and translated into English by the Australia-born British folklorist and literary critic Joseph Jacobs in 1892.

I am raising these points not to question the grammatical and structural integrity of the two hard-to-understand sentences that I’m now about to deconstruct here. It’s simply that those two aphorisms—which, of course, are concise, pithy formulations of someone’s sentiment or perception of the truth—used the peculiar English syntax of a bygone era in an attempt to faithfully capture the flavor and cadence of ideas expressed in the linguistically more difficult Spanish tongue. So, if those sentences sound inscrutable to you, it’s not necessarily because your English isn’t good enough. It’s just that the English of those sentences is too arcane and too convoluted to the modern mind and ear—even to native English speakers, I dare say.

Now let’s deconstruct the first sentence that baffles you:

“It is preposterous to take to heart that which you should just throw over your shoulders.”

First, we must recognize that the sentence above is a complex sentence consisting of two clauses, as follows:

1. Main clause: “It is preposterous to take to heart (something)”
2. Subordinate clause: “(It is) something you should just throw over your shoulders”

These two clauses are then linked and combined into a complex sentence by the subordinating conjunction “that,” as follows:

“It is preposterous to take to heart something that you should just throw over your shoulders.”

The peculiar syntax of Victorian English—and also perhaps the lilt of the original Spanish sentence—evidently demanded the removal of the word “something” because it detracted from the aphoristic quality of the statement. In its place, the English translator (Joseph Jacobs) decided to use the less obtrusive, indeterminate pronoun “which” instead of the word “something.” Structurally, however, the pronoun “which” would work properly only if positioned after the subordinating conjunction “that.” Indeed, in that position, “which” becomes not only the subject of the subordinate clause but the object of the main clause as well, as follows: 

“It is preposterous to take to heart that which you should just throw over your shoulders.”

This appears to be how Joseph Jacobs’ Victorian English mind handled the translation of Balthasar Gracian’s aphorism in the original Spanish. In modern-day English, however, I think a simpler, more easily understood rendering of that aphorism would be the following:

“If you find something preposterous to take to heart, just throw it over your shoulders.”

A nonchalant, less prepossessing expression of that idea—meaning not aphoristic at all—would be this:

“Just throw over your shoulders what you find preposterous to take seriously.”

Now as to the second aphorism by Gracian as translated into English by Jacobs:

“Much that would be something has become nothing by being left alone, and what was nothing has become of consequence by being made much of.”

This is a tougher, even more convoluted form of Victorian English—a jigsaw-puzzle-type language that we don’t hear or see the likes anymore in modern discourse. I’ll offer a simpler rendering of that aphorism in modern English in a little while, but in the meantime, let me answer your question about its use of the word “being” twice in the same sentence.

Yes, I suppose you can say that “being” was added to each of the phrases “left alone” and “made much of” to make them acquire the attribute of nouns, but a simpler grammatical interpretation of the process is that the addition of “being” was meant to turn those adjective phrases into gerund phrases, which as you know function as nouns in sentences—whether as subject, object, or object of the preposition. The presence of the preposition “by” before the gerund phrases “being left alone” and “being made much of,” in turn, clearly indicates that those gerund phrases are functioning as objects of the preposition in their respective clauses.

Since it appears that you perfectly understood what that aphorism says despite its extremely convoluted form, I won’t attempt to explain its structure anymore beyond saying that the construction is that of a compound sentence consisting of two coordinate clauses joined by the coordinating conjunction “and.” I’ll just present what I think would be its modern English equivalent:

“Many consequential things turn to nothing when left alone, and some inconsequential things become consequential when we give too much importance to them.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Is “self-explaining” proper usage or should it be “self-explanatory”?

Question from afridi4455, new Forum member (August 27, 2011):

Is it proper to use the word “self-explaining” when you are referring to an attached letter? e.g. “Please find attached self-explaining letter for your information and action.” While in other letters, it is written like this: “Please find attached letter for your information, which is self-explanatory.” Or is there a more appropriate way to say this?

Thanks and best regards.

My reply to afridi4455:

No, I don’t think “self-explaining” is a very apt word choice for referring to a letter attached to a transmission or forwarding message. Much more appropriate and widely used is the word “self-explanatory,” which means “explaining itself” or “capable of being understood without explanation.” In any case, the sample sentences you provided that use “self-explaining” and “self-explanatory” are wordy and stuffy bureaucratic clichés, and I really wouldn’t recommend their use. Specifically, I find the phrases “for your information and action” and “for your information objectionable because they state what’s already very obvious—for indeed, what else is a letter designed for but to inform somebody and make that somebody act on that information? It actually insults the intelligence of the receiver of the letter! So I would suggest this much simpler version instead:

“Please find the attached self-explanatory letter.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Making sense of the perplexing grammar of elliptical sentences

Questions by Pedestrian, Forum member (August 18, 2011):

Hi, Jose,

Recently, I read some passages in which there are some straight sentences, as shown below:

(1) “Some make much of what matters little and little of much, always weighting on the wrong scale.” 

My comment:

(a) In the second half sentence, “weighting” is used of “weight.” If so, there is no verb there. Then this second half is incorrect grammar, right?

(b) In the first half sentence, this is the first time for me to see this “little and little of much.” Could you tell me how to use it?

(c) Is it necessary to use a semicolon instead of a comma?

(2) “I prefer to going to lunch at 12:00p.m. than at 1:00 p.m.”

My comment:

(a) According to what i know about the usage of “prefer,” =>. But the above sentence does not satisfy “prefer sth to sth.”

(3) “Time enlightens us too late of what was first only a flattering of the passions.”

My comment:

(a) This sentence is too complicated for my current level of English. Firstly, I just understand the basic sentence “Time enlightens us too late.” I really get a headache trying to understand the other part that follows in that sentence. 

(4) “In some people judgement excels, in others valor.”

My comment:
(a) Is it necessary to use a semicolon instead of a comma in that sentence?
(b) According to my understanding, “excels” is a verb in the first half of the sentence, then the other half should also use a verb. But, why does it use noun "valor"?

Please explain why the noun “valor” is used after the noun "others."

Thanks for your help again.

My reply to Pedestrian:

Let’s analyze the four sentences that you found puzzling:

(1) “Some make much of what matters little and little of much, always weighting on the wrong scale.”

You commented about the sentence above as follows:

(a) In the second half sentence, “weighting” is used instead of “weight.” If so, there is no verb there. Then this second half is incorrect in grammar, right?

There’s actually a verb in that second half of the sentence, and that verb is “weighting.” This is a transitive verb that means “making heavy or heavier” or “causing to have a slant or bias.” It’s semantically different from the transitive verb “weighing” (spelled without the “t”), which means “ascertaining the heaviness of something by or as if by a balance.” In other words, “weighting” is meant to come up with a weight different from the actual weight, but “weighing” is meant to measure the weight correctly or objectively.

(b) In the first half sentence, this is the first time for me to see this “little and little of much.” Could you tell me how to use it?

Take a closer look at the sentence in question here:

“Some make much of what matters little and little of much, always weighting on the wrong scale.”

It’s actually an elliptical sentence, a sentence construction that omits one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete. That grammatical procedure is called ellipsis.

The full, unellipted construction of that sentence is as follows:

“Some make much of what matters little and they make little of what matters much, always weighting on the wrong scale.”

Note that what were ellipted or dropped from the sentence are the words “they make” and “what matters,” which are actually repetitions of words used earlier in that clause. In the full sentence, the pronoun “they” is used instead of the indefinite pronoun “some” to avoid using this word twice.

Ellipses are resorted to by some professional writers to make sentences more concise, nonrepetitive, and punchy. Elliptical sentences are nice to have, but they are grammatically tricky. I therefore suggest that you avoid constructing them until you have become more conversant with your English.

(c) Is it necessary to use a semicolon instead of a comma?

Let’s closely examine the structure of that sentence:

“Some make much of what matters little and little of much, always weighting on the wrong scale.”

No, a semicolon isn’t the proper punctuation for the sentence above. When a semicolon is used, the adverbial phrase “always weighting on the wrong scale” will become a dangling modifying phrase because it will have no subject to modify. However, a semicolon will be called for if we provide a subject—the pronoun “they” in this case—for that adverbial phrase (in which case it will have something specific to modify), as follows:

“Some make much of what matters little and little of much; they are always weighting on the wrong scale.”

(2) “I prefer to going to lunch at 12:00p.m. than at 1:00 p.m.”

You commented on the above sentence as follows:

(a) According to what I know about the usage of “prefer,” =>. But the above sentence does not satisfy “prefer sth to sth.”

To begin with, that sentence is improperly worded because it uses the preposition “to” ahead of the gerund “going.” The correct construction is as follows:

“I prefer going to lunch at 12:00 p.m. than at 1:00 p.m.”

This sentence construction is, of course, an ellipted form of the following longer sentence:

“I prefer going to lunch at 12:00 p.m. than going to lunch at 1:00 p.m.”

(3) “Time enlightens us too late of what was first only a flattering of the passions.”

You commented about the sentence above as follows:

(a) This sentence is too complicated to my existing level of English. Firstly, I just understand the basic sentence “Time enlightens us too late.” I really get a headache trying to understand the other part that follows in that sentence. 

You’re right; that sentence uses a rather advanced level of English, one that uses poetic language and sentence inversion. The grammatical structure “of what” in such sentences introduces an object of the preposition in the form of a relative clause. It’s somewhat similar to—but not the same as—the grammatical structures as “on which,” “from which,” and “with which” that I discussed in an earlier posting in the Students’ Sounding Board section (“The usage of the form that combines prepositions with the pronoun ‘which’”). The difference, though, is that in this particular case, the preposition “of” links the intransitive verb “enlightens” to the object of the preposition, which is the relative clause “what was first only a flattering of the passions.”

A simpler, unpoetic form of that sentence is this:

“It’s too late before we realize that what we felt the first time around was only a flattering of the passions.”

(4) “In some people judgement excels, in others valor.”

You commented about the sentence above as follows:

(a) Is it necessary to use a semicolon instead of a comma in that sentence?

Yes, we need a semicolon instead of a comma—and for good measure, a comma as well—to punctuate that compound sentence, as follows:

“In some people judgement excels; in others, valor.”

What’s being compared in that sentence is the noun “judgement” in the first coordinate clause and the noun “valor” in the second coordinate clause.

(b) According to my understanding, “excels” is a verb in the first half of the sentence, then the other half should also use a verb. But, why does it use noun “valor”?

We actually have another elliptical sentence here, one that’s an ellipted construction of this fully stated sentence:

 “In some people judgement excels; in other people, valor excels.”

As we can see, the ellipted sentence above dropped the repeated noun “people” and the repeated verb “excels” for brevity and greater expressiveness. Actually, therefore, both clauses use the verb “excels”  but the second clause dropped or ellipted it.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

When do we use “in the street” and “on the street”?

Questions e-mailed by DikPascual (August 1, 2011):

Hi,

When do we use “in the street” and “on the street”?

My editor told me years ago that we use “on the street” when we are referring to a specific street, as in “He was found dead on Recto Street.” He said we use “in the street” when it could be just any street, as in “There’s just too much litter in the streets of Manila.”

With this guide, I find logical “Knowing you’re on the street where we live,” because it speaks (sings) of the specific street “where we live.” It is “The Santoses live on Maria Clara Street.” And I frown on the widespread use of “a man on the street” interview, because the interview is just anywhere, everywhere, without pinning it to a specific street. I prefer “man in the street” interview.

What do you think?

Thanks, 
Dik Pascual

My reply to Dik Pascual:

Your editor was right in his prescription that the preposition “on” should be used when referring to a specific street, as in the example you gave, “He was found dead on Recto Street.” Based on American usage that I had gathered way back and confirmed to be standard, “on” should also be used for the names of roads, avenues, and boulevards: “Her apartment is on Ortigas Avenue, [on Santolan Road, on Roxas Boulevard].” In all these cases, of course, “on” is being used as a preposition for indicating a specific location by name.

I think your editor was also conceptually right when he prescribed the preposition “in” for referring to just any street (or “street” in the generic sense), as in the other example you gave, “There’s just too much litter in the streets of Manila.” Here, “in” is used as a preposition for indicating location, as in these other examples: “The children are in the kitchen [in the garden, in the car, in the library, in the class (or in class), in school (or in the school].” 

From an American English standpoint, I also agree with you that “on” and not “in” is the correct preposition to use in the statements “Knowing you’re on the street where we live”* and “The Santoses live on Maria Clara Street.” “However, ‘on” is used in both cases not because a specific street “where we live” is being referred to but because the noun “street” here is used in the sense of “a thoroughfare with abutting property,” and this “abutting property” is in a very real sense a “surface.” In American English, the preposition “on” is prescribed for indicating a surface where something happens to be, as in “There are nasty scratches on the floor.” 

We must keep in mind, though, that the usage of “on” or “in” varies from one linguistic area to another, and is actually more conventional and idiomatic than logical. In British English, in particular, the preposition “in” is often used in grammatical situations where American English would prescribe “on,” and that goes for some other prepositions as well. This difference in usage is accurately captured by this playful comparison: “Londoners live in a street and stay in farm cottages at weekends, but New Yorkers and English-speaking Manilans live on a street and stay in farm cottages on weekends.”

This is also the reason why unlike you, Dik, I really wouldn’t frown on people who use the noun phrase “a man on the street” instead of “a man in the street.” The usage would depend on the country or linguistic region where the speaker or writer lives. In fact, in recognition of the perfect equivalence of those two phrases, my Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary considers “man on the street” and “man in the street” equally acceptable usage for referring to “an average or ordinary person.” 

I must add here that time and again, I have emphasized in my English-usage columns in The Manila Times and in my English-usage books that most preposition usage is essentially conventional, even quirkish, and that many preposition choices actually have no inherent or discernible logic of their own. It’s for this reason that I suggest to learners of English—at least the American English variety—to just memorize the prepositions according to the prescribed usage.

Those interested to do so can start right now by studying the four lessons on preposition usage, prepositional phrases, and prepositional idioms that I posted here in the Forum in June of 2009, as follows: 

Lesson #7 – The Prepositions Revisited

Lesson #8 – Specific Rules for Preposition Usage

Lesson #9 – Getting to Know the Prepositional Phrases

Lesson #10 – Dealing with the Prepositional Idioms  

----------------
*The exact phrasing of this line as sung in Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe’s Broadway musical My Fair Lady is “Knowing I’m on the street where you live.” I love that song so much—and the 1964 film adaptation of that musical as well—that I am yielding to the temptation of quoting its entire lyrics here (underscoring mine):

On the Street Where You Live

I have often walked down this street before; 
But the pavement always stayed beneath my feet before. 
All at once am I 
Several stories high,
Knowing I’m on the street where you live.

Are there lilac trees in the heart of town? 
Can you hear a lark in any other part of town? 
Does enchantment pour 
Out of ev’ry door? 
No, it's just on the street where you live!

And oh! The towering feeling 
Just to know somehow you are near! 
The overpowering feeling 
That any second you may suddenly appear!
People stop and stare. They don’t bother me. 
For there’s nowhere else on earth that I would rather be. 
Let the time go by, 
I won’t care if I 
Can be here on the street where you live.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Figuring out a pair of puzzling compound sentences in English

Question by Pedestrian, Forum member (July 27, 2011):

Hi, Jose,

It has been a long time since I was here. Learning a language is really a long process.

Recently, I read a passage with the following sentences:

“It is easy to kill a bird on the wing that flies straight, not so one that twists and turns.”

“The gamester never plays the card the opponent expects, still less the one he wants.”

I don’t understand the meaning and usage of the underlined parts in the sentences above.

Could you please help me?

Thanks!

Pedestrian

My reply to Pedestrian:

The two sentences you presented are examples of the rhetorical device in English known as contrast and comparison, which emphasizes the difference or similarity between two or more things or ideas. As a rule, such contrast and comparison statements take the form of compound sentences that contrast or compare ideas in two coequal and coordinate clauses. 

Let’s examine the first sentence:

“It is easy to kill a bird on the wing that flies straight, not so one that twists and turns.”

This sentence uses the contrastive phrase “not so”—a negation of the premise in the first clause—to emphasize the difference between the ideas in these two sentences: “It is easy to kill a bird on the wing that flies straight” (a positive statement) and “It is not easy to kill a bird that twists and turns” (a negative statement). The contrastive phrase “not so,” which has the same meaning as the conjunction “but not,” fuses the positive statement and the negative statement into a single compound sentence, with the repeated clause “it is easy to kill a bird” used only once for brevity. In other words, the contrastive phrase “not so” eliminates the need to repeat that clause for the idea in the second sentence, thus streamlining the combined sentence as well as making it more forceful and persuasive.

The word “one” that follows “not so” in that combined sentence is, of course, the indefinite pronoun that’s used to indicate a certain indefinitely indicated person or thing. Here, it’s being used instead of the noun “bird.” Of course, this replacement of a noun by a pronoun makes it possible to avoid the tedium of repeating the same word in the same sentence.

Now let’s examine the second sentence:

“The gamester never plays the card the opponent expects, still less the one he wants.” 

This time we have a sentence that uses the comparative phrase “still less” to emphasize the even smaller likelihood of a second outcome happening compared to that of the first: “The gamester never plays the card the opponent wants” (the second sentence, which is a negative statement) and “The gamester never plays the card the opponent expects” (the first sentence, also a negative statement). The comparative phrase “still less” fuses the two negative statements into a single compound sentence that uses the clause “the gamester never plays the card” only once to make the point. Here, the comparative phrase “still less” eliminates the need to repeat that clause for the idea in the second sentence, thus streamlining the combined sentence as well as making it more forceful and persuasive.

As in the case of the first sentence, the word “one” that follows “still less” in that combined sentence is the indefinite pronoun for a certain indefinitely indicated person or thing. Here, “one” is being used instead of the noun “card” in the first clause. 

The important thing to remember in comparison and contrast sentences is that they are meant to give readers or listeners a clear yardstick for appreciating similarities or differences between two things or ideas—the better to persuade them to accept the idea that the comparison or contrast is meant to support. In the case of the contrastive and comparative sentences we dissected here, they provide comparisons in the form of pairs of specific alternative outcomes.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Can intransitive verbs take a gerund or infinitive phrase as object?

Question sent in by e-mail by Miss Mae, Forum member (July 11, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

Which of these two sentences are more properly constructed, Sir?

1. Andres insisted to carry out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension.
2. Andres insisted carrying out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension.

Also, I wonder if the adjectives “much better,” “much longer,” “too much,” and “more harder” are legitimate descriptions. It’s not just once that I fumbled with them. Are there no exceptions?

I hope you would continue to be patient with those still struggling to learn English. Thank you in advance.

My reply to Miss Mae:

Both of the following sentences are grammatically incorrect because they are improperly using “insist” as an intransitive verb:

1. “Andres insisted to carry out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension.”
2. “Andres insisted carrying out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension.”

In English grammar, an intransitive verb can’t take a direct object in a sentence; only transitive verbs can do so. In your first sentence, the infinitive phrase “to carry out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension” is functioning as a noun that serves as direct object of the verb “insisted.” In the second sentence, the gerund phrase “carrying out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension” similarly functions as a noun that serves as the direct object of the verb “insisted.” Both sentences are therefore grammatically anomalous constructions.

An intransitive verb can link up with an object in a sentence only when it uses a preposition as grammatical intermediary. In the case of the verb “insist” in the sentence in question, the appropriate preposition is “on” and, grammatically, the linkage will only work when the object of the preposition is a regular noun, as in “Andres insisted on Jose as his tactical adviser,” or a gerund or gerund phrase, as in this revision of your second sentence: “Andres insisted on carrying out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension.” That linkage won’t work when the object of the preposition is an infinitive or infinitive phrase, as in this grammatically flawed revision of your first sentence: “Andres insisted on to carry out the notice of eviction to avoid suspension.” This is how it is with intransitive verbs in English.

In contrast, when “insist” is used as a transitive verb, it can legitimately have a direct object but that direct object should be in the form of a relative “that” clause, as in this sentence: “Andres insisted that he carry out the notice of suspension so he can avoid being suspended.” Take note that the relative clause in such sentences is in the subjunctive mood, so the verb takes the bare infinitive form (without the “to” of the infinitive form) instead of the present-tense indicative form; in the sentence in question, the subjunctive form of the verb will be “carry” instead of “carries” for the singular-form pronoun “he.” 

As to your second question, the comparative adjectives “much better,” “much longer,” and “too much” are grammatically correct; “more harder” is grammatically wrong and the grammatically correct usage is “much harder.” Conversely, we can’t say “more better,” “more longer,” and “more much.” It’s just the way it is in English and I’m afraid there are no exceptions.

P.S. to my reply to Miss Mae:

I overlooked the headline of your e-mail, which asked this question regarding the sample sentences you presented:

“Can infinitive phrases be used more than once in a sentence?”

The answer is yes, definitely. Your two sentences as corrected are good examples. And you can actually use as many infinitive phrases as needed in a serial sequence, as in the following sentence:

“The misfortune that befell his family prompted the prodigal student to cut down on his living expenses to the bone, to quit drinking and smoking cold turkeyto sell his luxury car, and to stop his very frequent all-night weekend partying altogether.”
 
That’s all of four infinitive phrases in a row, and more can be added to the serial sequence for as long as you like. (The phrase “to the bone” is excluded from this count, for it's not an infinitive phrase but a prepositional phrase modifying the verb phrase “cut down” adverbially).

Click to read responses or post a response

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

How should conditional questions be constructed?

Question by English Editor, Forum member (July 7, 2011):

Good day, Sir. Which between the two questions below uses the correct structure? I've always thought  number 1 is the "correct" question. I always edit the work of my authors whenever they use the second structure. But more often than not, they choose to retain their original question and "undo" my edits. They always ask for my source but I could not give them any. All I know is that my "style" is grammatically correct because the 2nd structure has two questions, like having a question within a question. Am I correct in saying this then? Thank you very much.

1. “If it could talk, what do you think it would tell?”
2. “If it could talk, what do you think would it tell?”

My reply to English Editor:

Your question uses the grammatically correct structure: “If it could talk, what do you think it would tell?”

That question is in the form of the so-called second conditional sentence, which is used to denote unreal—meaning impossible—or improbable situations. Evidently, the use of the pronoun “it” in that sentence indicates that the subject is not a person but an animal, say a dolphin or a whale, or perhaps an inanimate thing in the figurative sense, say a wall or a lamppost. In any case, that “it” couldn’t talk so the situation described in that sentence is unreal if not downright impossible. (I must also say that the improbable use of the pronoun “it” for that “talking” subject is one other reason why the grammar and semantics of that sentence are rather slippery.)  

As we know, a conditional sentence normally contains two clauses, the condition or premise (protasis) and the consequence or conclusion (apodosis). In the case of the conditional question you presented, the components are the following: 

Condition or premise: “If it could talk”
Consequence or conclusion in the indicative mood: “it would tell (something)”

However, in the sentence in question, this consequence is stated in the form of a question, “What do you think it would tell?” 

Of course, the bigger question at issue here is why that form of the question is grammatically correct and this other form preferred by your authors is incorrect: “If it could talk, what do you think would it tell?”

The answer is simply this: in English, a question normally can’t be nested within another question. After a question is raised by the use of the interrogatives “what,” “who,” “why,” when,” “where,” or “how,” it’s mandatory for it to be grammatically followed by the question’s premise in the form of an indicative statement. The correct question form is therefore “What do you think it would tell?” where the question “What do you think”” is followed by the indicative “it would tell.” In contrast, in the form preferred by your authors, “What do you think would it tell?”, the question “What do you think” is followed by another interrogative, “would it tell?”—a form that runs counter to the proper form for a question.

I realize that this explanation alone may be a hard to appreciate and accept, so I’m offering this other test to demonstrate which of the two forms of that conditional question is correct—reverse the order of the condition and the consequence in that sentence.

Your version: “What do you think it would tell if it could talk?”
Your authors’ version: “What do you think would it tell if it could talk?”

This time I think it’s pretty clear that the first is not only the correct but also the better-sounding question.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Has the distinction between “healthy” and “healthful” vanished?

Question by Mr. K, Forum member (July 1, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

1. Is the distinction between “healthy” and “healthful” no longer true? It seems that “healthy” is now the word of choice when referring to things that promote health (healthy choice, diet, lifestyle, etc.)

2. In your book, English Plain and Simple, you said that “should,” “must,” and “ought to” could not work with “not” to form the negative. However, I’ve seen many instances of “should not,” “must not,” and “ought not” (e.g., “But this aid should not be seen as a blank check.” “This verdict must not be allowed to stand.” “As you give a prayer of thanks on this forthcoming American holiday, you ought not forget that nice stock market rally that has taken place this autumn.”). How about other negatives like “never”? Can you say “you should never...”?

3. In Give Your English the Winning Edge, on page 283, you gave this example of a sentence with an adjective clause: “The strategy which they used to win the bidding was superb.” Why is the clause “which they used to win the bidding” not set off by a pair of commas? I know that that chapter isn’t about restrictive and non-restrictive clause, but I was just wondering, are there instances when commas are not necessary?  

Thank you!

My reply to Mr. K:

You asked some very perceptive questions. Let me answer each one of them in some detail:

1. I’m afraid that the distinction between “healthy” and “healthful” has been—and continuous to be—eroded in contemporary usage. This is largely because of the propensity of many food manufacturers to use the adjective “healthy” instead of the scrupulously correct “healthful” in advertising pitches for their products. By definition, “healthy” means “enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit” and “evincing health,” but it also has the third meaning of “conducive to health.” This third meaning is, of course, practically synonymous with that of “healthful,” whose primary meaning is “beneficial to health of mind and body.” Food manufacturers and their advertising agencies are therefore not committing prevarication or deviating from truth in advertising when they prefer to use “healthy” over “healthful” in their ads or product labels. They are simply exercising their freedom of word choice. Evidently, from a marketing and creative standpoint, they obviously find “healthy” a more compelling pitch for their food products than “healthful.”

2. Yes, I did say in my book English Plain and Simple that the modal auxiliaries “should,” “must,” and “ought to” could not work with “not” to form the negative of their affirmative statements, but I specified at the outset that this is only in the context of their function of indicating varying degrees of obligation, necessity, or certainty. These three modal auxiliaries actually have many more meanings and usages than the one contemplated by the discussions in that chapter, and the sentences you provided as examples reflect these other meanings.

For instance, in the statement “But this aid should not be seen as a blank check,” “should not” is being used in the sense of a prohibition or exception, not in the sense of an obligation, necessity, or certainty. This is in contrast to one of the usages of “should” that I provided using this latter sense, “You should pick up your sister from the airport,” which is a clear case of an obligation or necessity. When that statement is made in the negative sense by adding “not” to “should,” as in “You should not pick up your sister from the airport,” it’s no longer a statement asserting obligation or necessity on the part of the person being addressed but a prohibition; in fact, this negative statement has a sense of semantic incompleteness or lack of resolution—one that can be resolved only by adding further information like, say, where the sister should be picked up instead, as in “You should not pick up your sister from the airport but from the house of your cousin Rico instead where she’s staying overnight.” (This sentence is actually a loose, colloquial construction of this more scrupulously correct construction, “You should pick up your sister not from the airport but from the house of your cousin Rico instead where she’s staying overnight”—a telltale indication that there’s really something grammatically amiss in putting the words “should” and “not” adjacent to each other in sentences where “should” is meant in the sense of an obligation or necessity.)

This was my point when I said that “should” could not work with “not” to form the negative in such grammatical situations, for “not” cancels or contravenes the sense of obligation or necessity and turns the statement into a prohibition. The same thing would happen if we make “must” and “ought to” work with “not” to yield a negative sense, as in the other sentences you provided as examples. The intended sense of obligation or necessity will be cancelled in the statement and is replaced with that of a prohibition or an exception.

3. In my book Give Your English the Winning Edge, I did give this example of a sentence with an adjective clause: “The strategy which they used to win the bidding was superb.” This is an example of how British English normally uses the relative pronoun “which” to introduce a restrictive clause without setting off that clause with a pair of commas, in contrast to American English, which uses “that” to do the same thing, also without setting off the clause with a pair of commas. You are correct, of course, in observing that in American English, the relative pronoun “which” is normally used only for introducing nonrestrictive clauses that, in turn, must be set off by a pair of commas from the rest of the sentence. In the context of the discussions in that particular chapter of my book, however, I used the sentence in question as a random example of actual grammatically correct English sentences—regardless of whether they are in American English or in British English—that can be reduced by eliminating their relative pronouns without damage to their grammar or intended meaning. In Part V of the book (“Matters of Usage”), I devote four chapters to discuss and clarify the nuances of the usage of “that” and “which” in introducing restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, and show how these relative pronouns may be eliminated to reduce those modifying clauses into grammatically simpler adjective phrases.

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 improve logical thinking in sentence construction?

Question sent in by e-mail by forces20, Forum member (June 28, 2011):

Good morning Sir!

Help me improve the following sentences:

1.“The top of  a cylinder on the surface of which a number of strips one sixteenth of an inch thick and one inch above the surface called knives are placed.”

2. “The author here makes digression that devilfish actually exist and have been known to devour men to make the story more real.”

3. “In a village on the Winconsin River just above the point where it joins the Mississipi on a cold February afternoon I first saw the light of a day.”

Do you have good advice for me/us to hone our logical reasoning skill to construct sentences effectively and coherently?

My reply to forces20:

I get a feeling that those three sentences were written by a nonnative English speaker who knows very little about English grammar, sentence structure, and organization. I’m afraid that he or she needs to go back to remedial grammar school for intensive instruction on how to construct coherent and understandable statements.

So, simply as a parlor exercise to help English-language learners limber up on sentence construction, I’m offering the following rewrites that attempt to fathom the intended message of those very badly constructed sentences:

1. “Placed on the top of the cylinder, one inch above the surface, are a number of so-called ‘knives,’ which are strips one-sixteenth of an inch thick.”

2. “To make the story more real, the author makes a digression here that devilfish actually exist and have been known to devour men.”

3. “In a village on the Winconsin River, just above the point where it joins the Mississippi,   I first saw the light of day on a cold February afternoon.”

or, for heightened literary effect, this fully inverted-sentence version:

3a. “On a cold February afternoon, in a village on the Winconsin River just above the point where it joins the Mississippi, I first saw the light of day.”

How do we hone the logical reasoning skill to construct effective and coherent sentences in English? The answer is easier said than done: Know the English language well enough and learn to think in English, not just depend on word-for-word translations of your native-language thoughts into English.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Can we use the articles “a”/“an” with uncountable/abstract nouns?

Question by English Maiden, new Forum member (June 21, 2011):

Hi, Joe!

I read the latest essay you posted in the Forum titled “A sorry trail of wasted words,” and some parts of that essay brought me further confusion about the English language.

I always thought that uncountable/abstract nouns like jewelry, news, information, beauty, anger, etc. can’t be preceded by the indefinite article “a”/“an.” But I recently read in an English grammar and usage book that uncountable nouns can occur with the indefinite article when they follow an adjective as with this sentence: “There’s a terrible sadness in her eyes.” Is this sentence correct? Can I also construct similar sentences with other uncountable nouns like information and scenery? But sentences like “I have an amazing news for you” and “I’ll show you a very beautiful jewelry” don’t sound and look right to me.

But you did use the indefinite article with some uncountable/abstract nouns in your essay. Here are the sentences I'm referring to: 

“Some stock phrases in English are inherently undesirable because they are too wordy and only tend to give a false depth and emphasis to what is being said.”

“Of course, the problem can be remedied by simply dropping the extraneous words in the repeater phrase, but we need to cultivate a strong sensitivity to the repetition that often hides so well in such phrases.”

Your sentences seem all right to me, but the other examples I presented don’t. Why is that? Aren’t all the nouns I used in my examples and the ones you used in your essay in the same category? Please help me understand.

My reply to English Maiden:

Yes, an indefinite article can be routinely used to precede an adjective that premodifies an uncountable noun denoting an emotion or state, as in the example you presented: “There’s a terrible sadness in her eyes.” Below are five more examples of that usage involving uncountable nouns denoting an emotion, condition, or state:

“There’s a certain magic in the way she sings.”
An enigmatic joy appeared on her face.”
“She always feigned a forceful laugh that irritated everyone.” 
“He displayed such an open admiration that bordered on obsequiousness.”
“I could sense a brutal coldness in the way he looked at me.”

This usage, though, doesn’t generally apply to all uncountable nouns. In particular, it doesn’t apply to an uncountable noun that’s grammatically singular but notionally plural like “news”; indeed, this is the reason why this sentence construction you presented doesn’t work: “I have an amazing news for you.” Instead, we say “I have amazing news for you,” and, if more than just one news item are involved, we say “I have two amazing bits of news for you.” Or “I have some amazing news for you.”

In the case of “jewelry,” it’s also an uncountable noun that’s grammatically singular but notionally plural, so we can’t say “I’ll show you a very beautiful jewelry.” Instead, we say “I’ll show you a very beautiful jewelry collection” or ““I’ll show you five pieces of very beautiful jewelry.”

For uncountable nouns, the modes of modification will vary depending on the nature and particular attributes of the particular noun, and it’s not advisable to generalize on that mode of modification until the particular uncountable noun comes up for use in a sentence.

The uncountable nouns you cited from a previous Forum posting of mine are as follows: “depth,” “emphasis,” and “sensitivity.” “Depth,” a noun denoting state, can be grammatically and notionally singular, as in my use of it in the phrase “a false depth to what is being said.” However, it can also be used as a countable noun that’s notionally plural, as in this sentence using “depth” as a generic measure: “For technical reasons, this device won’t work at depths of 60 feet and 100 feet.”

“Emphasis,” of course, is an abstract noun that’s singular both grammatically and notionally, so it can be modified with an adjective preceded by an indefinite pronoun as in that usage of mine, “a false emphasis to what is being said.”

As to “sensitivity,” it’s another uncountable noun denoting state, so it can modified the way I did in that posting of mine: “a strong sensitivity to the repetition that often hides so well in such phrases.”

I hope this explanation has further heightened your understanding of how the various kinds of uncountable nouns can be modified properly.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Which is the right usage, “on TV” or “in TV”?

Question by zabi1, new Forum member (June 16, 2011):

I’ve always wondered...

Which is the right usage, “on TV” or “in TV”? I hear both used by different people. That goes for radio, the Internet, and whatnot.

Thanks!

My reply to zabi1:

It really depends on what English you’re hearing, zabi1. If it’s American English, you can be sure the usage would be “on TV,” as in “I saw you on TV last night.” If it’s British English, I imagine it would likely be “in TV,” as in “I saw you in TV last night.” This, I must admit, would further depend on what part of England or of the United Kingdom the utterance is being made. The usage of “on” or “in” varies from one linguistic area to another, and is actually more conventional and idiomatic than logical. As one language observer said, “Londoners live in a street and stay in farm cottages at weekends, but New Yorkers and English-speaking Manilans live on a street and stay in farm cottages on weekends.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The choice between singular vs. plural nouns in sentences

Question by English Maiden, new Forum member (June 15, 2011):

Hi, members!

I’m a new member of your Forum, and I’m hoping you can help me with my confusion about the English language.

Can you tell me what the differences, if any, between these sentences are:
A1. We are the masters of our own DESTINY.
A2. We are the masters of our own DESTINIES.

B1. People with diabetes can still have A NORMAL SEX LIFE.
B2. People with diabetes can still have NORMAL SEX LIVES.

Is there a difference in meaning between the sentences in each set? Or are the sentences completely the same? My confusion lies in what form of noun to use: the plural or the singular. I personally think that the plural forms of the nouns in sentences A1 and B1 are the correct ones to use. What do you think? I'll look forward to your answers.

My reply to English Maiden:

Welcome to the Forum, English Maiden!

First, let’s consider the word “destiny,” which could either be a countable noun or noncountable noun depending on its usage. It’s countable when it denotes what will happen to somebody in the future, particularly outcomes that he or she can’t change or avoid. On the other hand, it’s noncountable when it refers to the unknowable entity that’s believed to have the power to control events.

Now, in Sentences A1 and A2, “destiny” is obviously being used in the countable sense since it refers to the individual destinies of the people who comprise the plural pronoun “we.” Sentence A1, which pluralizes the count noun “destiny” into “destinies,” is therefore the correct sentence construction: “We are the masters of our own destinies.” Sentence A2, “We are the masters of our own destiny,” is grammatically and semantically wrong.

Let’s tackle the term “sex life” next. Obviously, the noun “life” is being used in the context of “human activities,” so it’s definitely a countable noun. This is in contrast to the use of “life” as a noncountable noun in the sense of the animating and shaping force in living things. The term “sex life,” then, is a countable noun that should be pluralized to “sex lives” when it refers to the individual sexual activities of the people who comprise the plural pronoun “we.”

Based on this grammatical analysis, Sentence B2 is the preferable sentence construction: “People with diabetes can still have normal sex lives.”  I say preferable because Sentence B1is also grammatically and semantically correct: “People with diabetes can still have a normal sex life.” Unlike the noun “destiny,” which is a countable noun that pertains solely to a particular individual, “sex life” can also be construed as a plural collective noun that pertains to people in general. 

What this is telling us, English Maiden, is that whether a countable or noncountable noun will be plural or singular also depends on the nature and attributes of the noun itself and not just on its grammatical usage in the sentence.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The choice between singular vs. plural nouns in sentences

Question by English Maiden, new Forum member (June 15, 2011):

Hi, members!

I’m a new member of your Forum, and I’m hoping you can help me with my confusion about the English language.

Can you tell me what the differences, if any, between these sentences are:
A1. We are the masters of our own DESTINY.
A2. We are the masters of our own DESTINIES.

B1. People with diabetes can still have A NORMAL SEX LIFE.
B2. People with diabetes can still have NORMAL SEX LIVES.

Is there a difference in meaning between the sentences in each set? Or are the sentences completely the same? My confusion lies in what form of noun to use: the plural or the singular. I personally think that the plural forms of the nouns in sentences A1 and B1 are the correct ones to use. What do you think? I'll look forward to your answers.

My reply to English Maiden:

Welcome to the Forum, English Maiden!

First, let’s consider the word “destiny,” which could either be a countable noun or noncountable noun depending on its usage. It’s countable when it denotes what will happen to somebody in the future, particularly outcomes that he or she can’t change or avoid. On the other hand, it’s noncountable when it refers to the unknowable entity that’s believed to have the power to control events.

Now, in Sentences A1 and A2, “destiny” is obviously being used in the countable sense since it refers to the individual destinies of the people who comprise the plural pronoun “we.” Sentence A1, which pluralizes the count noun “destiny” into “destinies,” is therefore the correct sentence construction: “We are the masters of our own destinies.” Sentence A2, “We are the masters of our own destiny,” is grammatically and semantically wrong.

Let’s tackle the term “sex life” next. Obviously, the noun “life” is being used in the context of “human activities,” so it’s definitely a countable noun. This is in contrast to the use of “life” as a noncountable noun in the sense of the animating and shaping force in living things. The term “sex life,” then, is a countable noun that should be pluralized to “sex lives” when it refers to the individual sexual activities of the people who comprise the plural pronoun “we.”

Based on this grammatical analysis, Sentence B2 is the preferable sentence construction: “People with diabetes can still have normal sex lives.”  I say preferable because Sentence B1is also grammatically and semantically correct: “People with diabetes can still have a normal sex life.” Unlike the noun “destiny,” which is a countable noun that pertains solely to a particular individual, “sex life” can also be construed as a plural collective noun that pertains to people in general. 

What this is telling us, English Maiden, is that whether a countable or noncountable noun will be plural or singular also depends on the nature and attributes of the noun itself and not just on its grammatical usage in the sentence.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The great importance of a pair of commas to Territorial Filipinos

Question by MrG, new Forum member (June 13, 2011):

“All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

How many types of citizens are there in the sentence above. One or two? Why do you say so?

I ask this question because it has been of great import to the WWII veterans and how the US of A treated them and the other Territorial Filipinos. 

The youngest of the Territorial Filipinos is still going to turn 65 next month, July 4, 2011.  Therefore, this painful and discriminatory act of a colonizer can still be appreciated by still very lucid senior citizens.

If you need to know more about the plight of Territorial Filipinos and why the pair of commas in the sentence above is crucial to them; simply do a search for “Territorial Filipinos.”

MrG was born in January 1, 1941

My reply to MrG:

I don’t wish to take sides in what’s evidently a very emotional issue to you and to other Filipinos denied U.S. citizenship under the circumstances you describe, but I’m willing to give you my personal opinion of the American statute below from a grammar and semantic standpoint:

“All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Your question, MrG, is how many types of U.S. citizens there are in the purview of that statute. My answer is that there’s only one type—all persons born in the United States who have remained subject to its jurisdiction. The semantic effect of the pair of commas that sets off the qualifying phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is not to denote another type of U.S. citizen but to exclude those born in the United States who are no longer subject to its jurisdiction (by, say, renouncing their U.S. citizenship to become the citizen of another country). If the intention of the framers of that provision was to include persons born outside of the United States but in other territories subject to its jurisdiction, that intention could have been made unequivocal and unmistakable by phrasing that statute as follows:

“All persons born in the United States and those born in territories subject to its jurisdiction are citizens of the United States and of the State or Territory wherein they reside.”

Note that the phrasing above dropped the pair of commas for clarity’s sake. Indeed, MrG, it was precisely the superfluous use of that pair of commas that appears to have given some people the idea that two types of U.S. citizens were contemplated by that provision. From a language standpoint, however, I feel pretty sure that those commas were inserted by the framers of that provision simply to provide breathing pauses for what would have been a rather long noun phrase—all of 13 words—as subject of the sentence, followed without pause by another 13 words as its predicate. Alas, those U.S. legislators obviously had no inkling whatsoever of the trouble that pair of commas would cause the Territorial Filipinos from then and far into the future!

I think the moral of this most unfortunate situation is clear: Never use commas in vain. To steer clear of trouble, use them only when absolutely needed.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Which is the right usage, “on TV” or “in TV”?

Question by zabi1, new Forum member (June 16, 2011):

I’ve always wondered...

Which is the right usage, “on TV” or “in TV”? I hear both used by different people. That goes for radio, the Internet, and whatnot.

Thanks!

My reply to zabi1:

It really depends on what English you’re hearing, zabi1. If it’s American English, you can be sure the usage would be “on TV,” as in “I saw you on TV last night.” If it’s British English, I imagine it would likely be “in TV,” as in “I saw you in TV last night.” This, I must admit, would further depend on what part of England or of the United Kingdom the utterance is being made. The usage of “on” or “in” varies from one linguistic area to another, and is actually more conventional and idiomatic than logical. As one language observer said, “Londoners live in a street and stay in farm cottages at weekends, but New Yorkers and English-speaking Manilans live on a street and stay in farm cottages on weekends.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Can the past perfect be used to describe a single past event?

Question by innocentmalik3, new Forum member (June 4, 2011):

Hi, guys,

As I know, the past perfect form is used when you describe two past events in different time order. Can I use the past perfect to describe a single past event? On the other hand, can I use the simple past form in this sentence, “I lived in the US for three years,” provided that I no longer live in the US afterwards? I’m having problems determining the difference between these two forms.

I’ll wait for your answers. Thanks.

My reply to innocentmalik3:

Yes, the past perfect tense can be used to describe a single past event. This is when the time or period of occurrence of that particular event isn’t specified, as in this sentence “She had taken the bar examination.” Of course, when the precise time or period of occurrence of that event is specified, say last year, the simple past tense is used: “She took the bar examination last year.” 

Is the use of the simple past tense in this sentence correct: “I lived in the US for three years”? Yes, it’s correct provided that that person had not continued to reside in the US at any time afterwards. 

If that person continued to live in the US afterwards and moved out of the US to live elsewhere at some unspecified time or period afterwards, the past perfect tense is used to declare that fact: “I had lived in the US for three years.” 

On the other hand, if that person continued to live in the US afterwards and lived elsewhere at some specified time or period afterwards, say in Germany for two years prior to the time of speaking, the past perfect tense is also used, but this time in tandem with the simple past tense for the latter action: “I had lived in the US for three years until I moved to Germany two years ago.”

Of course, if that person continued to live in the US uninterrupted from that time onwards until the time of speaking, say for a total of five years now, the present perfect progressive tense is used: “I have been livingin the US for five years now.”

I hope this explanation clarifies the usage of the past perfect for you.

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 use the phrase “augurs well” in a sentence?

Question by ofie4domingo, new Forum member (June 7, 2011):

How do we use “augurs well” in a sentence? Is this use of the phrase “augurs well” right? : “The change in political leadership augurs well for the Executive Director who was awarded with two presidential citations for his excellent leadership and outstanding government service.”

My reply to ofie4domingo:

The intransitive verb “augur” means “to give promise of something” or “presage something,” so to “augur well” for somebody means to give promise of something good happening to that person. In this context, the use of the phrase “augurs well” in the following sentence that you presented is correct both grammatically and semantically: “The change in political leadership augurs well for the Executive Director, who was awarded with two presidential citations for his excellent leadership and outstanding government service.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Which is correct, “cost of” or “cost for filing an application”?

Question by Mr. K, new Forum member (June 5, 2011):

Dear Mr. Carillo,
 
1. Which is correct, “cost of filing an application,” or “cost for filing an application”? I’ve always written “cost of,” but my boss invariably corrects me. I’ve Googled “cost for” and found about a million hits (the examples include sentences such as “Microsoft drops cost for blackberry hosted email”)?

2. Also, which is correct, “This elevator stops at/on every floor”?

3. According to a book I’m reading, “Each team was allotted fifteen minutes to come up with an original solution,” but “Management reserves the right to allot to each employee the work he or she is expected to do.” Why is a preposition not required in the first sentence? 

Thanks.

My reply to Mr. K:

1. Both “cost of filing an application” and “cost for filing an application” are correct usage, but they differ in terms of point of view. The “cost of filing an application” refers to the intrinsic amount charged for filing the application from the standpoint of the entity collecting it, as in “In our school, the cost of filing an application for library privileges is PhP500.” On the other hand, the “cost for filing an application refers to the filer’s out-of-pocket expense in filing the application, as in “To me, the cost for filing an application for library privileges is PhP500.”

2.  Both “this elevator stops at every floor” and “this elevator stops on every floor” are grammatically correct, and it would be difficult to explain a semantic distinction between the two usages. However, by convention, “this elevator stops at every floor” is much more widely used than “this elevator stops on every floor.”

3. Prepositions are used on a need basis depending on the phrasing of statements and the type of sentence construction. Note that the sentence “Each team was allotted fifteen minutes to come up with an original solution,” where the preposition “to” is used in the complement “to come up with an original solution,” is actually equivalent to the sentence “Fifteen minutes was allotted to each team to come up with an original solution,” where the preposition “to” is used to link the object of the preposition, “each team.” (This latter sentence can even get rid of the preposition in this elliptical construction, “Fifteen minutes was allotted each team to come up with an original solution.”) What this means is that the English language allows for flexibility in the usage of prepositions, in keeping with their grammatical role as clarifiers of the meaning of statements.

The thing to remember is that functionally, prepositions are tacked on to a noun phrase so it can be properly modified or elaborated on when forming a sentence. In particular, in your second sentence, “Management reserves the right to allot to each employee the work he or she is expected to do,” the preposition “to” is actually part of the infinitive phrase “to allot to each employee the work he or she is expected to do,” which serves as object complement of the sentence. Strictly speaking, therefore, "to" in that sentence is not working as a preposition but as an integral part of the infinitive "to allot," which is actually a noun form.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What is the correct usage of “already” and “being”?

Question by dexterology, new Forum member (June 6, 2011):

I would like to ask the following questions:

1. Is it correct that “already” should only be used when something is done earlier than the scheduled deadline?
2. I am confused with the correct usage of “being.” What I know is that “being” should only be used in tandem with human or anything related to human; for examples, “ Robin, being the youngest, should be allowed to stay at home” and “The PAWS, being the highest monitoring body on issues related to animal welfare, conducts a seminar on ‘Animal Welfare.’”

Is the second statement correct?

My reply to dexterology:

The adverb “already” is used not only when something is done earlier than a scheduled deadline. Another denotation of “already” is “by this time,” as in “There’s no need to preach to them because they are already converts”; no deadline is involved in that statement. A third denotation of “already” is as an intensifier of a statement, as in “Enough already, I told her last night.”

Regarding the word “being,” it actually functions in three ways: as a noun, as an adjective, and as a conjunction. As a noun, “being” has several meanings that allow it to be used not just in tandem with humans or anything related to humans; it could also mean “the quality or state of having existence,” “essence,” or “personality” of any subject other than people, as in “The Philippines being archipelagic in character, it has a coastline twice longer than that of the continental United States.” As an adjective, “being” means “present,” as in “Please stay put in your job for the time being” (it’s an integral part of the adjective phrase “for the time being”). And as a conjunction, “being” means “since” or “because,” as in “They think of him as being a traitor to the nationalistic cause.”

This being the case, the second sentence you presented is grammatically correct: “The PAWS, being the highest monitoring body on issues related to animal welfare, conducts a seminar on ‘Animal Welfare.’” Here, “being” is being used in the sense of “because it is.”

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The strange grammar of “need” as modal auxiliary

Question sent by e-mail by Oscar P., a newspaper columnist in the Philippines (May 30, 2011):

Joe,

“1. Why is the third person form of the verb ‘need’ not in the present tense in the sentence ‘He need not pay to enter the sports arena’?

“2. What is the right noun form when ‘respective’ or ‘respectively’ is used with people’s names, as in the sentence ‘Gen. Cruz, Col. Santos, and Capt. Ocampo took their respective places (place) as befitting their rank’?”

My answers to Oscar’s questions:

Your first question is why the verb “need” in the sentence “He need not pay to enter the sports arena” isn’t in the third person, singular present-tense form “needs,” considering that the subject “he” is a pronoun in the third person singular. Indeed, this usage looks like a violation of the subject-verb agreement rule, which requires that when the subject of a sentence is singular (“he” in this case), the operative verb should also take the singular form (the present tense “needs”).

That sentence, though, actually doesn’t violate the subject-verb agreement rule. This is because the word “need” in that sentence works as a modal auxiliary, not as the intransitive verb that means “to be in want” or the transitive verb that means “to be in need of.” As a modal auxiliary, “need” is in the same functional category as “can,” “must,” “might,” and “may,” which as we know work in tandem with a verb to express a modal modification. We will recall that modals denote an action or state in some manner other than as simple fact, such as a wish, desire, conditionality, or probability, and that modals in English (unlike verbs) don’t have “-s” and “-ing” forms. This is why “need” doesn’t have the “s” in the modal sentence “He need not pay to enter the sports arena.”

The modal “need” is typically used in three grammatical situations: (1) in negative statements, as in “You need not go now”; (2) in questions, as in “Need he go now?” instead of “Does he have to go now”; and (3) in hypothetical statements, as in the modal sentence “I asked whether she need travel at night” instead of the nonmodal “I asked whether she needs to travel at night.” In your sentence, the modal “need” works with the adverb “not” to negate the statement, giving the sense of “not under necessity or obligation” to go now. 

The strange thing is that when used in the positive sense, the modal “need” grammatically malfunctions. The resulting sentence doesn’t sound right: “He need pay to enter the sports arena.” To make that sentence work properly, “need” should be used as a typical verb working with the infinitive “to pay,” as in “He needs to pay to enter the sports arena.”

Now, regarding your question about the adjective “respective” and the adverb “respectively”: These two words denote that two or more entities in a serial or enumerative list separately have a possession, property, or attribute of the same kind or class, as in the sentence you presented: “Gen. Cruz, Col. Santos, and Capt. Ocampo took their respective places as befitting their rank.” In such lists that use “respective,” the common possession, property, or attribute will always be a noun in the plural form modified by “respective,” as the noun “places” in your sentence.

An interesting corollary question is how to use the adverb “respectively” instead of the adjective “respective” for the same sentence you presented. This is the typical form the sentence will take: “As befitting their rank, Cruz, Santos, and Ocampo took their places as general, coronel, and captain, respectively.” Here, the adverb “respectively” modifies the entire enumerative sequence introduced by the common possession, property or attribute, which, as in the case of “places” in your sentence, will also be always plural in form.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

The usage of “keep you informed of” and “keep you informed on”

Question by Mr. K, new Forum member (May 26, 2011):

Sir, good evening!

Which is correct “Keep you informed of” or “keep you informed on”? If both are correct, when do you use one and when the other?

Thanks.

My reply to Mr. K.:

Both of these two verb phrases or phrasal verbs are correct: “keep you informed of” and “keep you informed on.”

“Keep you informed of” is used when the speaker is referring to a particular fact or event, as in “Your job is to keep us informed of the plans of our competitor” and “I’ll keep you informed of the results of the special election.” 

“I’ll keep you informed on” is used when the speaker is referring to information about an indefinite or nonspecific object, which is usually in the form of an indefinite pronoun, as in “I’ll keep you informed on this,” “I’ll keep you informed on that,” and “I’ll keep you informed on them.” This usage presumes that both the listener and the speaker know the antecedent subject of the indefinite pronoun being used; in other words, that antecedent subject was mentioned or made clear shortly before the “I’ll keep you informed on…” remark is made.

Another variant of these phrasal verbs using “informed” is “keep you informed about,” which is used when the reference is not to a particular, specific subject but to a general or broader subject, as in “He will keep you informed about computers” and “We will keep you informed about the reproductive health bill debates.”

Note that generally, “keep you informed about” can be used instead of “keep you informed of,” as in “Your job is to keep us informed about the plans of our competitor” and “I’ll keep you informed about the results of the special election.” However, it’s not the case the other way around—meaning that “keep you informed of” often doesn’t work properly as a substitute for “keep you informed about” statements. See and feel how awkward these sentences are: “He will keep you informed of computers” and “We will keep you informed of the reproductive health bill debates.”

So when you’re unsure, choose “keep you informed about” as default phrasal verb. It works practically in all cases, while “keep you informed of” is more specialized and works only in specific instances.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

Which verb phrase is correct, “keep you informed (of, on)?”

Question by Mr. K, new Forum member (May 26, 2011):

Sir, good evening.

Which is correct, “keep you informed of” or “keep you informed on”? If both are correct, when do you use one and when the other?

Thanks.

My reply to Mr. K:

Both of these two verb phrases or phrasal verbs are correct: “keep you informed of” and “keep you informed on.”

“Keep you informed of” is used when the speaker is referring to a particular fact or event, as in “Your job is to keep us informed of the plans of our competitor” and “I’ll keep you informed of the results of the special election.” 

“I’ll keep you informed on” is used when the speaker is referring to information about an indefinite or nonspecific object, which is usually in the form of an indefinite pronoun, as in “I’ll keep you informed on this,” “I’ll keep you informed on that,” and “I’ll keep you informed on them.” This usage presumes that both the listener and the speaker know the antecedent subject of the indefinite pronoun being used; in other words, that antecedent subject was mentioned or made clear shortly before the “I’ll keep you informed on…” remark is made.

Another variant of these phrasal verbs using “informed” is “keep you informed about,” which is used when the reference is not to a particular, specific subject but to a general or broader subject, as in “He will keep you informed about computers” and “We will keep you informed about the reproductive health bill debates.”

Note that generally, “keep you informed about” can be used instead of “keep you informed of,” as in “Your job is to keep us informed about the plans of our competitor” and “I’ll keep you informed about the results of the special election.” However, it’s not the case the other way around—meaning that “keep you informed of” often doesn’t work properly as a substitute for “keep you informed about” statements. See and feel how awkward these sentences are: “He will keep you informed of computers” and “We will keep you informed of the reproductive health bill debates.”    

So when you’re unsure, choose “keep you informed about” as default phrasal verb. It works practically in all cases, while “keep you informed of” is more specialized and works only in specific instances.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

When should compound modifiers be hyphenated?

Question by English Editor, new Forum member (May 27, 2011):

Good day, Sir.

Which of the following compound terms should be hyphenated and why? 

1. street dancing competition
2. public speaking contest
3. much-awaited event
4. fund raising activity

We at the office are quite “confused” as to when to hyphenate these. According to the Chicago Manual of Style, we hyphenate a compound term when it is used as an adjective before a noun (as in the case of number 3?) However, our “confusion” sets in when the term is composed of a noun and a gerund. We editors have different interpretations of the guidelines given by Chicago Manual of Style. I hope you can enlighten us on this.

Thank you very much.

My reply to English Editor:

All of the two-word compound modifiers of the four terms you presented need to be hyphenated. This is because the words in each of those word-pairs are not acting as individual modifiers but as a single adjective modifying the noun that follows them. In the interest of clarity, therefore, the four items you listed should all be written as follows:

1. street-dancing competition
2. public-speaking contest
3. much-awaited event
4. fund-raising activity

There really should be no cause for confusion when the compound modifier consists of a noun and a gerund. A gerund, after all, is a verb form that functions as a noun; indeed, in a word-pair like, say, “street dancing,” the word “dancing” is actually a gerund modified by the noun “street” functioning as an adjective. To make sure that this word-pair is clearly understood as acting as a single modifier of another noun, the convention in English is to hyphenate the word-pair, as in “street-dancing competition.” When the word-pair isn’t hyphenated in written form, as in “street dancing competition,” the modification becomes ambiguous. The word-pair “dancing competition” could conceivably be also understood as a compound term modified by the noun “street” acting as a adjective—a modification that gives rise to the absurd idea of “a dancing competition among streets.”

The two-word modifier in the term “much-awaited event” also needs to be hyphenated, but this time the reason for hyphenating is different—it is to make sure that the adverb “much” is clearly understood to be modifying the past participle “awaited” and not the compound term “awaited event.” We need to keep in mind that in such instances, the past participle functions as an adjective, and the convention in English is to hyphenate the pairing of such an adjective with an adverb right before it, as in “much-awaited event.” There’s an exception to this convention, though. When the adverb ends in “-ly,” like “keenly,” the hyphen becomes unnecessary, as in “keenly awaited event.” 

For a more comprehensive discussion of hyphenation, click this link to “Hyphenating for Clarity,” an essay of mine that I posted in the Forum in October of 2009.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

What is the correct way of using the anticipatory “there” clause?

Question by Sky (May 18, 2011):

Are native speakers of English correct when they say the following sentences?

1. “There’s only 5 classes on the second floor.”
2. “There’s many students not attending their classes.”
3. “There’s only 2 classes I got today.”

Maybe I am just not used to it? Maybe I missed out this lesson at school? I am really confused on this matter.

My reply to Sky:

Let’s look closely at the three sentences that have been causing you such confusion:

1. “There’s only five classes on the second floor.”
2. “There’s many students not attending their classes.”
3. “There’s only two classes I got today.”

(Note than for consistency of style in the Forum, I spelled out the numerals in your sentences.)

Those three sentences are using what’s called in English grammar as the anticipatory “there” clause, meaning that the clause is introduced by the expletive “there.” In such sentence constructions, “there” is placed up front in the sentence or clause to point to the notional subject, usually a noun phrase of indefinite character, to give it more weight or emphasis. (Similar to this construction, of course, are sentences that use the anticipatory “it” clause, where the notional subject that follows is a nominal clause, as in “It is hard to justify his lackluster sales performance.”)

Now, the conventional rule for sentences with an anticipatory “there” clause is that the verb after the expletive “there” should be singular or plural depending on whether the notional subject that follows is singular or plural, as in “There’s a fly in my soup” and “There are three flies in my soup.” However, when the subject consists of two or more nouns compounded by the conjunction “and,” there are divergent schools of thought on whether “there is” or “there are” should be used.

Some grammarians prescribe that “there is” should be used when the subject consists of two or more indefinite nouns in the singular form, as in “There is apple and orange in our orchard back home”; to them, it just doesn’t sound right to say “There are apple and orange in our orchard back home.” Then other grammarians prescribe that “there is” can be used even for a compound subject for as long as the component nouns are notionally singular together, as in “There is fame and fortune for young people who can sing exceedingly well.” They argue that to use “there are” in such situations would yield such an awkward-sounding sentence, “There are fame and fortune for young people who can sing exceedingly well.” I think you can very well see and feel the validity of the point of those grammarians. Indeed, the problem with anticipatory “there” clauses is that they often put grammar and notion in irreconcilable conflict.

Now, in the light of the discussions above, are the three anticipatory sentences you presented grammatically correct and acceptable?

My answer is a categorical “no.” Those sentences are flawed both grammatically and notionally, so the correct thing to do is to replace their anticipatory “there is” with “there are.” As you pointed out, though, some native English speakers do speak that way—colloquially using the anticipatory “there is” regardless of whether what follows is a singular or plural subject or a compounded one. A conceptual justification offered for this tendency is that in day-to-day speech, the mind is normally not on the alert on whether the subject that will follow in a statement about to be uttered will be singular or not, so the singular “there is” can justifiably be used as the default anticipatory phrase. This can’t validly justify the resulting subject-verb disagreement, though, so I think such colloquialisms don’t deserve emulation whether by native or nonnative English speakers.

By the way, there’s a quick and handy way to avoid the grammatical conundrum in the faulty “there is” sentences you presented: knock off the anticipatory “there is” form altogether and rewrite the sentence with a suitable linking verb or active verb or both, as follows:

1. “Only five classes are held on the second floor.”
2. “Many students are not attending their classes.”
3. “I got only two classes today.”

These three alternatives are much more grammar-savvy than the colloquial “there is” sentences that have been bothering you. Your English definitely will be much better off with them.

Click to read responses or post a response

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

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:

If I don’t “wake up,” I wouldn’t have to bear with those.

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 I don’t “wake up,” I wouldn’t have to bear with those.

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

I wouldn’t have to bear with those if I don’t “wake up.”

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

If I don’t “wake up”, I wouldn’t have to bear with those.

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

I wouldn’t have to bear with those if I don’t “wake up”.

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)




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

Page best viewed with:

Mozilla FirefoxGoogle Chrome

Valid XHTML 1.0 Transitional

Page last modified: 19 September, 2011, 11:35 a.m.