Language & Grammar discussion
Grammar Central
>
Ask Our Grammar "Experts" II, the Sequel
NE! Thanks for answering Raj's question! I was thinking of doing the same research and you saved me the effort!I was also going to mention that Raj might wish to cite whether hes was looking for a British English or American English Beta reader. After all, we are two peoples separated by a common language.
BTW Raj... Just out of curiosity (and definitely for when you post in those other groups) What's the basic premise of your book?
Stephen,I know it's is my bad, what you said here i agree 100% it is more focused towards American Reader's as the topic itself pertains towards them, as i have already said I am very new to this but will slowly learn how to ask questions... thank's
I wanna improve my grammar, where is the best group for it in there?
Could you tell me if I must tell:"If I had to blame someone, it was myself."
Or
"If I had to blame someone, it was I."?
I need the answer fast, please. :)
In your example, I'd never use the choice ending in "I"Howver you've left out the third villain... "me"
For me the general rule is to remember that "myself" can be reflexive (I’m doing something to/for myself) or emphatic (I went there by myself). Otherwise, you probably want to use "me."
Just to show off your impeccable grasp of the subjunctive you might word it as...
"If I were to blame someone, it would be me." though "If I were to blame someone, it would be myself." is also correct.
Grammatically the first one is correct. "Me" is the object of "it" in the clause in question.
Perhaps an even better construction would be
"If I were to blame anyone, I'd blame myself."
That way you avoid the ambiguity.
Stephen wrote: "If I were to blame anyone, I'd blame myself..."Great. I vote for this construction. :) Thanks!
I would be grateful for some help. Regarding 18th century slavery I wrote the following sentence.... "Wilberforce and his colleagues were hoping that by stopping the trade they would apply a tourniquet that would stop the practise itself, but this was not to be."
I think I have spelt practise wrongly, I think it should be "practice". I would be grateful if someone would confirm this.
Caroline wrote: "I would be grateful for some help. Regarding 18th century slavery I wrote the following sentence.... "Wilberforce and his colleagues were hoping that by stopping the trade they would apply a ..."
I'm not the best to answer you but according to this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
the noun is "practice" and the old form of the verb "practise", except if you use it to say you do something repeatedly as in "I practice violin".
But in your sentence, this is a noun, thus you must use "practice".
Mod
Hi Newengland. Would "ending" be okay? I am intrigued as to why you don't like stopping!
Mod
So yes, "ending" works fine!
Ah, thank you! I hadn't even noticed. (Duh!)
Caroline wrote: "I would be grateful for some help. Regarding 18th century slavery I wrote the following sentence.... "Wilberforce and his colleagues were hoping that by stopping the trade they would apply a ..."
Newengland wrote: "It's not that I don't like "stopping," I just think you should avoid using the same word twice in the same sentence. So yes, "ending" works fine!"
That's a rule of thumb with me, not only sentences, but the whole paragraph or whole article even; that's why I have a thesaurus handy and use it extensively.
Mod
(P.S. Note that I used the word "repetition" twice in that sentence. "Do as I say, not as I do" rears its ugly head anew!)
Mod
Newengland wrote: "Yeah, ineffective repetition is a whole lot more prevalent than effective repetition.(P.S. Note that I used the word "repetition" twice in that sentence. "Do as I say, not as I do" rears its ugly..."
Actually I thought it was very effective there!
Caroline wrote: "A friend and I were wondering if there are any instances where one would/should use "whilst" rather than "while"."If you're British, you use "whilst" American English uses "while."
As an English language specialist, while I was getting my doctorate in Linguistics, I started picking up Britishisms, including whilst. The venerable W. Nelson Francis, corrected me in no uncertain terms. As for alright vs. all right, that's news to me. It has always been all right. However both speaking and writing do change, and, for those who try to make distinctions in when to use one or the other, they are engaging in the time honored practice of creating new contexts to distinguish between the two. For centuries, however, all right has served well in all contexts. I have a language blog: http://smarthotoldlady.blogspot.com that deals with the sorts of issues this site does. It is being ported to Wordpress under the moniker The Language Lady. However the original blog is still available at blogspot. I changed to Wordpress because it is superior to blogger for comment threads.
Felix J. wrote: "Question #3: The lonely octopus.Does anyone know why the plural of octopus is octopi instead of octopod? Octopus is a Greek word but English uses a Latin plural, and I'm just not sure why. I apol..."
It's a product of being so concerned with correctness that the speakers are actually incorrect. What ticks me off the most is saying "syllabi" instead of "syllabuses." Syllabus is not a Latin word and doesn't take the Latin plural "i". The best solution is, since it's being used in English as an English word, to use the English plural. When a word is borrowed from another language, it is usually pluralized or declined according to the language it is being absorbed by
Cecily wrote: "Newengland wrote: "...Will wonders never cease -- Yanks and Brits agree on all eight arms of this one. "Fear not: sooner or later someone will mention singular "they", or "have got", or collectiv..."
Don`t get us started on the war of 1812 again.
I teach English in MX and have come across quite a few mistakes in textbooks for non native speakers. The most recent is that moustache never adds the "s" for the plural. Now ask me what textbook says that.
I don't know if this is in here somewhere, but I wouldn't mind betting that it is in here. I pity the people who really need to know these things!Subject: Heteronyms
Now I can understand why there is such a problem with English language!!
Homographs are words of same spelling but with more than one meaning.
A homograph that is also pronounced differently is a heteronym.
You think English is easy?
I think a retired English teacher was bored.
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture.
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong for me to wind the sail.
18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France . Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are meat. We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught? If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat? Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane. In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital? Ship by truck and send cargo by ship? Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites? You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language in which your house can burn up as it burns down, in which you fill in a form by filling it out and in which, an alarm goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all. That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
P.S. - Why doesn't 'Buick' rhyme with 'quick'?
You lovers of the English language might enjoy this.
There is a two-letter word that perhaps has more meanings than any other two-letter word, and that is 'UP.'
It's easy to understand UP, meaning toward the sky or at the top of the list, but when we awaken in the morning, why do we wake UP?
At a meeting, why does a topic come UP?
Why do we speak UP and why are the officers UP for election and why is it UP to the secretary to write UP a report?
We call UP our friends.
And we use it to brighten UP a room, polish UP the silver; we warm UP the leftovers and clean UP the kitchen.
We lock UP the house and some guys fix UP the old car.
At other times the little word has real special meaning.
People stir UP trouble, lineUP for tickets, work UP an appetite, and think UP excuses.
To be dressed is one thing, but to be dressed UP is special.
A drain must be opened UP because it is stopped UP.
We open UP a store in the morning but we close it UP at night.
We seem to be pretty mixed UP about UP!
To be knowledgeable about the proper uses of UP, look the word UP in the dictionary.
In a desk-sized dictionary, it takes UP almost 1/4th of the page and can add UP to about thirty definitions.
If you are UP to it, you might try building UP a list of the many ways UP is used.
It will take UP a lot of your time, but if you don't give UP, you may wind UP with a hundred or more.
When it threatens to rain, we say it is clouding UP.
When the sun comes out we say it is clearing UP.
When it rains, it wets the earth and often messes things UP.
When it doesn't rain for awhile, things dry UP.
One could go on and on, but I'll wrap it UP,
for now my time is UP,
so.......it is time to shut UP!
OK... Not so much asking for the rule as the reasoning behind it. Nouns are generally made possessive by adding an "apostrophe s" to the end. Pronouns generally just add the S or have a special form its whose, hers, his et. al.
The exception seems to be with indefinite pronouns (Everybody's, everyone's, somebody's, someone's, anybody's, anyone's, nobody's, no one's)
and the one that is always tripping me up... its
I understand that it USED TO have an apostrophe but it fell out of use as recently as the 1900's
Can someone explain the reason behind this?
Mod
As for its. That's easy. It's like his and hers, as you said. It's takes an apostrophe because it's a contraction of it is. Just like in don't, the apostrophe takes the place of the missing letter.
Stephen, Ruth is right about its/it's. When it's a contraction, it has an apostrophe, and when it's a pronoun, it doesn't.In general though, there is no real reason. Read Jane Austen with the original typography and you'll see pronouns with apostrophes, such as her's and many other differences with modern usage, such as to-day.
Grammar is as much about fashion as it is about perceived rules and logic.
Mod
Hi -Grammar & punctuation conundrum. What's right here? Thankful for any grammatical guru's advice.
“I tell people, 'try waitressing and you’ll feel differently about working here,'” she said.
or
"I tell people try waitressing and you'll feel differently about working here," she said.
or
"I tell people, try waitressing and you'll feel differently about working here," she said.
All of the above are really pretty clear but the first is more correct.As I understand it the basic rule is...
In British and Australian English, one typically uses single quotation marks. If writing in North America, double quotation marks are typically used.
As to quotes within quotes...
Use whichever you generally aren't using for that region.
"When I say 'immediately,' I mean some time before August," said the manager.
"Why did she call the man a 'traitor'?"
At least that's what they say on http://www.scribendi.com/advice/when_... and it sounds right to me.
Note the placement of the question mark in the last example. That would have thrown me. That brings up a question... shouldn't the last comma inside your quote within a quote be a period?
Thanks Stephen - I also wonder if "try" should be capitalized?
Mod
I tell people to try waitressing and they'll feel differently about working here.
The first-person makes the speaker understood.
OK... Not exactly grammar but more a question of accepted style. When one is writing and the section contains narration, dialogue and an internal monologue, what's the best method of keeping the three styles clear? In this section I've separated the speakers into their own paragraphs. Placed quotes around each bit of dialogue and italicized all bits of inner monologue. Is that the best way?
“OK” Duke shuffled his feet awkwardly digging the toe of his tattered black Keds into the gold shag carpet. He felt himself blushing, his face burning, and he couldn't exactly look his dad in the eye.
“First.” his dad said. “I want to apologize about barging in on you, and about laughing at the situation. You do remember your door locks, right?”
“Yeah.” Like I'll ever make that mistake again, Duke thought to himself. “I didn't think anyone was home.”
Also I've tried to keep who's saying and/or thinking what clearly labelled at least within each paragraph. Is that standard?
Finally, when telling a story out loud I tend to stress certain words and I'd like to convey that with an angsty teen narrator. Is putting selected words in italics a good way to convey that?
What Duke hadn't told his father and what he had initially worried him most was...
Mod
I would edit it this way were it mine.
“OK,” Duke dug the toe of his tattered black Keds into the gold shag carpet. His face burned, and he couldn't look his dad in the eye.
“First,” his dad said, “I want to apologize about barging in on you, and about laughing at the situation. You do remember your door locks, right?”
“Yeah.” Like he'd ever make that mistake again. “I didn't think anyone was home."
You'll notice I took out a few words, that's because you were more or less saying the same thing twice. For example, you don't need "awkwardly" because your description of what he's doing makes that plain. Nor do you need both "blushing" and "face burning," one or the other will do.
I'm stuck... I need help!I have an author I'm proofing for who is using (to name a few):
- "more scary" instead of "scarier"
(ex: She found it to be more scary than she thought.)
- "more tense" instead of "tenser"
(ex: He felt himself growing more tense as they walked along.)
Which form is more appropriate to use and why? I "know" that I would use scarier because that is the comparative form... but is there any other grammar reason -er would be preferred over using "more" in these cases?
Mod
Meantime, maybe one of our true experts will jump in here... I'm off to the mines!
It's quite common to find a particular phrasing awkward when asked to look closely at it out of context. I don't actually see anything wrong with either way of putting either phrase but since you're asking, I'm guessing that there are enough instances of the "more scary" style of construct than you're comfortable with.
Perhaps you should just make a general comment as to that and let the original author take it under advisement. When looking at your examples I kept wanting to suggest that perhaps one should read "even more scary" or "even more tense" but again, it's contextual.
Leslie wrote: "I'm stuck... I need help!I have an author I'm proofing for who is using (to name a few):
- "more scary" instead of "scarier"
(ex: She found it to be more scary than she thought.)
- "more tense"..."
The rule for quantifiers is based on the length of the original word. If the word is one or two syllables, add "-ier". If it is three or more, use "more." So scary, with two syllables, becomes "scarier." Beautiful, with four syllables, is "more beautiful."
I hope this comment isn't too late to be of use!
PS There are exceptions to every rule including this one, but I can't think of any examples right now other than "wronger." lol.
Mod
Why does that sound as good or better than "The situation became tenser"?
Maybe because "tenser" sounds like a tool in a lab or an exercise device in a gym. (!)
English is a weird language! Why is wronger any wronger than stronger? I agree that tenser sounds a bit like tensor, so the whole lab thing rings true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
I hope my comment won't make this discussion even more tense...
Mod
Stephen wrote: "English is a weird language! Why is wronger any wronger than stronger? I agree that tenser sounds a bit like tensor, so the whole lab thing rings true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
Perhaps it is wrong and what is right is strongly correct.
Stephen wrote: "English is a weird language! Why is wronger any wronger than stronger? I agree that tenser sounds a bit like tensor, so the whole lab thing rings true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
After more thought I believe a subject adjective is almost always either a fixed property or the property is described within the noun or by additional description. Things are high or they are not or they are low, for instance there is another word that usually describes the item that should be used instead of modifying the mischosen or inaccurate word. for instance; In the "tense" example the conventional thought is to say "more tense", howerver, the situation is already tense so what information does "more" give you?" I would use a new word , maybe "terse" or say "doubly tense" but the best thing to do is to move the subject onward and give more information and save the readers' time. Ex: "The (tense) situation turned to verbal insults" or "became electrifying". Your reader will be more interested and your statement will be less boring or repetitive.
Doug
Is there a name for using a noun and its pronoun in the same sentence. I call it My Brother He syndrome. All I know is, I was taught that it is incorrect but I hear it all the time on the news, weather, etc. Don't those people have to go to school at all to get those jobs?
Mod
Language & Grammar
Books mentioned in this topic
Eats, Shoots & Leaves: Why, Commas Really Do Make a Difference! (other topics)Garner's Modern American Usage (other topics)
Garner's Modern American Usage (other topics)
Translations (other topics)
Garner's Modern American Usage (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Derrick McClain (other topics)Charlie David (other topics)
Ambrose Bierce (other topics)
Brian Friel (other topics)
Will check them.