Ask Our Grammar "Experts" Showing 251-300 of 1,580

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

I thought 'hanged' meant alive when strung up, and 'hung' meant already dead. My stepdaughter hanged herself in a closet Donna, and hung there for 2 hours before she was found.

[Ken, Moderator]

That's sad, Debs. I hope you were not the one to find her.


-----------------------

The distinction I was taught jives with Donna's explanation: hanged for executed, hung for most everything else. But it is a rule that is being violated left and right, so the distinction, like "all right," may be on the ropes (so to speak).

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

It was a while ago guys...come to terms with it and she was old enough to know what she was doing (36). No sympathy required.
It was just a way to illustrate the difference of animate (hanged) versus inanimate (hung). If the swan was alive when strung up, it was hanged. If it had been shot first it was then hung (as gane birds usually are).

[Ken, Moderator]

I'll buy that distinction. Thank Odin we seldom have to use it (hanged) these days, anyway.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

That's true Donna...I hadn't thought of that....

[David]

"Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." --Samuel Johnson, quoted by Boswell

[Rowena]

Ahem...

And then, if we are covering every use of hang/hanged/hung, there is the colloquialism of being hung like a member of the equine genus which has nothing whatsoever to do with a noose.

One hopes.

[Savvy]

Ahem...again!

That usage also crossed my mind, but I wasn't sure what the rating system of the site judged as proper discussion material?

[Ken, Moderator]

Ladies! This is a family site we're running here!

[Peter]

You tell me you´re surfing with a longboard?!
David, respect ;-)

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

I think it was NE that whinnied Peter!!! We are just ignoring him.......

[Annie]

I have a question about collective nouns. I have noticed an author write "The ministry are concerned." I would have written "The ministry is concerned." The same author writes "The team are furious." It surprised me, but when I thought about it the usage makes sense. It's the MEMBERS of the ministry that are concerned and the MEMBERS of the team that are furious, but I have never learned any rule about this. Is it just a matter of memorizing the different nouns that are treated this way?

[David]

This usage in cases of this kind of synecdoche differs from bank to bank of the Pond, I think.

We colonials say "The government is," as if the government were a single entity. The Brits say, "Her Majesty's government are," I suppose because a government is a collection of ministers.

I would imagine there are exceptions, but the difference in usage seems to be fairly general:

US: "The staff is discontent."
UK: "The staff are discontent."

US: "The populace is malnourished and foul-smelling."
UK: "The populace are . . . "

US: "The mob is sacking the stock exchange."
UK: "The mob are sacking the stock exchange."

On the other hand, I don't think the Brits would say *"Scotland Yard are on alert," or *"Whitehall are anxious about the economy." Something about proper nouns, perhaps, or metonymy as opposed to synecdoche.

I THINK these are right. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

A singular merits a singular. Whitehall is anxious. Members of Parliament are anxious. The southern hemisphere colonials hang with England on this! Where something is mentioned as a single entity you use the singular....if you refer to the components contained within, it is plural.

[Ken, Moderator]

The western hemisphere colonials are too busy tarring and feathering the Mother Country tax collectors, collectively and singularly.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

I KNEW there was a proper phrase for it Donna!!!:-) Thanks for the reminder....(brain must have post-50 fade).

[Eastofoz]

I came across two new grammar books (I tried to add them to the group shelf but only the mods can do that). If anyone's interested below are the titles:

Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing by Mignon Fogarty (ibsn 9780805088311)
-this one also has a special website and grammar podcasts; informative but fun

i before e except after c old-school ways to remember stuff by Judy Parkinson (isbn 9780762109173)
-this is really good if you can't remember some of the basics (or not so basics!)

[Jan (the Gryphon)]

Ruth wrote: "This is the kind of nonsense up with which I will not put, sayeth Winston.

R"

The term preposition is from Latin, where we all originally learned our grammar. Latin speakers felt that a word used as a preposition is too weak to end a sentence. Pre-position, see?

However, I have just recently learned that words we usually classify as prepositions used without helping definitive phrases can be considered part of a verb--and there's a proper term for that, which is from the German (not farfegnugen, but I can't remember the term at the moment). Therefore, if the word with is actually part of the verb, using it to end a sentence can be put up with.

[Marsha]

I have a question. Let me pose it as an example - that may be the easiest way to explain.

Can you pick up George?

If my son were to say this sentence by using the pronoun rather than 'George', he would say,

Can you pick up him?

Okay, grammatically he isn't ending his sentence with a preposition (Can you pick him up?), which actually sounds better to the ear. But, when he says it this way, it just sounds wrong.

Should I be correcting him? Is he technically correct. He's 6, by the way.

Thanks!

[Tyler]

Hi Marsha --

Some verbs consist of the verb itself plus a preposition. "To pick up" is an example. It is a separate verb from "to pick" because it has a different meaning. This sort of verb is called either a phrasal verb or an idiom.

Phrasal verbs can be separable or inseparable. "Pick up" is a separable phrasal. This means that the object of the verb ("him," in this case) can come between the components of that verb. "Pick him up" is proper usage for this idiom.

It is acceptable in English to end a sentence with a preposition, although many people avoid it, if they can, as a matter of style. So it's okay to say, "Can you pick him up?"

[David]

Old chestnut from Churchill--"Ending a sentence with a preposition is a situation up with which I will not put."

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

It would only sound right to me if it was used in the following context.....
Two kids comparing strengths......."I can pick her up off the ground. Can you pick up him?" (nodding towards another boy).

[David]

Could Hercules pick up Styx?

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Would that have been the thirteenth labour?!

[Ken, Moderator]

Styx and stones will break my bones but grammar will never hurt me.

[David]

My Grammar is more Cerberal than your Grammar.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Oh well done! Char(y)on....

[Nita]

Hi! I have a question: Is it all right to use "enclosed within double quotation marks"? Is "within" redundant here? Or should we instead use "enclosed with double quotation marks"? Thanks!

[Ruth]

How about "enclosed in double quotation marks?"

Or just plain "in double quotation marks?"

[David]

There's the pithy and jaunty "in quotes."

Perhaps not appropriate for highfalutin' writin'.

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

I like within Nita. 'Enclosed with' makes it sound as though they are both enclosed within something else.

[Tyler]

I vote for Debbie about using "within," and for David and Ruth about economy of words. If you have any leeway (and you might not if it's a technical subject), consider dropping the "enclosed" (there's your redundancy) and saying only "within double quotation marks."

[Nita]

This helps. Thanks so much Debbie, David, Ruth, and Tyler. I like "within double quotation marks" without the "enclosed." Thanks!

[Ken, Moderator]

No problem, Nita. My high-octane panel of experts ("the Cabinet") can handle anything.

-- The Prince

[Nita]

I'm bowing. :-D :-)

[Ken, Moderator]

Machiavelli would approve!

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Are you developing delusions of grandeur NE? Go for a run!

[David]

"Grandeur" is French; "greatness" is English.
A "poseur" is French; a "fake" is English.

What does that say about English-speakers' views about the bouffeurs du frômage?

[Ken, Moderator]

Cheesy buffoons?

Debs, I never had that "grandeur" problem (dagnabit), but the run advice is always good in my case.

What about a fakir, David? That's Indian, I think.

[Eastofoz]

Help: In the sentence: "She is very tired" is tired an adjective or a past participle and how do you know?

[Ken, Moderator]

Adjective, I believe, in the form of a subject complement. Subject complements appear with linking verbs like the form of "to be" above. Subject complements that are adjectives describe the noun (subject).

[David]

She's sick and tired of being sick and tired?

[Eastofoz]

Thanks NE :)

[Ruth]

Wow, NE, this seat-of-the-pants grammarian is duly impressed.

[Clif]

Eastofoz wrote: "Help: In the sentence: "She is very tired" is tired an adjective or a past participle and how do you know?"

Hmm, I think it's a predicate adjective.
The term "subject complement" is a less explict term and may refer to either a predicate noun or a predicate adjective.

[Ken, Moderator]

I compliment you on the subject, Clif. We love to get explicit here (well, within reason and with Deb's approval, of course)!

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

You are only allowed to be explicit if I can understand it! OK?

[Ken, Moderator]

Understood (implicitly)!

[Debbie, sardonic princess of cheerfulness]

Of course.....taken as read!

[Ken, Moderator]

Does anyone actually answer the phone and say, "This is he" or "This is she" when the caller asks if you are who you are?