The Grammar Logs -- Number One Hundred, Twenty-Seven

The
Grammar
Logs
# 127

Question I have had an absolute phrase described to me in the following way:
"As it is, the first part [of the sentence] is a participial phrase. It doesn't really modify anything; hence the Latins like to use the term "absolute." But in English grammar, because it doesn't modify a noun or an adjective, it's taken to modify the main verb by default; therefore it's considered an adverbial participial phrase."
Two objections have been raised concerning this description. 1) participial phrases are always adjectival 2) absolute phrases modify the entire main clause.
I have suggested that because an absolute phrase is essentially a participial phrase with its own subject, the adjectival attribute of the participle is spent internally to the absolute phrase, leaving the absolute phrase participial in form only (participial meaning "of, based on, or having the nature and function of a participle"--Websters)
I have also suggested that the easiest way to modify a main clause is through the main verb, and through it, the subject and object(s).
Further, adverbs are the only modifiers I am aware of which can modify an entire clause. Therefore, the description of an absolute phrase as adverbial and participial makes sense, to me.
What is your take on all this?
Source & Date
of Question Colorado Springs, Colorado
17 May 1998
Grammar's
Response You make a very interesting point, but it is not always useful to define absolute phrases as adverbial. In other words, I don't buy that part of the definition that says "it's taken to modify the main verb by default." In the brief section we devote to Absolute Phrases, we use this example:
The two superstars signed autographs into the night, their faces beaming happily.
Here, the underlined absolute phrase does, indeed, modify the verb in that it tells how the superstars did what they did. However, it seems to me that it also modifies the word superstars. Hence, we say that the absolute phrase modifies the whole main clause, not just a part of it. To declare the phrase as participial because it contains a participial and then to say that it behaves adverbially because it modifies things "through the main verb" seems, to me, to blur useful distinctions. I prefer to maintain the distinctions between adverb and adjective functions.

Question I want to learn English Tenses.
Thank you
Source & Date
of Question Timisoara, Timis, Romania
17 May 1998
Grammar's
Response You can start with the Verbs page and don't forget to visit the charts with tables of tenses -- for active and irregular verbs, etc. If you have any questions after that, please write again. You might also visit the quizzes published by TESOL -- find the hyperlink on the bottom of the Quiz List.

Question Is the correct word in this sentence "whoever" or whomever"?
To whomever is covering the individual situation.

Source & Date
of Question Palo Alto, California
18 May 1998
Grammar's
Response In this construction, you want the subject of the verb for this clause (i.e., you want "whoever"). That clause is then the object of the preposition "to." I assume, by the way, that this is either some kind of salutation or part of a larger sentence because it's not really a sentence yet.

Question Dear Grammer,
How do you use hyphens when describing someone's age? As I understand it, hyphens are used when the age preceeds a noun. I assume a name qualifies as a noun (a person, place or thing); therefore, I think the following sentence should be:
May 18th was a great day for 18-year-old Susan Smith.
What If the sentence read this way: For Susan Smith, an 18 year old, May 18 was a great day? Is that usage correct?
Thanks so much for your direction!
Source & Date
of Question Tampa, Florida
18 May 1998
Grammar's
Response No, you'd want to use the hyphens in that construction also: "For Susan Smith, an 18-year-old, May 18 was a great day." When they say not to use hyphens in an age construction after the name, they mean something like "Susan Smith is eighteen years old today."

Question I have recently run across the expression "firstly and foremostly" in writing. Aside from being redundant, is it correct? Can 'foremost' become an adverb?
Thanks
Source & Date
of Question Tel Aviv, Israel
18 May 1998
Grammar's
Response I don't think we can say that "foremost" can never be an adverb, but it certainly should be a rare event! Allowing the redundancy (as you point out), the absolute construction "first and foremost" (as opposed to the adverbial construction with the "ly" ending) should work just fine.

Question whether it is more correct to categorize people in the US as say Irish American and Italian American, or as Americans of Irish descent and Americans of Italian descent depending on their roots. I vote for the former whether US citizens by birth or naturalization a friend for the latter. Can you shed some light?
Thanks
Source & Date
of Question Boston, Massachusetts
18 May 1998
Grammar's
Response The hyphen has the tendency to make the two words so joined equal in weight, and some people who would resist such categorization would argue against the hyphen at all. For instance, to avoid being a "hyphenated American," some African American writers insist that the hyphen be left out. French Canadian, to the best of my knowledge, has never been hyphenated. Thus, in those two constructions, the words are mere adjectives. According to the NYPL Writer's Guide to Style and Usage, "hyphenated terms such as Italian-American and Japanese-American should probably be reserved to refer to the ancestry of a person each of whose parents was born in a different country." That seems like a stretch to me, but I think the second alternative you give us is preferable.
Authority: New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage HarperCollins: New York. 1994. Cited with permission. 213-4.

Question Could you please use the word "hie" in a sentence? They don't believe me that it's a word. I know it's good; I just can't use it. I figure it means something like "come hither".
Source & Date
of Question Portland, Oregon
18 May 1998
Grammar's
Response "Hie" is a Middle English word (hied; hying), so you'd find it in Chaucer and other writers of his time. It means, simply, hasten, but it probably suggests hastening away (as opposed to hastening toward), so if I said "Hie thee to Pizza Hut," that would mean that I want you to hustle off to get me some pizza. It's a fine word, indeed, but don't expect anyone other than a Chaucer scholar to know what you mean or to run off to get a slice of pizza for you.

Question Please tell me wich one of these two sentences are correct:

It would be better that he didn't smoke that much, or,
It would be better that he wouldn't smoke that much.
There is some controversy about the correct formation of these sentences. Muchas Gracias!!
Source & Date
of Question Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico
18 May 1998
Grammar's
Response In either case, I think you'd be better off using "if" instead of "that." But #1 is better. See the section on the use of the Conditional, where you will see that it's not a good idea to use the auxiliaries "would, could," etc. in both clauses of a conditional statement.

Question Is it "here is a resume and a few writing samples", or "here are a resume and a few writing samples"?
The problem appears easily solved by flipping around the sentence ("here are a few writing samples and a resume"), but is it actually incorrect to begin with "here are a resume..."?
It sure is ugly, and I suppose that should decide the matter; the correct approach is undoubtedly to avoid the problem entirely by rewriting the sentence. But I still wonder whether in this case it is permissible to agree with the subject closest to the verb (here is a resume and writing samples...)
What do you think?
Source & Date
of Question Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
19 May 1998
Grammar's
Response You're right to point out that this is a problem with using Expletive Constructions. In Understanding English Grammar, Martha Kolln says that this use of the expletive creates an exception to the general rule of subject-verb agreement. As an example, she uses the "there" expletive instead of the "here" expletive, but the same reasoning (if you can call it that) obtains, I think. "A compound subject, which we usually treat as plural, may take the -s form of be under some circumstances:
There was some great blocking and some fine running and passing in Saturday's game.
In this sentence 'there were' would be awkward, even though the subject is compound."
Kolln makes it sound as though this exception only obtains in the use of the "to be" verb, so you might want to test that in a few situations where you use different kinds of verbs.
Authority: Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln. 4rth Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. 1994. 135.

Question What are the rules regarding the usage of "too" and "also"?
Let's say we go to dinner and you place your order. I want the same thing, so do I say, "I'd like that, too," or "I'd like that also"?
Thanks!
Source & Date
of Question Lafayette, Louisiana
19 May 1998
Grammar's
Response I think the "also" sometimes sounds a bit more formal, but there is no difference in meaning or correctness in the two sentences you give us. The "also" sometimes sounds as though it's in the same league with "likewise" or "besides," and therefore is likely to be used more than "too" in formal writing or speech.
That's my understanding of it, and I don't find anything in my resources that says I'm wrong. However, I'll post this question and response, and some other writers might have other suggestions. If they do, I'll pass them along.
David Eason suggests this difference:
The only difference that I can think of is the implication based on the context. For example, if I say that I am also going to the store, that implies I am going to the store in addition to going somewhere or doing something else. If I say that I am too going to the store, that implies a contradiction of a previous statement (you are not--I am too).
This distinction, however, depends upon an element of stress that is almost impossible to reproduce outside of speech: ("I am TOO!" doesn't quite do it.)

Previous Grammar Log
Next Grammar Log
Index of Grammar Logs
Guide to Grammar and Writing

Question	I have had an absolute phrase described to me in the following way: "As it is, the first part [of the sentence] is a participial phrase. It doesn't really modify anything; hence the Latins like to use the term "absolute." But in English grammar, because it doesn't modify a noun or an adjective, it's taken to modify the main verb by default; therefore it's considered an adverbial participial phrase." Two objections have been raised concerning this description. 1) participial phrases are always adjectival 2) absolute phrases modify the entire main clause. I have suggested that because an absolute phrase is essentially a participial phrase with its own subject, the adjectival attribute of the participle is spent internally to the absolute phrase, leaving the absolute phrase participial in form only (participial meaning "of, based on, or having the nature and function of a participle"--Websters) I have also suggested that the easiest way to modify a main clause is through the main verb, and through it, the subject and object(s). Further, adverbs are the only modifiers I am aware of which can modify an entire clause. Therefore, the description of an absolute phrase as adverbial and participial makes sense, to me. What is your take on all this?
Source & Date of Question	Colorado Springs, Colorado 17 May 1998
Grammar's Response	You make a very interesting point, but it is not always useful to define absolute phrases as adverbial. In other words, I don't buy that part of the definition that says "it's taken to modify the main verb by default." In the brief section we devote to Absolute Phrases, we use this example: The two superstars signed autographs into the night, their faces beaming happily. Here, the underlined absolute phrase does, indeed, modify the verb in that it tells how the superstars did what they did. However, it seems to me that it also modifies the word superstars. Hence, we say that the absolute phrase modifies the whole main clause, not just a part of it. To declare the phrase as participial because it contains a participial and then to say that it behaves adverbially because it modifies things "through the main verb" seems, to me, to blur useful distinctions. I prefer to maintain the distinctions between adverb and adjective functions.

Question	I want to learn English Tenses. Thank you
Source & Date of Question	Timisoara, Timis, Romania 17 May 1998
Grammar's Response	You can start with the Verbs page and don't forget to visit the charts with tables of tenses -- for active and irregular verbs, etc. If you have any questions after that, please write again. You might also visit the quizzes published by TESOL -- find the hyperlink on the bottom of the Quiz List.

Question	Is the correct word in this sentence "whoever" or whomever"? To whomever is covering the individual situation.
Source & Date of Question	Palo Alto, California 18 May 1998
Grammar's Response	In this construction, you want the subject of the verb for this clause (i.e., you want "whoever"). That clause is then the object of the preposition "to." I assume, by the way, that this is either some kind of salutation or part of a larger sentence because it's not really a sentence yet.

Question	Dear Grammer, How do you use hyphens when describing someone's age? As I understand it, hyphens are used when the age preceeds a noun. I assume a name qualifies as a noun (a person, place or thing); therefore, I think the following sentence should be: May 18th was a great day for 18-year-old Susan Smith. What If the sentence read this way: For Susan Smith, an 18 year old, May 18 was a great day? Is that usage correct? Thanks so much for your direction!
Source & Date of Question	Tampa, Florida 18 May 1998
Grammar's Response	No, you'd want to use the hyphens in that construction also: "For Susan Smith, an 18-year-old, May 18 was a great day." When they say not to use hyphens in an age construction after the name, they mean something like "Susan Smith is eighteen years old today."

Question	I have recently run across the expression "firstly and foremostly" in writing. Aside from being redundant, is it correct? Can 'foremost' become an adverb? Thanks
Source & Date of Question	Tel Aviv, Israel 18 May 1998
Grammar's Response	I don't think we can say that "foremost" can never be an adverb, but it certainly should be a rare event! Allowing the redundancy (as you point out), the absolute construction "first and foremost" (as opposed to the adverbial construction with the "ly" ending) should work just fine.

Question	Could you please use the word "hie" in a sentence? They don't believe me that it's a word. I know it's good; I just can't use it. I figure it means something like "come hither".
Source & Date of Question	Portland, Oregon 18 May 1998
Grammar's Response	"Hie" is a Middle English word (hied; hying), so you'd find it in Chaucer and other writers of his time. It means, simply, hasten, but it probably suggests hastening away (as opposed to hastening toward), so if I said "Hie thee to Pizza Hut," that would mean that I want you to hustle off to get me some pizza. It's a fine word, indeed, but don't expect anyone other than a Chaucer scholar to know what you mean or to run off to get a slice of pizza for you.

Question	Please tell me wich one of these two sentences are correct: It would be better that he didn't smoke that much, or, It would be better that he wouldn't smoke that much. There is some controversy about the correct formation of these sentences. Muchas Gracias!!
Source & Date of Question	Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico 18 May 1998
Grammar's Response	In either case, I think you'd be better off using "if" instead of "that." But #1 is better. See the section on the use of the Conditional, where you will see that it's not a good idea to use the auxiliaries "would, could," etc. in both clauses of a conditional statement.