| QUESTION |
| Dear Grammar:
Which of the following is correct?
- -Physics dictates that an object at rest tends to remain at rest.
or
- -Physics dictate that an object at rest tends to remain at rest.
Thank you!
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Allentown, Pennsylvania  Saturday, August 1, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| If you're talking about the science and not laxatives 8-) , the word physics is singular (like mathematics), so you want the singular verb, dictates. When in doubt, create a really simple sentence: "Physics is fun," you would say, right?
|
| QUESTION |
| Hi!
According to " A Guide to Better Punctuation ", commas are used to mark off phrases beginning with participles. (Example : She paced around the room, biting her fingernails anxiously.)
However, other grammar books do not follow this rule. It is often found that when the participle phrases are placed at the beginning of the sentences, commas are usually placed after them. (Example : Not believing in miracles any more, I must accept my fate.) However when the participle phrases are put after the main clauses, usually no commas are used. (Example : She led him through the crowd holding his hand)
I would like to know if commas must be used to mark off phrases beginning with participles.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Unknown Saturday, August 1, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| You're right about the participial phrase at the beginning of the sentence; one almost always puts a comma after it. (I would say always, but then someone would come up with an exception.) But it would be a big mistake to say that a participial phrase that comes later in the sentence should be set off with a comma. It's going to depend on whether or not that phrase is parenthetical (essential to the meaning of the sentence or not). "The bricks falling from the facade must be secured. We had to replace the bricks falling from the facade." (That's probably not a good example -- we would use "that are falling" -- but you get the idea.)
|
| QUESTION |
I have a problem about the following sentence.
The plan to adopt an old people's pension scheme for all people over the age of 65 was abandoned.
Could i write 'The plan which adopted...' or 'The plan adopting..' instead of 'The plan to adopt..'
If so,when should I the word 'which,' 'to' or '-ing'? Are there any rules do about that?
thanks.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Somewhere, China Saturday, August 1, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I don't think there are any rules about combining thoughts in these ways. You've got to choose the method that is most efficient and that sounds the best. Personally, I like "the plan to adopt." (Why waste a relative clause -- "which is"?) I would consider using "that" instead of "which" in this sentence. See the Notorious Confusable article on which/that.
|
| QUESTION |
Hello. I just want to ask which ( or none ) of the followings is correct :
- Sally has a very articulate figure / Sally has a very articulated figure
- Sally's figure is articulated / Sally's figure is articulate
A troubled student. Thanks for answering.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Hong Kong Sunday, August 2, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
Unless this is some term used in physical therapy or something, that's an odd use of the word articulate/articulated. We speak, sometimes, of a joint being articulate (it works), but ![[E-Mail Icon]](../gif/email.gif) I'm not familiar enough with this kind of vocabulary to say how it's used in special contexts. I'll leave an e-mail icon here in case some of our readers can suggest something.
|
| QUESTION |
| I never liked English in school but it's essential usage these days. Although, I am a created-thinker it's difficult without the proper grammer. I realize the importance of it, but it hard to grasp with a detail oriented thinking pattern. Do you have any suggestion? Actually, I've improved with the aids from this web and the net. I still need a lot of improvement. I am striving very hard to reexamine English. Funny, I enjoy learning new things but English seems to take up too much time. Do you think this makes sense? Technical and not conceptional! Confused I am! Amazingly, it's diffucult to understand exactly, "What I missed". Maybe, you can help! Why is it so hard for people with technical minds to have the comprehensive ability for English?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Lynchburg, Virginia Sunday, August 2, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I wouldn't, for a minute, buy the notion that "technical minds" have more difficulty with writing than other kinds of thinkers. Technically oriented folks might have a different way of thinking about things like grammar, but they can master it just as easily, if not more easily. There are some awfully good writers out there in the worlds of biology, engineering, physics, chemistry, etc. It probably has much more to with what you were paying attention to in early years of your education -- and, perhaps, with what kind of attention was paid to language in your home even before school started. Maybe you had a really bad language arts teacher in fourth grade, someone who turned you off to English for a couple of years and that was the end of that. Or you fell in with a bunch of kids who didn't think it was worthwhile or cool to spend time reading and writing. Be of good cheer. Be a careful reader and keep working on the writing skills. It's never too late.
|
| QUESTION |
| Is the term "Virgin Islands" plural or singular? I've tried to figure it out using the term "United States" as an example but I'm still confused.
In this sentence it sounds ok as a singular noun:
The Virgin Islands is the only territory in the Caribbean.
But in this sentence, it doesn't:
The Virgin Islands possesses excellent coral reefs and hidden lagoons.
Is it singular when used as a political entity and plural when used as a geographical entity?
Help!
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Unknown Sunday, August 2, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Exactly so. In your second sentence you're using the term Virgin Islands to describe a -- what? -- geographical gathering? collection? of islands, not a singular political entity, and those islands (plural) possess coral reefs, etc. The analogy with the United States doesn't work particulary well because we seldom think of the United States, collectively, as other than one thing. Try the Sandwich Islands, instead. (Hawaiian islands wouldn't work because we think of Hawaii, not Hawaiian islands, as the political entity. In fact, I don't know if there is such a thing as the Hawaiian Islands -- with both words capitalized.)
|
Previous Grammar Log