|
The Grammar Logs # 198 |
|
| QUESTION |
| I need to know how to write a thesis statement for a research paper written in the MLA style. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Andalusia, Alabama  Tuesday, September 8, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| For help with mla style, see the Guide to Writing Research Papers. For help with writing a thesis statement (which really has nothing to do with the Modern Language Association), see Thesis Statement in the Principles of Composition section. |
| QUESTION |
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Hong Kong Tuesday, September 8, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I've never heard that you shouldn't use gerunds after "prone to'; I doubt if there is such a restriction. |
| QUESTION |
A question of parallelism:
In the following sentence,
You now have all the tools you need to build a new self-image and an action plan for success."Is the phrase " an action plan for success" parallel to " to build a new self-image" or to " have all the tools you need to build a new self-image"? i.e. " You now have all the tools you need to an action plan for success" or " You now have an action plan for success"? To me, it looks like both interpretations will work. BTW, if the latter case is the intended meaning, should a "have" be introduced into the original sentence following the conjunction "and," so as to avoid any ambuiguity in meaning that may arise ? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Somewhere, Canada Tuesday, September 8, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The parallelism of the original sentence asserts that you now have what is necessary to build two things: 1. a new self image, and 2. an action plan for success. Inserting a "have" (what you'd really need would be a "to have") would just water down the sentence, if you ask me. |
| QUESTION |
| Hi Grammar, I have come across two English phrases which I'm not sure(after looking them up in my dictionary.) For instance,
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Hong Kong Tuesday, September 8, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
"Charge-back," I think, is a management or office administration system for keeping track of expenses. For instance, if your department is allocated $1,000 a year for office supplies, every time someone takes something out of the supply room, there is a "charge back" to your department against that $1,000. When you've exhausted your allocation, you can't have any more pencils or paper clips. ![[E-Mail Icon]](../gif/email.gif){kind=small} I could be wrong about this (being quite irresponsible in such matters), so I will leave an e-mail icon here in case someone has a better description.I don't know where "take to task" comes from, but it means that these advocates will be told, in no uncertain terms, what they've done wrong. They will be "straightened out" by a stern lecture from you for their misdoings. |
| QUESTION |
| Grammar, Great site! I've probably lerned more here than when I was in high school (sometime in the last century). Be that as it may, my question today concerns capitalization. My boss likes to capitalize everything; and underline; and surround with quotation marks. When referring to a specific section in a document, we have to write, "please refer to the "Added Information" Section... "Added Information" is not only enclosed in quotation marks, it's also underlined! Overkill? And what about "Section," must that also be capitalized? As always, thanks for your informative reply. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Ronkonkoma, New York Tuesday, September 8, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
Repeat after me: "The boss is right. The boss is right." Your instincts in this matter are correct. The most you would need here would be Added Information section (assuming there is a section of the document that is entitled just that; otherwise, no capitalization would be appropriate). Your boss has apparently been schooled in what is called the Grocery Window School of Writing: "Sale" Today!!! "Save!"What can you do? Read Dilbert. Be happy. |
| QUESTION |
| Please advise;
In response to the question "Who is there?", is it correct to answer "just we" or "just us"? Is it correct to say, "they are like us" or "like we"? What parts of speech are 'just' and 'like' in these examples? Would you please detail, if possible, the rule(s) of grammar that apply here. Your help will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Wynnewood, Pennsylvania Tuesday, September 8, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| It is correct to say "just we," but I don't know anyone who would actually say that. I think most people would say, "It's just us." As predicate nominative, the subject form, "we," is appropriate, but it sounds silly, and many good writers argue that there is no reason why we can't say things such as "It's me!" or "It's her!" (The "just" is an adverb, modifying (say in what way) "it is us." Like, in that sentence, is a preposition, and you're looking for the object of a preposition; thus the us is appropriate. |
| QUESTION |
| Several of us in the office are having a debate regarding the use of commas before and after the word "therefore" when used in a sentance. Some of us think that a comma before the word is sufficient, while others think that a comma before and after the word is correct. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Salt Lake City, Utah Tuesday, September 8, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Almost always, when therefore is used in a sentence that way (as opposed to when it is used as a conjunction between two independent clauses), it is going to require two commas. It is also conceivable that it will require no commas; it's going to depend on how parenthetical the element is. But, as I said, it's usually a parenthetical element that requires a pair of commas to set it off. |
| QUESTION |
| I need help finding the antonyms for the folling words Enduse, Encore, Plausible, Fiasco, Enhance, Arrogantly, Tainted, Delve, Maime, and Jocular. If you can give me two or three antonyms for each of these words I would really appreciate it a lot. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Middletown, New York Wednesday, September 9, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I suggest you look up these words in the online Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, but use the Thesaurus. You should find a list of "contrasted words" that ought to include an antonym or two. (I don't know what "enduse" means. "Enthuse"? Click here: WWWebster Dictionary, the World Wide Web edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Tenth Edition. Used with permission. |
| QUESTION |
| When to use 'because' vs 'while' vs 'since'. eg is since only to be used with time? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Wellington, New Zealand Wednesday, September 9, 1998
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Yes, it's generally a good idea not use since when because will do the job. The online Merriam-Webster's lists because as a synonym for since, but that's a fairly liberal definition, and most reference manuals will advise against using since (or while) for situations expressing causality.
Authority: The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers by Chris M. Anson and Robert A. Schwegler. Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.: New York. 1997. G-7.
|
| QUESTION |
| Many native speakers of English find the following example ok. (1) Which article did you file without reading? Please tell me if you find the following grammatical. (2) John hated, without reading, the book. (3) Without reading, John hated the book. (meaning John hated the book without reading it) Is (2) any better than (3)? Thanks for your help. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Yusong-gu, Taejon, South Korea Wednesday, September 9, 1998 |
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| No, I would say that #3 is much better than #2; in fact, I would say that #2 is quite unacceptable. The best rendering of this sentence is your explanation of its meaning: "John hated the book without reading it." |
Previous Grammar Log