The Grammar Logs # 43
|
| |
Question | 1. Is it correct to say "a bomb was dropped ON Hiroshima"? Is the preposition corrrect?
2. What is the correct statement?
Your point was well made or your point was well done.
Thank you very much.
| Source & Date of Question | Florianopolis, Brazil 19 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | Yes, the preposition "on" is correct. And we would say, "The point was well made." For some reason, we make points, we don't do them.
|
Question | - How do I puctuate the following sentence?
- Where are my flowers thought the Princess.
| Source & Date of Question | Malvern, Arkansas 19 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | - Punctuate the "unspoken speech" just as if you heard it:
- "Where are my flowers?" thought the Princess.
|
Question | How do you do in-text citations on internet sources without an author?
| Source & Date of Question | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 20 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | You'll do the same thing you do with an no-author-named book, use the title of the document instead of the author's name. |
Question | - Why don't we use 'the' in this sentence?
And many of them are the displaced people.
In this sentence the writer is referring to people she saw on tv. i think the is not needed. why?
- Which usage is correct and why? I am referring to the usage of 'at' or 'by' in the next sentence:
I hear that you were very surprised at/by Japanese men drinking liquors disgracefully after the festival.
- How do you explain the usage of this prepositional phrase 'one of such'?
He is one of such character. She is one of such good career women.
- In English, do we use the present tense ever to emphasize something in the past. they do this in japanese.
Thank you for this service.
Best regards and happy holidays!
| Source & Date of Question | Toyohama, Kagawa, Japan 20 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | - You're right, you don't need or want the the in that sentence. You are not specifying a group, you're identifying a group, so the definite article is not called for.
- Surprised at and surprised by have different meanings. Surprised at suggests that you were astonished by the fact that this could happen. Surprised by suggests that certain men surprised you by their behavior in that context.
- I can't explain that phrase. I think you would say, "He is one such character", etc., the word such meaning "of the character, quality, or extent previously indicated or implied."
- In informal writing and speaking, we sometimes use the present to refer to something in the past: "A chicken walks into the bar and says to the bartender. . . ." And it does have the effect of adding emphasis to the action. But if you've ever tried to write an entire story in the present tense, you know how difficult it is to maintain.
|
Question | - In your dissertation on abreviations, you reitterate the following question: "One of the most often asked questions about grammar has to do with the choice of articles -- a, an, the -- to precede an abbreviation or acronym." You address the use of a and an sufficiently, but leave the reader (at least this reader anyway) wondering about the use of "the". I have always inserted "the" in front of abreviations and acronyms as though I were spelling the abreviation or acronym out --
- e.g., The FBI hunts fugitives, The UPS delivers packages, ... The SLovakian Beer Brewing Society (SLOBBS)is planning a plant tour of the Budwar factory in early January. (The?) SLOBBS will depart from Hertzegovena at 9AM sharp on 12 Jaunuary.
- Is the use of "the" called for with abreviations and acronyms?
| Source & Date of Question | St. Louis, Missouri 20 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | I didn't say anything about the use of the with abbreviations and acronyms because it never entered my head to do so. I don't believe there's any hard and fast rule about it, or, if there is, it's probably as complicated as the use of the with anything else and there are books published about that! I can imagine saying that "UPS doesn't deliver on Sunday." and that "NATO has a problem in eastern Europe." It continues to amaze me that this simple word the creates such difficulties for people; the complexities of its usage are overwhelming.
|
Question | The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says that an infinitive is: "a verb form having the characteristics of both verb and noun
and in English usu. being used with 'to'."
My question comes from reading Gertrude Stein's "The Autobiography
of Alice B. Toklas." On page 201 of the softback version, "Eliot
and Gertrude Stein had a solemn conversation, mostly about split
infinitives and other grammatical solecisms and why Gertrude Stein
used them."
My question is this:
Could you please give me a few examples of the proper and improper
useages of the infinitive, and explain why it is that Gertrude Stein's
use of the split infinitive became so controversial?
I have a particular fancy for interchanging verbs and nouns.
Thank you for any insight or help you may be able to offer.
| Source & Date of Question | Eugene, Oregon 20 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | Folks didn't bother their heads too much about the split infinitive until some time in the nineteenth century, when it was deemed tantamount to original sin. The "to" plus the root of the verb are really one thing, it was argued, and should not be split, any more than you would split the one-word infinitives of other languages. And, since then, there has been much blood shed over split infinitives.
I tell students that if they can avoid splitting the infinitive and not create some monster in the process, then avoid it (because some boss somewhere will be looking over your shoulder, some boss who can remember one thing from fifth grade and that's Mrs. Cheatham bruising his knuckles over a split infinitive). But they shouldn't knock themselves out over it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with "To boldly go, etc." On the other hand, if you say, "To boldly and implacably and without due regard for one's safety go, . . . " well, you've gone too far.
As far as your tendency to interchange verbs and nouns is concerned, as long as you don't impact my access, I won't say anything.
|
Question | Dear Grammar;
- I get really confused about when to use "which" and when to use "that" - - - - For example:
- Awards will be given to the institutions which give the best performances.
- or should it be:
- Awards will be given to the institutions that give the best performances.
- Thank you kindly for your assistance.
| Source & Date of Question | Unknown 20 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | Either of your examples is correct (although I would prefer "that"). Go to our Notorious Confusables section on which/that and click on the hyperlink to Mike Quinion's article on "that and which."
That should answer your questions satisfactorily, and if it doesn't, please write back.
|
Question | I need a lot of help with commas. Nothing specific. I need help with everything that has to do with commas.
| Source & Date of Question | Alamo, Tennessee 20 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | Go to our section on Comma Usage, by all means, and take the quizzes on punctuation. All the basics are there. If you still need help, write again.
|
Question | Can you please explain how to use a comma with "and?" For example, if I write a sentance that says "The patient continues to gain weight, and her appetite is excellent." Do I use a comma as I did, or do I not use a comma?
If I am combining two sentences -- The patient continues to gain weight. Her appetite is excellent. -- should I use a comma or not?
| Source & Date of Question | Corpus Christi, Texas 20 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | Yes, you would use a comma in that first example you give us. You're using a comma plus a little conjunction to connect two independent clauses. There are other was of connecting the two clauses: you could've used a semicolon and a transitional expression ("The patient continues to gain weight; furthermore, her . . . .") or you could turn one of the sentences into a dependent clause (using "because"?). But the easiest way to combine the two sentences is with the comma + the little conjunction. Some writers will say that if the two independent clauses being connected are brief and nicely balanced a comma is not necessary -- but the comma is always corrrect.
|
Question | Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, China
| Source & Date of Question | Unknown 23 November 1997
|
Grammar's Response | The word then is not one of the "little conjunctions" that, along with a comma, can connect two independent clauses. However, as you point out, it is often used that way in informal settings, and, frankly, no one should get too excited about it. However, I would avoid using it that way in formal, academic prose, and (again, as you point out), I would especially avoid it when the clauses are not nicely balanced or when the subject in the second independent clause is different from the subject in the first.
|
Previous Grammar Log
Next Grammar Log
Index of Grammar Logs
Guide to Grammar and Writing