The Grammar Logs -- Number Fifty-One

The
Grammar
Logs
# 51

Question I don't know whether I was taught this at an early age, or if I just assumed it, but I've thought for as long as I can remember that the proper contraction for "until" is "'til" (with one "l"). However, whenever I see it these days, it is always "'till." I looked it up in my handy Merriam Webster Collegiate, and find that they have "till" listed (NO apostrophe) with one of its meanings as "until." They do not list "'til" (either with or without apostrophe) at all! Which is correct?
Source & Date
of Question Boulder, Colorado
12 December 1997
Grammar's
Response Till and until have the same meaning and both are acceptable words, although until might be a better choice in formal academic prose (at least in the U.S.). A contraction of until, 'til is a very old-fashioned word and should be avoided in formal prose nowadays. You will often see it in poetry, but it's probably either poetry that pre-dates this century or very bad poetry, one or the other.
Authority: The Little, Brown Handbook by H. Ramsay Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, & Kay Limburg. 6th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1995. By permission of Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.

Question "They fail to raise him because the flesh cleaves FROM the bone." (Decher Ed) Considering that "to cleave" means "to adhere closely, stick" is it correct to use the preposition FROM? Wouldn't it be better or correct to use the preposition TO giving us the sense that the flesh adheres TO the bone instead the preposition FROM wich gives us the sense of removal or separation?
Thanks for your comments.
Source & Date
of Question Sao Paulo, Brazil
13 December 1997
Grammar's
Response We would have been happier with a less disgusting example, but this will serve to illustrate the possibility of confusion with this word: it can mean two, practically opposite, things. If a man shall "cleave to" his wife, that means that he shall stick with her, adhere to her, unwaveringly, loyally. That meaning of the verb is instransitive only. The other meaning of the verb, to separate or cut away from, can be either transitive or intransitive. So two factions of a church, say, can cleave, meaning they go their own way, they won't talk to each other anymore. Or, transitively, I can cleave the bone from a pork chop. How this word came to mean two such different things I don't know. The inflected forms of the verb are equally bizarre: cleaved; also cleft; or clove; cleaved also cleft or cloven; cleaving.

Question
To continue a conflict in which I have long been interested, I checked your site to learn your view regarding whether or not one would use an apostrophe when referring to a certain time segment, a decade, for example. Which of the following would be correct?
1970s
1970's
While you didn't specifically address this in your section on the apostrophe, you did say that it is no longer necessary or correct to use an apostrophe when pluralizing. However, in your section on italics, I found the following sentence: "There were four and's and one therefore in that last sentence" (*and* italicized). Is that not in contradiction, or am I misunderstanding your statement in the apostrophe section.
Any clarification you can give regarding the use of the apostrophe when referring, for instance, to a decade would be greatly appreciated. So far, I have read William Safire's opinion (better to use the apostrophe), the MLA's view (don't use it), and have received the opinion of an English professor (not needed; wouldn't be there if numerals were written out).
Thank you for your time

Source & Date
of Question Lawrence, Kansas
13 December 1997
Grammar's
Response With the apparent and worthy exception of Safire, most authorities I refer to concur that an apostrophe is not necessary after years and decades: 1970s, etc. If, however, I was going to say that I scored a perfect ten on three quizzes, I would say that I got three 10's. The word and was italicized because it was referred to as a word-in-itself and then pluralized. Notice that the and is italicized, but the apostrophe and the "s" are not.

Question
Dear Grammar:
Can you clear my confusion regarding the capitalization of regions/areas of the country? Specifically, the following example:
Bob lives in Eastern Kentucky.
Is Eastern capitalized? What if the sentence is this:
Our hospital serves Central and Eastern Kentucky patients.
Are Central and Eastern capitalized? Does the rule change if they become adjectives describing the noun "patients"?

Thanks for your assistance!
Source & Date
of Question Lexington, Kentucky
14 December 1997
Grammar's
Response If a direction is actually part of the name, it's capitalized; if it's only an adjective, it won't be. I can drive through the north end of Hartford, but I have friends who live in the North End. Whether the upper in the upper Westside of New York is capitalized or not is going to be a matter of individual usage. Consistency is important, of course. I hate to waffle on this, but whether you capitalize "eastern" or "central" Kentucky is going to depend on whether you regard these words as part of the names of actual regions or not. I suspect not, and that the capitals are not appropriate. I live in eastern Connecticut, by the way.

Question After hope, a present tense is often used with a future meaning, but sometimes a future tense is used. Could you tell me which is better, or if there is any difference in meaning?

I hope Jane phones this evening.
I hope it doesn't rain tommorow.
I hope that you will improve your English by challenging as many things as possible.
Source & Date
of Question Yokohama, Japan
15 December 1997
Grammar's
Response There isn't much difference in meaning. If you leave the "will" out of the last example you give, it means pretty much the same thing. The "will" can be used to give a bit more emphasis, stress, to the act of improving and to your expectations of future improvement.

Question We've all heard of the word "discombobulated," but what does the word "combobulated" mean -- or is it even a word?
Source & Date
of Question New York City, New York
15 December 1997
Grammar's
Response I think that discombobulate is one of those portmanteau words that make their way into our vocabulary from time to time. It's in most of the dictionaries: "discombobulate v : cause to be confused; confuse emotionally [syn: confuse, flurry, consternate, disconcert, put off, bewilder, bemuse, throw]" Its etymology seems to derive from discompose, disconcert, etc. Because it was apparently invented solely to convey a sense of disarray, its opposite was probably never conceived -- until now. It's just as well.

Question How can I learn to English in non-english country?
Source & Date
of Question Ilan, Taiwan, ROC
15 December 1997
Grammar's
Response If English-speaking television programs are available, some people say that helps. I'd recommend writing to the online Dave's ESL Cafe, to find out if there are English-writing pen-pals available. Are there adult-level courses offered in your community? It's certainly helpful to study with others, who are going through the same frustrating experience -- but also to have some expert help close at hand to catch errors before they become habits. Other than that, it's read, read, and read some more, until your eyes fall out, and don't become discouraged.

Question
Hi. Which is correct and what are the rules for "can" and "could"?
Can you take that with you?
Could you take that with you?

Source & Date
of Question Somewhere, New York
15 December 1997
Grammar's
Response Both sententences are correct. I've just added a brief section on can and could to our handout on auxiliary verbs.
I hope that helps. If it doesn't, please write again.

Question I would be most grateful with your help with naming a medical society. It is the "British Society of Interventional Radiologists" or (depending on what you say!) "The British Society of Interventional Radiology". I believe it's all to do with the correct use of "society" as a collective noun. In my personal view either title would be correct, and I would prefer the latter. Some members of the Society argue that only the former is correct. Please help us out!
Thank you very much.
Source & Date
of Question London, England
15 December 1997
Grammar's
Response For some reason, I like the sound of The Society of Interventional Radiology better, but I have to admit that the definition of "society" as "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends" leads me to think that Radiologists makes more sense. I'm not sure society is a collective noun, by the way; collective nouns can sometimes take singular verbs, sometimes plural verbs, and I can't imagine society ever taking a plural verb. I'm afraid we'll have to give way to the hordes of interventional radiologists out there and give them their society. (But what if we changed the name to Society for Interventional Radiology?)

Question
A friend and I are debating the addressing of a envelope. She says that the appropriate address should read:
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith
My contention is that the wife is not Mrs. Joe Smith, but is Mrs. Jane Smith. Therefore, I contend that the address should say
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Mr. Joe Smith and Mrs. Jane Smith

Thank you in advance for your help

Source & Date
of Question San Francisco, California
16 December 1997
Grammar's
Response The answer to this question -- which is hardly a grammar question, is it? -- will depend on whom you ask. Your friend is certainly not wrong and there are decades of custom and tons of etiquette manuals to back her up. However, I would weigh in on your side on this matter. I prefer either one of your ways of doing it, and I might even suggest you put Mrs. Smith's name first about half the time.

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

Question	"They fail to raise him because the flesh cleaves FROM the bone." (Decher Ed) Considering that "to cleave" means "to adhere closely, stick" is it correct to use the preposition FROM? Wouldn't it be better or correct to use the preposition TO giving us the sense that the flesh adheres TO the bone instead the preposition FROM wich gives us the sense of removal or separation? Thanks for your comments.
Source & Date of Question	Sao Paulo, Brazil 13 December 1997
Grammar's Response	We would have been happier with a less disgusting example, but this will serve to illustrate the possibility of confusion with this word: it can mean two, practically opposite, things. If a man shall "cleave to" his wife, that means that he shall stick with her, adhere to her, unwaveringly, loyally. That meaning of the verb is instransitive only. The other meaning of the verb, to separate or cut away from, can be either transitive or intransitive. So two factions of a church, say, can cleave, meaning they go their own way, they won't talk to each other anymore. Or, transitively, I can cleave the bone from a pork chop. How this word came to mean two such different things I don't know. The inflected forms of the verb are equally bizarre: cleaved; also cleft; or clove; cleaved also cleft or cloven; cleaving.

Question	To continue a conflict in which I have long been interested, I checked your site to learn your view regarding whether or not one would use an apostrophe when referring to a certain time segment, a decade, for example. Which of the following would be correct? 1970s 1970's While you didn't specifically address this in your section on the apostrophe, you did say that it is no longer necessary or correct to use an apostrophe when pluralizing. However, in your section on italics, I found the following sentence: "There were four and's and one therefore in that last sentence" (and italicized). Is that not in contradiction, or am I misunderstanding your statement in the apostrophe section. Any clarification you can give regarding the use of the apostrophe when referring, for instance, to a decade would be greatly appreciated. So far, I have read William Safire's opinion (better to use the apostrophe), the MLA's view (don't use it), and have received the opinion of an English professor (not needed; wouldn't be there if numerals were written out). Thank you for your time
Source & Date of Question	Lawrence, Kansas 13 December 1997
Grammar's Response	With the apparent and worthy exception of Safire, most authorities I refer to concur that an apostrophe is not necessary after years and decades: 1970s, etc. If, however, I was going to say that I scored a perfect ten on three quizzes, I would say that I got three 10's. The word and was italicized because it was referred to as a word-in-itself and then pluralized. Notice that the and is italicized, but the apostrophe and the "s" are not.

Question	Dear Grammar: Can you clear my confusion regarding the capitalization of regions/areas of the country? Specifically, the following example: Bob lives in Eastern Kentucky. Is Eastern capitalized? What if the sentence is this: Our hospital serves Central and Eastern Kentucky patients. Are Central and Eastern capitalized? Does the rule change if they become adjectives describing the noun "patients"? Thanks for your assistance!
Source & Date of Question	Lexington, Kentucky 14 December 1997
Grammar's Response	If a direction is actually part of the name, it's capitalized; if it's only an adjective, it won't be. I can drive through the north end of Hartford, but I have friends who live in the North End. Whether the upper in the upper Westside of New York is capitalized or not is going to be a matter of individual usage. Consistency is important, of course. I hate to waffle on this, but whether you capitalize "eastern" or "central" Kentucky is going to depend on whether you regard these words as part of the names of actual regions or not. I suspect not, and that the capitals are not appropriate. I live in eastern Connecticut, by the way.

Question	After hope, a present tense is often used with a future meaning, but sometimes a future tense is used. Could you tell me which is better, or if there is any difference in meaning? I hope Jane phones this evening. I hope it doesn't rain tommorow. I hope that you will improve your English by challenging as many things as possible.
Source & Date of Question	Yokohama, Japan 15 December 1997
Grammar's Response	There isn't much difference in meaning. If you leave the "will" out of the last example you give, it means pretty much the same thing. The "will" can be used to give a bit more emphasis, stress, to the act of improving and to your expectations of future improvement.

Question	Hi. Which is correct and what are the rules for "can" and "could"? Can you take that with you? Could you take that with you?
Source & Date of Question	Somewhere, New York 15 December 1997
Grammar's Response	Both sententences are correct. I've just added a brief section on can and could to our handout on auxiliary verbs. I hope that helps. If it doesn't, please write again.

Question	We've all heard of the word "discombobulated," but what does the word "combobulated" mean -- or is it even a word?
Source & Date of Question	New York City, New York 15 December 1997
Grammar's Response	I think that discombobulate is one of those portmanteau words that make their way into our vocabulary from time to time. It's in most of the dictionaries: "discombobulate v : cause to be confused; confuse emotionally [syn: confuse, flurry, consternate, disconcert, put off, bewilder, bemuse, throw]" Its etymology seems to derive from discompose, disconcert, etc. Because it was apparently invented solely to convey a sense of disarray, its opposite was probably never conceived -- until now. It's just as well.

Question	How can I learn to English in non-english country?
Source & Date of Question	Ilan, Taiwan, ROC 15 December 1997
Grammar's Response	If English-speaking television programs are available, some people say that helps. I'd recommend writing to the online Dave's ESL Cafe, to find out if there are English-writing pen-pals available. Are there adult-level courses offered in your community? It's certainly helpful to study with others, who are going through the same frustrating experience -- but also to have some expert help close at hand to catch errors before they become habits. Other than that, it's read, read, and read some more, until your eyes fall out, and don't become discouraged.

Question	I would be most grateful with your help with naming a medical society. It is the "British Society of Interventional Radiologists" or (depending on what you say!) "The British Society of Interventional Radiology". I believe it's all to do with the correct use of "society" as a collective noun. In my personal view either title would be correct, and I would prefer the latter. Some members of the Society argue that only the former is correct. Please help us out! Thank you very much.
Source & Date of Question	London, England 15 December 1997
Grammar's Response	For some reason, I like the sound of The Society of Interventional Radiology better, but I have to admit that the definition of "society" as "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends" leads me to think that Radiologists makes more sense. I'm not sure society is a collective noun, by the way; collective nouns can sometimes take singular verbs, sometimes plural verbs, and I can't imagine society ever taking a plural verb. I'm afraid we'll have to give way to the hordes of interventional radiologists out there and give them their society. (But what if we changed the name to Society for Interventional Radiology?)

Question	A friend and I are debating the addressing of a envelope. She says that the appropriate address should read: Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith My contention is that the wife is not Mrs. Joe Smith, but is Mrs. Jane Smith. Therefore, I contend that the address should say Mr. and Mrs. Smith Mr. Joe Smith and Mrs. Jane Smith Thank you in advance for your help
Source & Date of Question	San Francisco, California 16 December 1997
Grammar's Response	The answer to this question -- which is hardly a grammar question, is it? -- will depend on whom you ask. Your friend is certainly not wrong and there are decades of custom and tons of etiquette manuals to back her up. However, I would weigh in on your side on this matter. I prefer either one of your ways of doing it, and I might even suggest you put Mrs. Smith's name first about half the time.