The
Grammar
Logs
# 268

QUESTION
What is the past participle of -to speak
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Somewhere, Norway Sun, Dec 13, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Spoken. I have spoken to her before. See the section on Irregular Verbs.

QUESTION
How can I make a passive sentence with present perfect continous?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Bahrain Sun, Dec 13, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
You can't. The present perfect exists in the passive -- "The game was being played with only four players." -- but there's no way to turn that into a progressive statement.

QUESTION
Please settle a bet. The use of the indirect object in such a sentence as: "My father gave money to me." Arguably, there is no indirect object in this sentence because "me" is technically the object of the preposition "to."

Suppose the sentence had been: "My father gave me money." Then, the word "me" is truly an indirect object.

Isn't the syntactical idea present in each example that of an object indirectly receiving the action of the verb? Isn't the word "me" in both sentences, thematically, an indirect object? I can't help but wonder that the technical categorization (in example 1 of "me" as an object of the preposition) serves only to obfuscate what should be a pretty straightforward idea. Wouldn't you agree?

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Somewhere, Massachusetts Sun, Dec 13, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I'm not sure who's obfuscating what here, but, yes, there is a distinction between the indirect object of "He gave me money" and the object of a preposition in "He gave money to me." Yes, they (the two me's) mean pretty much the same, but the structures are different, and so we have different terms to describe them.

QUESTION
Tell me whether the next two expressions are OK or not. If both are grammatically OK, what are the differences between two sentences?
  • Ex.1 He came home running.
  • Ex.2 He came running home.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Kashihara-shi, Nara-ken, Japan Sun, Dec 13, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
"He came running home" would be the more common expression. I think most writers, if they used the first sentence at all, would put a comma after "home," thus "tacking on" the idea of "running," as if it were an afterthought -- or bringing additional focus to the word, depending on the spoken emphasis. Without the comma, the first sentence is difficult to read.

QUESTION
Would a comma follow Frankenstein in this sentence?
In Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein, human responsibility serves as the basis for every tragic consequence and outcome.
Thank you
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Rome, Georgia Sun, Dec 13, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Yes (because it's a considerable introductory element). And you would either italicize or underline the title of the novel, right?

QUESTION
Dear Ms Grammar,

I am very glad to have this chance to clear a perennial problem. In the following sentence, is "self" or "selves" correct after the plural possessive "our"?

[Example]
Literature, or at least its ideal, fulfils the role of palliative to our inner, individual self.
Each person has one self, of course. So I guess the problem is similar to "Children, put on your hat!" (but I don't know if "hat" or "hats" is correct here). I can't find the answer in Fowler.

Thank you very much!

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Auckland, New Zealand Sun, Dec 13, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I can't find anything in any of my resources that speaks to this problem. It's hard to know what to look up! To avoid the confusion that would result if your reader/listener thought you meant "individual selves" (an unwanted paradox) or that each child had more than one hat, use the singular. [E-Mail Icon] I'm afraid this doesn't really clear up the perennial problem (I'll keep looking), and I will leave an e-mail icon here in case someone has a better idea or can explain things more clearly.

QUESTION
Hi,
My question is about the use of 'try' in sentences such as:
They tried putting up a fence. or, They tried to put up a fence.
How do you explain the word 'try' here? I know what the word means in general, but the grammar in this case is difficult.

Thanks!

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Winterthur, Switzerland Mon, Dec 14, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
See the section (and quizzes) on Gerunds and Infinitives. As you will see, "try" is one of those verbs that can take either a gerund or an infinitive.

QUESTION
Which sentence is correct?
  1. Please lock the door when you leave.
    Please lock the door when you will leave.
  2. Take an umbrella with you in case it rains.
    Take an umbrella with you in case it will rain.
Thank you
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Hyogo, Japan Mon, Dec 14, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
In the first sentence, the present tense form actually serves as the future tense; the "will leave" is inappropriate. A similar thing happens in the second sentence. In both, the present tense -- you leave, it rains -- will suffice.

QUESTION
This is not a grammar question, but I'd like to ask you about the abbreviation 'BCE', which I've seen as a substitute for 'BC' (Before Christ) in magazines like 'Scientific American' (for example). Is this a recent development, and do you know the reason for it? Is 'BC' now officially dead? And if so, is 'AD' still alive?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Ushiku City, Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan Mon, Dec 14, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
The abbreviations C.E. and B.C.E. ("of the Common Era" and "Before the Common Era") are equivalent to A.D. and B.C., respectively, and are normally written with periods and in small caps, if small caps are available to you. A.D. (anno Domini, "in the year of the Lord") precedes the date, as in A.D. 64. You will also, sometimes, see B.P. (before the present). I suppose the C.E. and B.C.E. represent efforts to secularize chronologies, but (as of now anyway) they're not particularly successful because they are not widely used and are not, therefore, universally understood. C.E. and B.C.E. are still quite acceptable in most writing.

Authority: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. p. 304.


QUESTION
Q1: Is there any difference in meaning between the sentences below?
  1. I felt the house shaking.
  2. I felt the house shake.
Q2: Is 'shaking' in the first sentence a gerund? How about 'shake' in the second sentence? (part of speech)
Please explain when to use gerund and bare infinitive.
Q3: How to use desperateness and desperation in a sentence? Please give examples. 'BBC dictionary' doesn't have entry for the word desperateness but 'Mirriam Webster' has. I understand that both of them are nouns.

I appreciate your response. Thanks.

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Malaysia Mon, Dec 14, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
The "shaking" is a participle modifying the house. The "shake" is an infinitive without the particle: "I felt the house [to] shake." Please review the sections on Gerunds and Infinitives, including the use of Gerunds and Infinitives as Nouns and the accompanying quizzes.

I don't have the resources to discover, with authority, the difference between desperation and desperateness. The word desperateness is relatively rare, for sure. I think desperation often carries an emotional overtone of recklessness and rashness in the face of a loss of hope or surrender to dire circumstances.


Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing