|
The Grammar Logs # 277 |
|
| QUESTION |
Which of these sentences is correct?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Carrollton, Texas  Tue, Jan 5, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Your "grammarian colleagues" must be stopped. You're absolute right: you don't graduate a college (or, in the U.S., from high school); you graduate from a college or high school. I don't know where that construction comes from, but it's horrid. Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.
|
| QUESTION |
| It is my understanding that a comma does not precede the word "because" in a sentence in which an adverbial clause is introduced by that word. Nevertheless, this is what I see in all printed material! This has become very distracting to me! Am I missing something? What should I be teaching to my students? Please advise. Thank you. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Lemont, Illinois Wed, Jan 6, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
Nearly all the time, you will be right: the "because clause" is such an integral part of the sentence's meaning -- not at all the kind of thing we could call "added information" -- and it should not be set off with a comma. However, there will be sentences in which the "because clause" is a kind of afterthought or it introduces material somewhat contrary to the rest of the sentence or it takes the sentence in a slightly different direction, and the comma will be appropriate. I know Philip Roth has written a new novel, because I saw him talking about it in an interview on the Today Show.The comma in that sentence is not only appropriate, it's necessary. |
| QUESTION |
I've found the following sentence:
1. I tried going to bed, but I couldn't.Is #1 correct logically? If so, does #2 below have the same meaning as #1? 2. I tried to go to bed, but I couldn't.I'd appreciate your help. Thanks a lot. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Sapporo, Japan Wed, Jan 6, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I can't get everyone in English Alley to agree with me, but I think there's a difference in meaning between these two constructions. They're both correct, but #1 is probably what you mean. The first version means, say, that you have a headache, so -- in an effort to get rid of it -- you "tried going to bed," but it doesn't work. The second version means that you made an effort to go ("tried to go") to bed but you were thwarted in some way -- noisy neighbors, the fact that someone had locked your bedroom door -- and you found it impossible. I think there is a difference, but the difference is subtle, and some people tell me they're the same. |
| QUESTION |
| Hi,
Which sentence should I use when referring to a long period between now and the last time I saw another person?
Example: "I haven't seen you for a long time in a long time." This would mean "It's been a long time since we spent a long period together." Is this a situation like 'waiting for' and 'waiting on' someone in which there is a difference? Thanks and HAPPY NEW YEAR from Korea. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Anyang, Kyounggi-do, South Korea Wed, Jan 6, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| There can be a difference, certainly, between "for" and "in." "I worked in the college" is not the same as "I worked for the college." We could say "I worked for him for a long time," but we couldn't say "I worked for him in a long time" (although we could say "I haven't worked for him in a long time.") We probably wouldn't say, "I haven't worked with him for a long time" because that might, in fact, mean the same as "I haven't worked with him in a long time" when what we meant was "I haven't worked with him for long." (i.e., "I've worked with him for only a short period of time.") Maybe it's the word "see" that's confusing us here. "Seen you" means "met you" in this context, not "visited with." Although we can visit with someone for a long time, it's doubtful we would "see someone" for a long time. (We're ignoring the meaning that "see" can have in which "to see someone" means "to date someone" or have a relationship with that person.) I think that in the negative -- "I haven't seen you for a long time." and "I haven't see you in a long time." -- these constructions are virtually synonymous.
|
![[E-Mail Icon]](../gif/email.gif){kind=small}
| QUESTION |
Dear Grammar, I have two questions:
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Lima, Peru Wed, Jan 6, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| For your first question, we often hear "Leave the door slightly open" or "slightly ajar." [Which leads us to that very bad joke: "When is a door not a door? -- When it's a jar!" 8-) ] That's a very good question about "including." I think you have an absolute phrase there, which should consist of a subject and a particle modifying that subject -- "I included." But certainly "including me" would be regarded as perfectly acceptable in most situations. |
| QUESTION |
I have a question about the use of the word "discard." Which of the following uses is correct (or are both acceptable)?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Bellevue, Washington Wed, Jan 6, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I don't see any reason to use "of" with the verb discard. We get rid of and we cast off, but we simply discard. |
| QUESTION |
| Sorry for disturbing you with such trifles, but I have two questions which are racking my brains for hours. The first one - is it a proper way to say "at the gallery". The second one is
it possible to say " artworks are occasionally being lent to" and what time indication this verb form causes. Your early answer will be greatly appreciated. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Cologne, Germany Wed, Jan 6, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| "In the gallery" is probably more common, but there's nothing wrong with "at the gallery": "He's worked at the gallery for twenty years now." "Where are the students? At the gallery?" "Are being lent" is a present progressive in the passive voice, which is rather strange. I don't know why we need the progressive "being" there -- unless the writer is trying to describe something the museum habitually does on an ongoing basis -- but "artworks are occasionally lent to _____ " does pretty much the same thing, doesn't it? |
| QUESTION |
They say:
"Your time and effort in enabling us to provide a 24 hour counselling service is higly appreciated"I say: "Your time and effort, in enabling us to provide a 24 hour counselling service, are higly appreciated"I don't agree with the first bit of the sentence either, but the argument is about - is - or - are - at the end. Please tell me who is right and why. Thank you. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Darwin, NT, Australia Fri, Jan 8, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
The question, then, is whether "time and effort" are like macaroni and cheese: do they become one thing or do they remain discrete elements? I tend to agree with the first version. I wouldn't say, though, that your version is wrong. I could see this construction going either way:
|
| QUESTION |
| If you were to call someone a liar, would you call them a "bold-faced liar" or a "bald-faced liar"? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Annandale, Virginia Fri, Jan 8, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| A "bold-faced liar" lies right in your face; he's impudent, cocky, and discrespectful about his lies. A "bald-faced liar" lacks scruples, of course, but is open and clear about her lies. I guess it's better to be a bald-faced liar. Authority for this note: WWWebster Dictionary, the World Wide Web edition of Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Tenth Edition. Used with permission. |
| QUESTION |
| Dear Grammar: I am an editor at the _____________ Company, and I'm having a problem with the participle constructions one of the staff writers keeps using. I'm not sure whether the problem is a matter of grammar or taste--I don't like the way he/she puts things, I wouldn't write that way myself, but is he/she "wrong?" This is the most common example: "She enrolled in the City College of New York, earning a degree in 1986." I prefer "She enrolled in the City College of New York, and earned a degree in 1986." The enrolling and the earning seem to me to be two distinct actions. "She continued to write on her own, publishing poems in feminist journals and reading her work aloud in Greenwich Village cafes." Again, I prefer "She continued to write her poems, which she published in feminist journals and read aloud in Greenwich Village cafes." Other examples:
"Her poetry, pushing the boundaries of accepted societal norms, put her at the center of a national debate on federal funding for the arts."
"Sapphire did not shy away from the attention, defending her work, and garnering an even larger audience for her public poetry performances."
Sapphire spent most of her childhood moving from one Army base to another, spending time in California, Pennsylvania and Texas.
"A schizophrenic, he had lived a transient existence, ultimately choosing a park in Los Angeles as his home, and was murdered there in 1986." So... what do you think? Were the original sentences "wrong"? If so, what is the applicable role or set of rules governing participles? Thanks |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Bronx, New York Fri, Jan 8, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Generally, I think your impulse is right: it's better to use real verbs as opposed to modifying verb forms (participles). It's a matter of impact. I have some doubts about some of your rewording: there's something weird about "had been murdered" (as opposed to "was murdered") -- perhaps two sentences would serve us well there. And I don't think the rewrite "She continued to write her poems, which she published in feminist journals and read aloud in Greenwich Village cafes.", with the "which clause" is much of an improvement at all; in fact, I prefer the earlier version. |
Previous Grammar Log