|
The Grammar Logs # 283 |
|
| QUESTION |
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
New York, New York  Tue, Jan 19, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The dictionary says that analytical is a variant spelling of analytic -- that is, they mean the same thing. However, I would say that I, an analytic person, have written an analytical essay on analytical skills. (But I have no authority to cite, saying I'm right.) As for website, that's my spelling, too. The Yale College Style Manual writes it Web site (two words, capitalizing the "w"). Frankly, it's too early to say with any great authority how something like that is spelled. Oddly enough, it's not even in the online Merriam Webster's. |
| QUESTION |
How do you determine if the past, past participle, or present verb is used with the word "keep."
For examples:
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Taipei, Taiwan Tue, Jan 19, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I think the word "awake" is being used adjectivally there, as in "the drug kept him alert" or "this tack will keep the poster straight." I think we normally look for the participial form there: updated, posted, informed, etc. |
| QUESTION |
Comma Usage:
Ms. Dilbert turned at the corner of the intersection and then proceeded to State Road 436 and Highway 17/92.Would you treat the second part of the sentence as a sentence and put a comma before and? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Lake Mary, Florida Tue, Jan 19, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| You don't need a comma after "intersection" (if that's what you mean), because the "and then" is connecting two parts of the compound verb -- "turned" and "proceeded." It's not connecting two independent clauses. The "and" is capable of connecting two of anything except independent clauses (and there are exceptions to that, too). |
| QUESTION |
Someone said that the following sentences were clumsy and unlikely.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Unknown Tue, Jan 19, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The first sentence doesn't make sense to me. The second sentence might read "Bill said that he loved her none the less for all her faults" or "For all her faults, Bill said he loved her none the less." Thus rewritten, no, I don't think they're clumsy -- a bit unusual, and most writers would probably say something like "Bill said he loved her in spite of her faults." But I like your sentence just fine. |
| QUESTION |
| In the sentence "The more I know, the more I appreciate my parents," what is the word group "the more I know" called? Also, is the comma correctly used after the word "know"? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Nunnelly, Tennessee Tue, Jan 19, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| That's a good question. My colleagues in English Alley couldn't really come up with an answer. "The more I know" clearly incorporates an elliptical clause: "The more [that] I know" but that doesn't really explain its connection with the rest of the sentence. We think what you've got here is an idiomatic expression for connecting two things -- "The taller, the better" -- in which the linking verb between the two ideas is simply left out. Yes, the comma is perfectly appropriate. |
| QUESTION |
| Is it proper grammar to say "have got" as in "You have got mail."
I thought "have" alone is adequate , but lately I have heard people using the two words "have got" together. Please advise and thank you for your assistance.
And from Altamonte Springs: |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Orlando & Altamonte Springs, Florida Tue, Jan 19, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I understand that in British English, the "got" is regarded as substandard and only "You have mail" would be acceptable. In American English, the "got" seems to be sneaking into the language (even though my father always said it was one of the ugliest words in the language). It is often used in the present perfect tense form with present meaning: "I've got a bad cold." to show a kind of ownership or being in receipt of something. Perhaps it's a bit more assertive than the simpler (and better) "I have a bad cold"? There's something really ugly about "You got mail." The little man-voice in America Online (and in the movie of this title) announces, "You've got mail!," doesn't he? |
| QUESTION |
Sentence in question:
"It's rather like eating too much beans!"My concern: Am I using the right quantifier? Beans can be counted but like peas or rice, are generally considered as non-count nouns. Can you comment on this? Should it be 'too many beans' instead? For me, the general rule for using either 'much' or 'many' has always been whether the noun is countable or non-countable. And could you clarify if 'beans' is a collective noun? Is it a plural collective noun, in which case, would you use 'many' or 'much'? Thanks |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Singapore Wed, Jan 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I can't buy your argument that peas and beans are like rice. I think they remain count nouns. If you mix beans with something, the mixture can be non-count, so you would say, "I've eaten too much rice and beans." We might even say, "I've eaten too much baked beans," because now we're talking about the mixture that makes up the dish -- the beans and the molasses and whatever else goes into baked beans. But beans, themselves, remain countable, and you would say you've eaten too many beans. (Rice, on the other hand, is a non-count noun -- too much rice.) So, no, beans is not a collective noun, either. |
| QUESTION |
If you use the same word twice in one sentence (one right after the
other), is it true that a comma must separate these words (no
exceptions).
For example:
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| New York, New York Wed, Jan 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| No, you would insert the comma between identical words only when the sentence produced without it would be difficult to read, as in "Who that woman is, is none of your business." The example you give us is a good example of where you definitely would not want a comma between identical words. And you wouldn't want a comma between the had's of "She had had several boyfriends in college, but she soon learned to like living without men." |
| QUESTION |
In the following sentence is the bracketed relative pronoun in the objective or nominative case? ( The sentence illustrates a problem often encountered in the kind of writing I deal with. This one could be rewritten to avoid the problem, but I need an answer for situations in which a similar structure is unavoidable.)
A person who receives a permit is subject to the same restrictions that the person [who? whom?] he or she is authorized to assist, aid, accompany or fish with is subject to. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Sasketchewan Wed, Jan 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| This is such a horrid sentence that I can't imagine this "similar structure" ever leading to anything readable. I'm sorry, but we cannot take seriously any sentence that ends "fish with is subject to." If you insist, though, the choice of who/whom is, I think, whom: you're looking for the object form -- to go along with assist, aid, accompany or fish with whom. Good luck with the kind of writing you have to deal with. |
| QUESTION |
| 1. I am using the following in a sentence: "...a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel." How would I punctuate/capitalize this? 2. I am referring to the, "comments section of a report card." How would I punctuate "comments section"? 3. Are "Master's and Bachelor's" degrees always written with an apostrophe "s"? I am writing a graduate entrance essay and your input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Boulder, Colorado Wed, Jan 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Yes to "Pulitzer Prize-winning. What's wrong with "comments section of a report card"? And yes to the apostrophe, but don't capitalize the terms bachelor's degree and master's degree in the normal flow of text. |
Previous Grammar Log