|
The Grammar Logs # 292 |
|
| QUESTION |
When writing a contract, which, if either, is correct:
"...termination upon ninety days' prior written notice..." or "...termintation upon ninety days prior written notice..."Please explain in addition to answering as this has become a great debate at work. Thank you. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
South Barre, Vermont  Sat, Feb 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| When there is a sense in which the notice "belongs to" the ninety days, use the possessive form (with the apostrophe, of course) -- as in "a month's notice." All of my reference books provide for this usage; if you need documentation for it, let me know. |
| QUESTION |
| Attributive nouns: the first noun can be singular (city gvt) or plural (carpenters union) but what if the first noun is plural: "see the recipes section" (Martha Stewart Living Magazine March '99) "old-fashioned drinks carts" (ibid) Surely this can't be correct--the first noun functions as an adjective, no? Could you please tell me what this is called and whether it's correct or not--and why! Great web page! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Miami, Florida Sat, Feb 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The biggest problem with "drinks carts" is that it's almost impossible to say -- until you've taken advantage of what's on the drinks carts. Is it clear that a "drinks cart" is the same thing as a "drink cart"? (Yes, the first noun in either case functions adjectivally.) Don't you need the plural "drinks" to signify what kind of cart or carts you're talking about? If not, then the singular will suffice and be much easier to say, but I'm afraid "drinks carts" is probably what we need here -- and the sooner the better. |
| QUESTION |
Is this statement grammatically correct, tense-wise?
"Currently we have planned to hold the lunch at 1 PM Wednesday." |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| McLean, Virginia Sat, Feb 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| No. Get rid of the word "currently" and the sentence will be OK. Or you could say, "Currently we plan to hold. . . ." but I'm not sure that makes sense either. Probably what you mean is something like "For the time being, we are planning. . . .?" |
| QUESTION |
| Dear Grammar, Reading Samuel Butler's The Way of All Flesh, I've come across rather interesting word - contumely. According to the ending -ly, it looks like an adverb. But it is really a noun. Is it only an exception? Or is there some rule behind this? Please explain. Thank you in advance. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Almaty, Kazakstan Sat, Feb 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| It's a wonderful word, all right. The Middle English spelling of that word would have been something like "contumelie," and the "-ly" ending it now has shouldn't make us think it behaves like an adverb. There are a few words ending in "-ly" that aren't adverbs -- "friendly, ally, daily, oily, (sometimes) only" (most of them adjectives). How grand to hear from Kazakstan! We're happy to add this to our List of Countries. |
| QUESTION |
| Hi! I'm having some trouble identifing an objective complement. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Cathedral City, California Sat, Feb 20, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
An object complement is a noun or adjective that follows a direct object and modifies that object, as in
|
| QUESTION |
| Which is the correct way to write this sentence...please explain why. "The staff at X program ARE here to help you." or "The staff at X program IS here to help you." |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Bloomington, Indiana Mon, Feb 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| "Staff" is one of those collective nouns that is usually singular and wants a singular verb ("is," in this case), but it can also be plural when the individuals within the collective act separately. We would say, for instance, that the "staff have finished their performance reviews." In your sentence, though, the staff is acting as a singular entity, and we want "is." |
| QUESTION |
In the following sentence the appositive seems to be in case agreement with the antecedent, but at the same time it seems awkward.
Ms. Green's, the English teacher's, dog had died.This is, in my opinion, better, but seemingly violates a basic rule of grammar. Ms. Green's, the English teacher, dog has died.Of course, the sentence could be revised to convey the same message, such as: The dog belonging to Ms. Green, the English teacher, has died.Is either, or perhaps both, of the first two variations considered proper English? Or, should possessive appositives always be avoided? I have searched a number of references including "Strunk and White" and have not found an answer. Thank you for your indulgence. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Unknown Mon, Feb 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
I can't find a reference to this kind of thing in any of my manuals, and usually that means that the editors are hoping the question will go away. An appositive does a good job of reiterating a noun or pronoun, but a possessive noun is acting adjectivally, and it's not a good idea to use an appositive in that case. I would definitely revise the sentence to use the "of" construction in the possessive. ![[E-Mail Icon]](../gif/email.gif){kind=small} To do otherwise creates a monster or turns Ms. Green into a dog, which is surely not true. I will leave an e-mail icon here in case someone has a better idea.
|
| QUESTION |
| Hello. Would you let me know which is correct?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Sapporo, Japan Mon, Feb 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The phrase "a people" in that sentence is being used as a singular entity, a body of citizens. Use the singular verb "considers" there |
| QUESTION |
| Why the sentence "Any medical test will sometimes fail to detect a condition when it is present and indicate that it is present when it is not" is better than the sentence "Any medical test will sometimes fail to detect when a condition is present and indicate its presence when it is not" |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Singapore Mon, Feb 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Although we frequently use the verb "detect" without an object, it is certainly better off with an object, as we see in the first sentence. By the time we get to the end of the rewritten sentence, it is not entirely clear what the pronoun in "it is not" refers to. "Fail to detect" is begging for an object -- "fail to detect what"? |
| QUESTION |
Would you please pass your keenest judgement on the phrase:
"We've altered us and our URL has changed as well"I was told, that the verb "to alter" even in a neutral context must be interpreted like " to change in a strange, abnormal way". Where exactly lies the difference between "to alter" and "to change". Are there some particular fields this verb is preferably to apply to. Looking forward to your answer. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Cologne, Germany Wed, Feb 24, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| When we use the word "alter" (instead of "change"), we usually mean that we have changed the thing in a particular way -- or in one of its particulars. Thus, we alter the hem of a dress, or we alter our will to assure our brother-in-law remains penniless. I certainly wouldn't say that "alter" means to change things in an "abnormal" way, though. |
Previous Grammar Log