| QUESTION |
Could you please help me with this CNN report on the Kosovo crisis titled "Monitors leave Kosovo under threat of airstrikes"
In convoys of 10 or 11 bright orange vehicles, international cease-fire monitors, diplomats and aid workers departed Kosovo early Saturday as NATO forces readied for possible airstrikes. Evacuees began gathering before dawn, loading the vehicles with flak jackets, helmets, food and blankets for the trip across the border to Macedonia. Evacuation of the 1,400 OCSE monitors was ordered after Kosovo peace talks in Paris collapsed Friday.
Why did the author not use "the" before the Kosovo peace talks in Paris?
Many thanks in advance for all your help
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Santa Croce Sull'Arno (Pisa), Italy  Sun, Mar 21, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I would refer you to our section on Articles. When they are generic, non-count nouns and sometimes plural count-nouns are used without articles. Having said that, however, I must add that I would have used "the" before Kosovo peace talks.
|
| QUESTION |
How would you decide whether a sentence with a participial phrase (or clause) a simple sentence or a complex sentence ?
Example: Frightened by her parents' shouting angrily at each other, the little girl cried out loudly.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Songkhla, Thailand Mon, Mar 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I don't think there is such a thing as a participial clause. Whether a sentence is simple or complex is determined the nature and number of clauses within it. A sentence with at least one dependent clause along with its (at least one) independent clause, is complex. A sentence with only one independent clause and no dependent clauses is a simple sentence. The participial phrase you use -- "Frightened by her parents' shouting angrily at each other" -- is not a clause because it contains no subject-verb relationship. See the section on phrases, clauses, and sentence types.
|
| QUESTION |
| Is it grammatically incorrect to use the construction "you all" or "your all" when referring to a group of people?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Atlanta, Georgia Mon, Mar 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I can't see how "your all" is going to work, ever, but I suppose it's possible to use "you all" in a certain context. If you're talking about the American southern dialect use of "you-all" (pronounced "y'all" or something like that), I would not choose to use that, ever, in formal or academic prose. However, in trying to stress the "allness" of a group, you might write something like "If I wanted you all to come at the same time, I would have told you so." But nearly always a simple "you" will suffice.
|
| QUESTION |
Can you shed some light on the issue of sentence modifiers such as hopefully, regretfully, unfortunately, really, luckily. We're particularly interested in what is correct as opposed to what is common usage. Please first advise on the incorrect usage of the word hopefully as a sentence modifier.
e.g. "Hopefully, she'll see the light and stop using this word incorrectly." as opposed to "She looked hopefully to the Pope for her salvation."
Pleas also advise on the use of other sentence modifiers.
eg: "Regretfully, the weather was bad, so she stayed home and worked on her knitting."
Thank you
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Zagreb, Croatia Tue, Mar 23, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| There's nothing wrong with your use of "hopefully" as a sentence modifier in your first example. (In the second example, of course, it's not a sentence modifier; it's directly modifying only the verb, "looked.") However, I must add that so many people get riled up over the use of the word "hopefully" as a sentence modifier that it's almost not worth using it. What we have to look out for with "regretfully," however, is that we mustn't confuse it with "regrettably." It is regrettable, not regretful, that the weather was bad, so if we're going to use a sentence modifier there, we're going to use "regrettably." However, if a sentence modifier does not appropriately modify the entire sentence (and that may be true if you mean to suggest that she stayed home "regretfully" and not "regrettably"), then we shouldn't use the sentence modifier at all.
|
| QUESTION |
| I'm having a disagreement with a co-worker and thought you could help.
When writing the time of 12:00 I say it should be 12:00 a.m. or p.m. (depending on noon or midnight) My co-worker says there is no such thing as a.m. or p.m. in regards to 12:00 and that the correct way to write it is to just put noon or midnight. I disagree, who is right?
Thanks for your help.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Old Bridge, New Jersey Tue, Mar 23, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Your co-worker has a point. When you say 12 a.m., so many people are confused by that and mistakenly think it means midnight, that it's a good idea to say 12 noon instead (and 12 midnight for 12 p.m.). So your way of saying it is certainly not wrong, but so many people will be confused by it, that it's better to avoid the p.m. and a.m. when talking about twelve o'clock and use noon and midnight instead.
|
| QUESTION |
Is "just as...so" considered a correlative conjunction?
(For example: JUST AS there are fashion trends, SO are there food trends.)
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Birmingham, Alabama Wed, Mar 24, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
![[E-Mail Icon]](../gif/email.gif) I have never seen "just as. . . . so" listed among the correlative conjunctions, but it does seem to work the same way as "not only . . . . but also," doesn't it? Sometimes, though, the "so" doesn't seem to go along with the "just as." One could easily rewrite your sentence as "Just as there are fashion trends, there are food trends." But I think your usage is correct and useful. i will leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else has something to offer on this issue.
|
| QUESTION |
| This questions is about written forms of the year 2000. In an academic year, we use "the 1998-99" school year. Next year, should it be written as "1999-00" or "1999-2000"?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Poway, California Wed, Mar 24, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Good question, and it's really not a grammar question, of course. Isn't leaving out some of the digits what got us into the Y2k mess? I'd go with 1999–2000, but only because the "00" looks dumb to me. I see it on my credit card, already, so it's something I'd better get used to. Here's your chance to be a trend-setter. Very shortly, we'll all be as comfortable with "00" as we are with 98 and 99. There aren't that many folks around who can remember what we did last time. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
|
Previous Grammar Log