The
Grammar
Logs
# 304

QUESTION
I'm new at this and was trying to figure out if the phrase 'running round' was a phrasal verb
eg: 'It's got a lovely frame, kind of brown cloth with a strip of gold running round it'
any help would be appreciated
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Dublin, Ireland Wed, Mar 31, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
"Running round" is a shortened version of "running around," which is a phrasal verb in certain contexts. The way you use it in the sentence above, it's not really a phrasal verb: "round" ("around") is acting as a preposition there, and "around it" is a prepositional phrase that modifies (adverbially) the "running." On the other hand, if we said something like "Charlie's running around like a chicken with its head cut off," or "She's married to the Baptist minister but running around with two other guys," those would be phrasal verbs. I hope this helps more than confuses you. See the section on Phrasal Verbs for more information.

QUESTION
Dear Ask Grammar
Could you please help me with the following sentences:
  1. The London shoemakers are famous all over the world.
  2. London shoemakers are famous all over the world.
Are both correct? if so, what's the difference in meaning between them? Can "the" in sentence a) used to refer to all of the London shoemakers? Many thanks for the help
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Florence, Italy Wed, Mar 31, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
You can go either way with that sentence, but it is probably better without the definite article "the." The word "the" in the first sentence is asserting a distinction between shoemakers from London and all other shoemakers, making the assumption that this distinction has to be made. The second sentence doesn't have anything to do with other shoemakers, only London shoemakers.

QUESTION
What is the rule for the use of "the" with proper nouns.
  1. example: I plan to visit the White House.
  2. but... An announcement on earning is expected today by Intel.
  3. This agreement is between Joe Jones and U.S. Bank.
  4. but...The Green Party announced victory today.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Folson, California Wed, Mar 31, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
See the section on determiners and articles for help. Click HERE. It won't answer all your questions, but it's a start.

QUESTION
Hello,

Could you clarify the following:
When reading a book by Stephen King & Peter Straub, The Talisman, I came across a slightly unusual use of "future conditional".

Example:
"If,"Richard said...,"if you'll start going back to New Hampshire today, or if you'll let me call my dad and get him here to take you back, I'll try to grab some extra food for you."
The dependant clauses here are about future actions which are supposed to happen later than the action of the independent clause. Your table doesn't explicitly deal with this case. Is there any subtle difference ?

By the way, Richard is an educated guy and in other situations he uses "future conditional" in an ordinary way.

Thank you in advance.

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
St. Petersburg, Russia Wed, Mar 31, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
That is, as you say, unusual. I don't know why the character doesn't use the present tense as we normally do in the "if clause" of the future conditional:
If you start going back to New Hampshire today, or if you let me call my dad and get him here to take you back, I'll try to grab some extra food for you.
Although it's conceivable that the action of the independent clause is happening before the action of the dependent clauses, we can figure that out only because it would be silly for the speaker to "grab some extra food for you" after the person to whom he is speaking has taken off for New Hampshire. Frankly, King's sentence (for me) defies analysis. I think what it means is something like
I'll try to grab some extra food for you before you start back for New Hampshire. First, let me call my dad and get him here to take you back.
But [E-Mail Icon] I'm hardly in a position to rewrite Stephen King. I will leave an e-mail icon here in case some other reader can lead us out of these woods.

QUESTION
With respect to subject-verb agreement which of the following two sentences is correct?
  1. Environmental impact joins cost and time as a factor in development decisions.
  2. Environmental impact joins cost and time as factors in development decisions.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Thu, Apr 1, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
This is not really a question in subject-verb agreement. You rightly assign a singular verb, "joins," to the singular subject, "impact." The question is simply whether impact joins something else as a factor or as factors. Since it's singular, it's still joining these other things as a factor, not as factors. If it still sounds odd to you, you might have to rewrite the sentence: "Like [or "Along with"] cost and time, environmental impact has become an important factor in development decisions."

QUESTION
When a title is all lower-case letters, should a sentence beginning with that title be capitalized or not? i.e., "Title is just swell" or "title is just swell."?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Seattle, Washington Fri, Apr 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I knew that e.e. cummings fellow would cause trouble eventually! When you begin a sentence with a title that is not otherwise capitalized, you may capitalize the first word. If the title is tucked into the flow of your text, don't change it.

Authority: New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage HarperCollins: New York. 1994. p. 217. Cited with permission.


QUESTION
I'm a gardener. Do I put a plant deep [where?] into the ground -- or do I plant it deeply [how]. Which is correct? Is "deep" an adjective?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Spring Valley, Ohio Fri, Apr 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
The adverb "deeply" tends to suggest (as you point out) that this is how you planted something (you were acting deeply when you did it). The adverb "deep," which is what you want here, suggests that you planted something at a great depth.

QUESTION
The problem of case of nouns is one of the most vexing problem in English grammar. There are different views on this problem. I know the traditional view. And there are some very unusual views at this question. How do you think: are the number of cases more than 2 or maybe there are no cases at all in English? and maybe you have your own view?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Karaganda, Kazakhstan Fri, Apr 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Case is important in language study only if a word (or its modifiers) changes form when it changes function. And that doesn't happen in English. The pronouns change form -- he, his, him -- depending on their function within the sentence. But the noun changes form only in the possessive. And the article (and other determiner) before the noun doesn't change form depending on the noun's function. So we talk about the cases of the pronouns, but the notion of cases in English nouns doesn't mean much.

QUESTION
I'd like your take, please, on the word precipitous. All dictionaries say it means steep. Some however also say it means abrupt. My usage dictionary says no to that, that abrupt or hasty requires precipitate. Websters dictionary says nothing about abrupt, but Websters Thesaurus lists abrupt as a synonym. Is abrupt/hasty a proper definition for precipitous or not?

Thank you. This is such a helpful service. I only wish the site had a search engine, since I have no way of knowing if this has been answered before.

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Lansdowne, Pennsylvania Fri, Apr 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Burchfield contends that it's not a good idea to use precipitous (which means steep, as you point out) when precipitate (which means hasty) is called for. Burchfield then admits that that the two words were pretty much interchangeable for much of their history. The online Merriam-Webster's seems to think these words are still interchangeable. When a hasty action is accompanied by a steep decline of some kind (metaphorical or otherwise), go ahead and use precipitous: a precipitous victory, for example, or an action that leads precipitously to the edge of something.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.

I, too, wish I had a search engine on this website. I can't seem to find one that would be easy to install, however. And the Guide to Grammar and Writing keeps changing so fast that it's very difficult to keep rebuilding the index for a search engine to look through.


QUESTION
When to use "speak to" instead of "speak with" or vice versa?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands Fri, Apr 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
They're very close in meaning. "Speaking to" can be used to suggest a more one-sided conversation. If I say I'm going to speak to my boss, that can suggest that I'm not expecting much of a response. "Speaking with" suggests a greater chance that there will be an actual two-sided conversation.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing