|
The Grammar Logs # 318 |
|
| QUESTION |
How do I make this sentence parallel?
This software has two flaws. The first is its difficulty to use. The second is cost. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Santa Clara, California  Wed, May 12, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| This software has two flaws: it is difficult to use and costly to operate. ("Its difficulty to use" is where your sentence gets in trouble.) |
| QUESTION |
Sample sentence: Access is now available to financial and statistical information for you and for matters in which you are responsible.Should this be "for which", or "in which"? And if it is "for which", would there be too many "fors"? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Houston, Texas Thu, May 13, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The sentence is a mess, as you seem to know, and the worst of it is "for matters in which you are responsible." I don't know what that means. And the "which's" don't really help. Could we say, "You now have access to pertinent financial and statistical information." |
| QUESTION |
| There are two word combinations that drive me nuts. It seems that as time goes on, they are used more and more. The first one is - "I myself". I see this combination used a lot in forums by people who seem intelligent otherwise. How did this ever get started, and what is the rule? The second one is - "same exact". This one is commonly used in commercials now! Don't commercial makers have people who make sure that proper grammer is used? I would love to hear your comments on these. If you can give me some specific rules, I would gladly past them along. Thank you |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Tacoma, Washington Fri, May 14, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| There's nothing wrong with using "myself" as an intensifier or emphatic pronoun: "I don't see anything wrong with it myself" or "I myself don't see anything wrong with it." I suppose it could become tedious if overused. The phrase "same exact" or "exact same" is a redundancy and is a great deal like saying the same thing twice. 8-) |
| QUESTION |
| For more than a year I lived with my husband and our two young sons in Japan...
My neighbor casually mentioned that in our absence she had swept the walk.
I looked outside -- the walk looked the same as usual -- and realized
with embarrassment that she, not the wind, had been sweeping away the
leaves all along. What pronoun is appropriate to fill in the blank ____? One of my friends insists that the answer should be me. However, another friend says that the answer will be her. As for me, I can't decide which is the correct answer. I think one, which expresses a general person, is the answer, but I'm not sure about it. I'd greatly appreciate your comment on this. Thank you so much in advance. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Sapporo, Japan Fri, May 14, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| My friend Professor Farbman writes, "I think 'her' is correct, but I agree that it would be better to avoid the problem, either as you suggest ["I was a foreigner who could not know what was expected of good citizens."] or by replacing the 'who' with 'and.' While rewriting, I'd rethink that repetition of 'expected.' Maybe the writer is playing with the idea of expectations, intending to dazzle the reader with the colors of them, but the repetition seems heavy. |
| QUESTION |
Where is the punctuation in the following sentence?
Exhibits such as "Images of African-Americans in Atlantic City" and "There She Is—Seventy Five Years of Miss America in Pictures" provide tourists with an ever-expanding knowledge of the city's visual history. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| New York, New York Sat, May 15, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| That sentence doesn't need any additional punctuation; it's just fine as it is. |
| QUESTION |
I have a dull-witted question that's plagued me for some time. In the
sentence below:
"Over four decades of rapid growth haven't changed that commitment.""haven't" seems to be correct, since "Over four" and "rapid growth" are modifiers, leaving the easy-on-the-ear phrase, "Decades haven't changed that commitment." However, I have a nagging feeling that "Over four decades of rapid growth" is really (sneaky thing) a nominalization, and somehow becomes singular in the process, thereby demanding "hasn't," instead. Am I nuts? Can you help? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Coudersport, Pennsylvania Sat, May 15, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I don't know if you're nuts or if that's a nominalization (I doubt if either is true), but "Over four decades" is a singular quantity of time. (Just as you would say "More than four years is a long time," right?) "Four decades haven't" is an altogether different matter. "More than four decades hasn't changed . . . ." |
| QUESTION |
I'd appreciate it if you would comment on the sentence below.
Susan never has and never will love Jack.Questions:
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Urayasu, Chiba, Japan Sun, May 16, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The sentence lacks good parallel form. We would say she never has loved Jack and that she never will love Jack. To put these ideas into one sentence, with parallel form, we have to say, then, "Susan has never loved and will never love Jack."
A reader from Japan suggests the following: |
| QUESTION |
What is the correct way to use trademarked names? For example, which of the following is correct:
Where can I find an authoritative text that explains the correct usage of trademarked names? Thanks. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Carson City, Nevada Sun, May 16, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The dictionaries would have to be updated daily and you would have to consult these dictionaries constantly to know when a name that is trademarked becomes a noun in the common vocabulary of humankind. I can't get too excited about people using lowercase or uppercase in words like cellophane, jeep, sheetrock, and linoleum. And eventually, that will extend to words such as Kleenex, Xerox, and Frigidaire. (The last example, as a regionalism, probably passed into the status of common noun long ago, as a refrigerator in the American southwest has commonly been called a frigidaire for a very long time, and I (for one) grew up referring to all facial tissues as kleenex. Today, I often buy "kleenex" with another brand name altogether, but don't tell the Kleenex people.) Legalistically, some words will continue to be protected trade marks in some parts of the world after they've passed into the common realm of nouns in other parts of the world. I remember Xerox getting quite huffy about lawyers and legislators talking about "xeroxed copies" during the Nixon impeachment hearings, although I suspect their umbrage was either faked or way out proportion. The accession of trademarked names into the common realm of nouns is one way our language grows. Unless you're a lawyer dealing in such matters as copyright and corporate trade marks, I wouldn't worry about it. Burchfield has some comments on the common use of trade names, but if the subject really interests you, you probably ought to consult a law librarian. Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Authority: New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage HarperCollins: New York. 1994. p. 230. Cited with permission.
|
| QUESTION |
| I am professional with two problems. One, is that I have a horrible time with commas! My second problem is that I can never say what I want to without getting too wordy. Can you suggest some strategies and/or books? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Valley Stream, New York Mon, May 17, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| First of all, get rid of that comma after "one." Then review the section on Comma Usage. Try to figure out the rules you have the most trouble with and tell a friend you'll give him or her five dollars every time he or she can find a infraction of those rules in your text. As for wordiness, I recommend an old favorite: Strunk's Elements of Style is really good on wordiness. Williams's book, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity & Grace, is also very good but considerably more complex. See Grandma's Bookshelf for publishing information. |
| QUESTION |
| Could you give me some rules (binding if possible) when words are spelt with an -z or with an -s (example: nationalise, maximise etc) also, what is currently acceptable in BRITAIN, what is more American, are there any cases where you can use only one and not the other? Many thanks. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Konz-Oberemmel, Germany Mon, May 17, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| There are, unfortunately, no "binding" rules. Burchfield has a whole section on -ize/-ise, from which I quote: "The matter remains delicately balanced but unresolved. The primary rule is that all words of the type authorize/authorise, civilize/civilise, legalize/legalise may legitimately be spelled with either -ize or -ise throughout the English-speaking world except in America, where -ize is mandatory. Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.
|
Previous Grammar Log