|
The Grammar Logs # 332 |
|
| QUESTION |
In different German Grammar books I find different explanations for the -ing form in the following example: The women protect the water by putting rocks around the edges.One grammar says "by putting" is a gerund, the other one says it is a participle. Can you please help me again. Thank you |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Somewhere, Germany  Sat, Jul 3, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| "Putting rocks around the edges" is definitely a gerund phrase—and the object of the preposition "by." In this case, the gerund phrase acts adverbially, telling us how the women protect the water. The only way that "putting" could be a participle is if we put it at the front of the sentence and got rid of the "by" so that the phrase can directly modify "the women": "Putting rocks around the edges, the women protect the water." (which is not as good as the other version). |
| QUESTION |
The following sentences have a same meaning?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Hyogo, Japan Sat, Jul 3, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Yes, they mean pretty much the same thing. The second and third sentences are a bit more tentative and speculative ("conditional") than the first version. See the sections on Conditional Constructions and the uses of the Modal Auxiliaries. |
| QUESTION |
| I have been debating with some people on the newsgroup, alt.usage.english. I am now nearly satisfied that I am correct in asserting that speakers generally use the expression "second of all" in error. Comment, however, if you see fit. Along the way, someone asserted, with gusto, that it is legitimate to use "all," as in this expression, to refer to just two items. I said that "both" refers to two items, while "all" refers to several. What do you say? On another subject: Please refer me to any documentation that might discourage students from using "The reason being" as the beginning of a sentence fragment. Thank you. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Dublin, Ohio Sat, Jul 3, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Why not avoid the problem and just say "second"? "Second of all" probably is silly when referring to only two items or reasons, but it's probably unnecessary in any case. It is true that "the reason being" is apt to lead into a sentence fragment; it's a phrase that ought to be discarded or tacked onto the end of a thought. Converting the phrase to "the reason is" is often a simple remedy. There is no documentation about this phrase that would dissuade students from using it (at the beginning of a fragment or anywhere else), but you might try bonking them on the head with a copy of Burchfield's Fowler's Modern English Usage. (He doesn't mention this particular phrase, but the book has some real heft to it.) |
| QUESTION |
Is it correct to say?.....
"Neither sought fame nor fortune."One of our staff stated this was a double negative. I disagree with that statement. What do you think would be an appropriate statement? Thank you. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Austin, Texas Sat, Jul 3, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| It's not a double negative because the two items are connected (separated?) by the correlative conjunction, neither-nor. The phrase could be improved upon, however, with better parallelism: "She sought neither fame nor fortune." |
| QUESTION |
Please answer my questions about punctuation.
It is the very progress of physical science, which resulted in the construction of atomic bombs, that has placed before us the following social problem; we must either find a way to adjust international relations peacefully, or we may destroy civilization and possibly the human race along with it.Questions: Is the semicolon after "the social problem" right? I think the colon is better, but I'm not sure. Which is better? Which is more common? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Urayasu, Chiba, Japan Sun, Jul 4, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| We use the colon at a point in a sentence (like yours) where a clause has come to a full stop and—beyond that colon—an explanation or list is about to follow. The colon (unlike the semicolon), sort of announces that something is about to follow. See the sections on colons and semicolons in Punctuation Marks Besides the Comma. |
| QUESTION |
Please check this sentences. I am a bit confused on how to reconstruct this sentence:
Aseania will be constructed by development of infrastructure and a a range of utilities within a demarcated piece of land which is partially covered by natural vegetation and cultivated plants.Thank You |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Somewhere, Malaysia Mon, Jul 5, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
It is quite unclear how the development of infrastructure and utilities and covering up some land with vegetation is going to "construct" anything. Although it still won't make sense out of context, I will risk the following reconstruction:
The construction of Aseania will be enhanced by the development of infrastructure and the installation of utilities within a piece of land partly covered by natural vegetation and partly by cultivated plants.Is the distinction between "natural vegetation" and "cultivated plants" really necessary. The thought of cultivated but unnatural plants reminds me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. |
| QUESTION |
Which sentence is correct?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Hyogo, Japan Mon, Jul 5, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| They are both correct, but there is a slight difference in meaning. With the infinitive, "to turn," I'm reminding you that you were supposed to remember to turn off the lights and, if you didn't remember, they're still on and you're wasting electricity. With the gerund, "turning," I'm asking if you recall the act of throwing the switch that turns off the light. There are several verbs that will take either a gerund or infinitive, with slightly different meanings like this (such as "Grandma forgot to visit Aunt Glad this morning." and "Grandma forgot visiting Aunt Glad last summer."). See the section on Gerunds and Infinitives. |
| QUESTION |
| What is the difference between pronoun agreement and pronoun reference? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Denver, Colorado Wed, Jul 7, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| In questions of agreement, we're trying to make sure that the pronoun can, in fact, refer to a particular word or phrase in terms of number (singular-plural). For instance, we can't say "One of the men in the golf tournament left their shoes in the parking lot." because "their" (plural) can't refer to "one." In questions of reference, it's more a matter of making sure that there is a clear antecedent for a given pronoun. "They say this is important." —who's they? I have to admit, though, that sometimes the terms are used interchangeably. |
| QUESTION |
| What a beautiful day!
What a nice car! In the above exclamations, what part of speech is "what"? It seems like it would take the place of "it is" but i'm not sure what to call it. Thanks! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Seattle, Washington Wed, Jul 7, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Sidney Greenbaum calls the word a "predeterminer," more specifically the "exclamatory what." (Along with "such"—as in "Such a mess!") It's not taking the place of "what is," really; rather, "what is" or "it is" or some such construction has been left off the end of the sentence. Authority: A University Grammar of English by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum. Longman Group: Essex, England. 1993. p. 128. Used with permission.
|
| QUESTION |
| Which is correct: If I were she, or, If I were her. Can you tell me why the she or her is correct, i.e, the rule that applies. I recently saw this sentence: The man whom police eluded. Is this correct and what rule applies to the use of "Whom" in this sentence? Thank you for this service. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Bloomfield, Connecticut Fri, Jul 9, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| "If I were she" would be correct. On the "other side" of the linking verb "were" we need another subject form of the pronoun (as opposed to the object form of the pronoun). Unless the police were trying to escape the man in question, it's doubtful that "The man whom police eluded." makes any sense at all. That sentence wants the subject form of the pronoun, "who," but it ought to be worded as follows: "The man who eluded the police was picked upon Bloomfield Avenue." |
Previous Grammar Log