The Grammar Logs
#533

"The eggs Benedict was good." "The eggs Benedict were good." Is one correct? What is "Benedict" in the structure of the sentence? Is "eggs Benedict" singular even though "eggs" is plural? What is the plural of "eggs Benedict"?

My Merriam-Webster's allows for either the singular or plural usage of this term. I'm guessing that the construction is either French or an affectation of the French in putting the modifying word, "Benedict," after the word being modified. There is no plural of "eggs Benedict"; you can think of it either as a singular dish or as plural eggs that have been benedicted.

I hope you'll find me and my staff good people to deal with.

I think this is right but it's suggested "myself" is more appropriate than "me". I can't see that "myself" reflects to the "I" in this sentence.

In spite of the sentence's good intentions and friendly tone, it has a number of problems. Changing "me" to "myself" is not appropriate, though, as you have suggested. "You will find myself good people. …" I think not. A larger problem is the way that "my staff" and "good people" get smooshed together. I see no way out of this other than to start over with something like "I think you will enjoy working with our friendly and knowledgeable staff at ______ ." You can either include yourself in the idea of staff or not, but setting yourself apart in this sentence only complicates things unnecessarily.

Which version of New Years is right in

• New Year's Special
or

• New Years Special

The holiday is called "New Year's Day," and anything associated with it inherits that apostrophe: "New Year's Special." Without the apostrophe, people are going to wonder what you mean by the plural "new years" (although I find the prospect of purchasing some new ones to replace the old ones I have left quite appealing).

When you are asked to get information "as of" a certain date, do you get the information up until that date, or from that date forward.

For example: I am told to get someone a list of terminated employees as of May 1, 2002.

Is this person asking me to get information UP UNTIL May 1, 2002, or FROM May 1, 2002 to the current date.

I hear it used both ways and it is truly beginning to confuse me, because I have no idea what people want, and they look at me like I am an idiot when I ask.

I had never thought of the possibility of confusion here before, but several authors of usage manuals complain about it. Follett says that "as of" has no use "other than to assign an event to one time and the recognition of it to another." For example, we'll give you a raise, but we'll make it effective as of July 1, 2003 (well, you've got something to look forward to). Otherwise, the phrase is quite ambiguous (as you have pointed out), and people need to find a clearer way of saying what they mean. (The writers of manuals are particularly hard on the phrase "as of now," which ought to be replaced by "at present" or "now" or "at the moment," they say.)

Authority: Modern American Usage: A Guide by Wilson Follett, revised by Erik Wensberg. Published by Hill & Wang (New York: 1998). p. 41.

What part of speech is "as well as"? Here's a sentence:

Virginia as well as Maryland are located in the southeastern part of the United States.

Is the verb supposed to be "are" or "is"?

It's an adverbial conjunction. It does not conjoin, however, in the same manner as the simple "and." The subject of the sentence is still "Virginia," which is singular, and even though the subject is then MODIFIED by the "as well as Maryland," it still takes a singular verb, "is."

Is there such thing as Canadian geese?

Judging from the literature of Coalition to Prevent the Destruction of Canada Geese, the proper term is Canada goose/geese, not "Canadian." I didn't know that. You never know where the pursuit of good grammar will lead you!

Is the correct word "justify" or justifies" correct in the following sentence:

For such an important and relevant project, neither conventional wisdom nor anecdotal evidence justify moving ahead without further research and confirmation.

The verb is supposed to agree with "anecdotal evidence." Use the singular "justifies."

Which is correct:

• A great source of wonder was the mountains.
or

• A great source of wonder were the mountains.

The subject is the singular "source," so we want the singular verb, "was." Our reader might wonder why this sentence doesn't read "The mountains were a great source of wonder." We might argue that we are trying to give the word "mountains" end focus or weight. With such a feeble linking verb, though, it's doubtful that we've succeeded.

What is the rule, if any, about using "into" (all one word) versus "in to" as two words? I can find many definitions of "into" and how to use it, but nothing on "in to."

Are both examples correct?

• They stitched pieces of cloth in to a quilt.
• They stitched pieces of cloth into a quilt.

Generally, "into" is more a matter of direction, of movement, so we walk into a room. We turn something into something else (although you might catch the thieves and turn them in to the sheriff). You have to be careful, though. You don't want to be walking down the street and turn into a drugstore. In your sentence, I would use "into" (using "into" to imply a change of form) or rephrase the whole thing and say they made a quilt from pieces of cloth.

Is it AN hotel OR A hotel, please ?

If you were in the U.S., I could answer unequivocally that we say "a hotel." In England, though, sometimes the "h" is unvoiced, and "an hotel" would be appropriate. I don't know, however, if that unvoiced "h" is truly standard or only dialectal.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing