The Grammar Logs
#594

The following phrase (and use of the prounoun "he") sounds awkward although I can't articulate why: "In speaking with John Doe, Vice President of the blah blah company, he mentioned that ....."

This sounds so much better: "While speaking with John Doe, Vice President of the blah blah company, I learned that..."

Why?

The reader reasonably assumes that the writer or speaker is doing the speaking with Joe Doe, so the reader expects the real subject of the sentence (when we finally get to it) to be "I," not "he." You could probably use "he" if you recast the first part of the sentence to something like "In a discussion I had recently with John Doe, he mentioned that …" Your instincts in this matter, though, suggest that your readers are in good hands.

Could you explain what is incorrect about the following sentence and why?

"Yes, I've been to the bank yesterday."

While I understand that "I've been" needs to be "I went" I am not sure why.

The present perfect tense — "I have been" — refers to an action that includes up to and including the present moment. The time clue in this sentence, "yesterday," clearly does not permit this "up to and including the present moment," and rquires the simple past tense. With time clues that allow for that sense of present time, the present perfect can be used, as in "I have been to the bank lately" or "I have been to the bank already." See our Directory of Tenses for more information.

This is a portion of a phrase I believe to be incorrect however I cannot find the rule covering the error. "Fascination of power" is the phrase — however, I believe it should read Fascination with power. Can you give me an explanation?

I understand your objection to the phrase "fascination of power." The fascination is with the beholder, not the thing beheld, so it should be your fascination with something, not fascination "of" (or belonging to) something. If you visit a Website you can trust (I went to the online Atlantic), you'll find that "fascination with" outnumbers "fascination of" by 136 to 20. Nonetheless, there are those twenty uses of "fascination of," often in a phrase very much like "fascination of power." Apparently, even some good writers must feel that the fascination inheres within the thing beheld. Objecting to the usage won't do us much good, but stick with your "with."

I am an English teacher in China. There is a textbook used here which teaches an interesting form of question which contradicts what I have been taught in Australia, please give me your opinion.

The textbook teaches that the following questions are correct:

• "I am sure he has gone abroad, hasn't he?"
• "He couldn't be working at home, is he?"
• "He may have caught SARS, hasn't he?"
• "He couldn't have passed the exam, didn't he?"

This goes against what I have been taught about English grammar. I have been taught that if a positive affirmation is made with a negative question attached to the end then the same form of the verb used to make the affirmation must also be used to ask the question. And vice-versa for a negative affirmation ie.

• "He could be working at home, couldn't he?"
• "He wasn't at school today, was he?"

But the English teachers here are telling me that if you use a verb simply to express your opinion or anything else inconsequential to the meaning of the sentence then the question may be worded using another verb in the sentence. ie.

• "I don't think he knows the truth,_______?"
• "I don't think he knows the truth, does he?"

Even though this is less logical and doesn't have the same meaning, syntactically, it seems better. Or at least: "I don't think he knows the truth. Does he?"

I was agreeing with your message completely until we got to the part about "I don't think he knows the truth, does he?" I agree with you that the four sentences you give us from the textbook are incorrect, although I have to say that "I am sure he has gone abroad, hasn't he?" is acceptable because the "I am sure" is, indeed, inconsequential to the sentence. With the other three, the tag questions don't work very well. I would write

• "I am sure he has gone abroad, hasn't he?"
• "He couldn't be working at home, could he?"
• "He may have caught SARS, mightn't he?"
• "He couldn't have passed the exam, could he?"

So we agree up to that point. However, the tag question in "I don't think he knows the truth, does he?" is acceptable for the reasons your friends suggest, and your rewrite — "I don't think he knows the truth, do I?" — poses a tag question that is nearly irrelevant to the gist of the sentence.

I guess where I differ from the textbook is the understanding of what is meant by "inconsequential to the meaning of the sentence." In the sentence, "I am sure he has gone abroad, hasn't he?" the "I am sure" is not what matters; it's the "he has gone" that we want to "tag" and turn into "hasn't he?" There is no such inconsequential verb in "He couldn't be working at home, …"

What's the weather like in April?

What part of speech is like in this sentence.

It's not a verb which is clear by its location and inability to be substituted.

It's not a preposition I think, because it is followed by a prepositional phrase. "in March" You can change the question to be: What's the weather like? Negating the possibility of being a preposition. If it were a preposition then it would have to be followed by a noun.

Adverb...no

comparative...no

I'm going to say that like is an adjective in that sentence. In a similarly constructed question — "Why is it cold in the morning?" — the adjectival function of "cold" is clearer. As adjective, the word "like" means "having the same characteristics or qualities as some other person or thing," which is exactly what the question is asking, to what could you compare the weather in April. The prepositional phrase, "in April," modifies the noun "weather." I've changed this grammarlog from an earlier posting, in which I said the word "like" was adverbial, but I've changed my mind, and I'm leaving the e-mail icon here in case someone else cares to weigh in on the matter.

Could you help me with the following agreement problem? I should know this, but I have gotten myself confused. Which is correct?

• 1) You are left with six lines, thirty-four words, of free verse that says nothing. [this version certainly sounds correct, but I want to doubt it is.]
• Or, 2) "say" instead of "says"

Also:

• 1) What you have is six lines, thirty-four words, of free verse that says nothing. [I know this might be an awkward sentence.]
• Or, 2) What you have are six lines, thirty-four words, of free verse that say nothing.

Thanks so much!

You would say "six lines that SAY nothing" because you are thinking of those six lines as discrete items. This is especially true since you even number the words that make up those lines. In your second version, the subject is the clause "What you have" but the verb can agree, notionally, with the plural predicate "lines."

Is it correct to say the following:

We will continue to address issues that are inherent with our core values.

I'm questioning using the term "inherent with" since it is an adjective.

We can probably eliminate the machinery of the adjective clause to good effect, omitting the "that are." As far as the form of "inherent with" is concerned, "inherent to" shows up 8 times as often in Google.com, and I would recommend that construction. Also, the word "issues" is much overworked lately; don't use it if you mean "problems." And finally, I just don't know what this sentence means. Are you suggesting that your core values have problems or "issues"? (Because that is a possible reading of this sentence.) Or do you mean that you (whoever you are) will continue to address problems that are touched upon (addressed??) by your core values?

My question concerns the use of the semicolon. I consulted your section on the website but didn't find concrete evidence either way. Is it proper to use the conjunction 'but' after a semicolon? Here is my example:

"The school's curriculum is currently beyond the state's standards; but, my lesson will still enhance a number of the standards."

The semicolon in your sentence is neither necessary nor appropriate. A comma will suffice nicely there, but we need to get rid of the comma after the "but." On the other hand, if you substituted "however" for the "but," you'd be in good shape ("state's standards; however, my lesson …"). The semicolon works best between two independent clauses that are not connected by a coordinating conjunction. See semicolon.

Why do shops have signs saying "OPEN" and "CLOSED".....the first in present tense, the second, past (or a past participle)?

The word "open" on the shop door is not really a verb; it's an adjective. Shops that have been opened are said to be open. On the other hand, the part participle "closed" has no such corresponding or parrallel adjective. If we say that a store is "close," that means that it's stuffy, congested, crowded. You probably spend too much time at the mall.

I am a yearbook advisor. I am always struggling with whether to use the apostrophe when writing about sports. Some of the more distinguished universities still use the apostrophe with their sports teams (see, now, do the sports belong to the teams?) Anyway … how come the proper way to write the plural men's room or women's tennis, but rarely is the apostrophe used when writing boys' basketball or girls' tennis?? It seems to me that if the correct form is girls basketball (without the apostrophe) then it is simply a noun next to a noun giving no relationship or ownership! Is this a form that is becoming archaic and why? I have heard that journalists stopped using the apostrophe because they didn't want to pay for all the extra space in the sports' sections...do the sections belong to the sports?? I think they do...but...as I write it, I think that it is wrong.

I am going to determine the right way to write this construction — and from henceforth, everyone will do it my way! Using the plural (as opposed to the possessive) in this construction is wrong, I've decided. Let's proceed from a construction we can all agree on: "women's basketball." You couldn't possibly use the plural there: "women basketball." You have to use the possessive form. And I agree with you: if you use "women's basketball" and "men's room," you have to write "boys' basketball" and "girls' tennis." I doubt if journalists ever dropped the apostrophe to save space, but they might have dropped it out of ignorance. To maintain the parallel form with "women's basketball," if nothing else, we have to use the possessive forms everywhere. (One further example I always use is the Bread Loaf Writers' Conference [apostrophe after the pluralizing "s"] — I figure they ought to know.) Now that I've settled this problem, I'm moving on to peace in the Middle East.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing