The Grammar Logs
#607

Over the years I have heard many people use the phrase "free of charge". I remember someone telling me that this is not correct and it should be stated as "free from charge" or simply "free". Can you comment?

Many commentators will deplore the advertiser's use of "free gift," saying that is clearly redundant. "Free of charge" seems nearly that redudant, but not quite so. We can say that someone is free of responsibility, free of blame; I don't see why we can't say that a thing is free of charge. Simply "free" is certainly simpler and that says a lot to recommend it.

Which is correct?

• 1. Your shoes are on the wrong feet or
• 2. Your shoes are on the wrong foot.

or is there a better way to express it when the shoes have been exchanged (left on right, right on left)

Unless you catch this person before he puts on the second shoe, you've got to use "feet." Saying the shoes are on the wrong foot doesn't make much sense to me, although considered one at a time, the right shoe is on the wrong foot and the left shoe is on the wrong foot. Considered together, we have to say the shoes are on the wrong feet. I can't think of an easier way to say this: "You've got your shoes backward / on backward" has the person's feet pointed in the wrong direction and "You've got your shoes mixed up" has him with one sneaker and one wingtip. Maybe "your shoes are reversed," but that has him walking backward again.

A soft copy of request form will be needed to be provided for all search Names and Terms.

The double passive construction — will be needed to be provided — is a definite sign of trouble in that sentence. I'm not sure what it means, actually, but I am sure that "A soft copy of the request form must be provided for all search names and terms" will suffice. Or "Users must provide a soft copy of the request form for all search names and terms."

Can the word "obsolete" be used as a verb- (pp)

Example: The system can be obsoleted by the administrator.

I was astonished to read in my dictionary and in Fowler's that "obsolete" has been used as a verb since 1640. In England, Fowler says, it is no longer ever used as a verb, only as an adjective, but it still is used, occasionally, as a transitive verb in the U.S. It would probably play better in a non-passive mood, though: "An administrator may choose to obsolete the system"? I don't know how this difference between British and American usage plays out in Hong Kong.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

By permission. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, 11th edition © 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. (www.Merriam-Webster.com).

Two sentences:

• "He has a bright future to look forwards to".
• "He has a bright future to look forward to".

Which 'forward/s' should I use and why?

We always use "forward" (no "s") as an adjective: "he sat in the forward seat." As an adverb, we use the the "-s" ending, when there are other possibiities. For instance: "He could have moved left or right, but instead he moved forwards" or "The wheel can only move forwards." In the U.S. the word "forwards" has otherwise almost disappeared except for set phrases like "backwards and forwards," and "forward" is used most of the time as our directional adverb:"He leaned forward until he almost fell off the deck."

One might ask, however, how else or in what other direction one might look at a future, bright or otherwise, and suggest that we forget about saying where the future lies and say what kind of a future it is: "He has a bright future in appliance sales (or whatever)."

It is my understanding the verb prove is conjugated prove, proved and has proved. "Proven", on the other hand, is an adjective, as in, "He had a proven record as a coach". It is also my understanding that proven is often used (incorrectly) as the past perfect of prove.

If what I think is true, then the expression "Innocent until proven guilty" should be, "Guilty until proved guilty". Am I correct in my thinking? Thank you for your help.

According to Bryan Garner (who wrote a legal dictionary before he wrote his dictionary of American usage, "proved" is the preferred past participle of "prove." But then he notes that the set phrase "innocent until proven guilty" exists and is unexceptionable — along with the wonderful Scottish verdict, "not proven" (which means that you probably did it but no one has actually proved it yet). Burchfield notes, also, that "proven" scarcely exists in England, but in American English, "proven" is used almost as frequently as "proved."

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

What is the correct manner in using measurements, such as "feet" or "foot? More specifically in speaking of square feet or square foot.

When the measurement is being used as a pre-noun modifier, we use the singular "foot": The museum has added a 50,000-square-foot extension (note the two hyphens there). When the measurement is not a modifier, we use the plural "feet": The museum has added another 50,000 square feet (no hyphens).

The sentence:

Depending on the size of its brooding pouch, a sea horse hatches between 10 and 100 eggs.

What is the function of the introductory phrase? I want to say it's a participial phrase, but it doesn't seem to be acting as an adjective.

Occasionally, a participial phrase will act adverbially. An example from Kolln's book is "He drank his beer standing at the bar," in which the phrase "standing at the bar" tells us how and where he drank. In "the kids came running out of the house," the phrase "running out of the house," tells us how and where the kids came. In your sentence, the initial participial phrase is defining the conditions under which a sea horse hatches, so it's modifying the verb. You could, though, say that the phrase tends to modify, adverbially, the entire main clause.

Authority: Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln. 4rth Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. 1994. p. 162.

Got a question about the use of anytime or any time. Here's the context. Should it be "They are not likely to ease up anytime soon." Or "They are not likely to ease up any time soon."

Burchfield calls "anytime" a "characteristically American adverb," which is faint praise, indeed, but it is quite common in American English and has almost entirely replaced the two-separate-word compound. Anytime you can replace "anytime" or "any time" with the phrase "at any time," the one-word adverb will prove acceptable. In the following sentence, it should be written as two words: "Muslix can be eaten at just about any time of day." In your sentence, the single-word adverb will work quite well, at least in the United States.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

By permission, From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. (www.Merriam-Webster.com).

Which verb usage is correct?

• Further, counsel for these Defendants have spoken with counsel for the Plaintiff.
OR

• Further counsel for these Defendants has spoken with counsel for the Plaintiff.

The word "counsel" is almost always either indeterminerat ("your right to counsel") or plural, "counsel have been appointed"). Its use as a singular is not unheard of, though: "Counsel arguing a case is permitted to … ." You want to avoid pluralizing the word "counsel" to "counsels" except in the case of more than one "independent counsels."

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing