|
The Grammar Logs # 363 |
|
| QUESTION |
| A sentence with the phrase, are you LOOKING TO buy/go/send, etc., "feels" wrong to me, but I'm not sure that it is actually incorrect. I just spotted a sentence in Newsweek reading "Still looking to celebrate on, say Jan. 3?" I vetoed t his usage for a recent communication, but now wonder if I was working on a feeling that it was wrong, rather than fact. Thank you for any help you can provide. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Fargo, North Dakota  Wed, Dec 1, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Burchfield says that that particular construction has been in use since the sixteenth century but that it is "falling into disuse." I guess that means it is regarded by many careful writers as being a nonstandard substitute for "expect." A similar construction, in which an object is substituted for the infinitive, as in "looking to the government for help," is definitely regarded as nonstandard. 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.
|
| QUESTION |
| Hello: This is from a local newspaper: "After years of Art for Arts' Sake madness, the art party and benefit have become a staple of the local social calendar."I say that Arts should be spelled Art's, not Arts'. What do you think? Is arts considered a collective noun? I think in that sentence Arts should be singular possessive; namely, Art's. Do you have an example or two of a similar noun? A couple of friends say that it could be spelled either way; that is, Art's or Arts'. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| New Orleans, Louisiana Thu, Dec 2, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Changing the "art" to a plural makes for an interesting play on the old saw, "Art for Art's Sake." It's something that only an art museum director could love, though. We do speak of the arts in the plural: the visual arts, etc., but it's usually regarded as a collective noun in the manner it was used in that famous phrase. If the writer uses "Art for Arts' (plural possessive) Sake," then he succeeds in making a point about the plurality of the arts, but he might also fail to make his point. |
| QUESTION |
| I was taught in high school grammar class that the the word "aggravate" should be used in reference to a medical and/or physical problem and should not be used in the same context as "annoy". For example, "the football player aggravated his left elbow" would be the proper use of "aggravate", while "the constant ringing of the bell was aggravating the the students" would be incorrect usage. In addition I am curious to learn how irritate fits relates to these words. So, if you could please answer my question about the correct usage of aggravate, annoy, and irritate, I would really appreciate it because my friend does not believe me that there is any difference between the three words, and I am beginning to question it myself. Thank you |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Chicago, Illinois Sat, Dec 4, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I don't think I was taught much of anything in high school. My listing among the Notorious Confusables suggests that "aggravate" should be used only to suggest that something bad has been made worse, which would mean that your football player could aggravate his left elbow only if we knew, from context, that his left elbow had been previously injured. However, Burchfield notes that the word aggravate has been used by very good writers to mean "to produce inflammation in" or "to rouse to displeasure by persistent goading (to annoy)" or "to exasperate" since the middle of the seventeenth century. It wasn't until the middle of the twentieth century that that usage was condemned. Nonetheless, in formal writing, it's probably a good idea to avoid using "aggravate" except in the sense that something bad has been made worse. On the other hand, your friend is in good company — including Churchill, according to Burchfield. The participle "aggravating," according to Merriam-Webster's is used solely to mean "irritating." 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.
|
| QUESTION |
How do you tell if a collective noun in a sentence is singular or plural?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Orange, Connecticut Sat, Dec 4, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| A collective noun is almost always acting collectively, as one thing, but sometimes another clue in the sentence — like the "their" in your second sentence — will tell us that we're using the noun as a group of individuals acting separately. In such a situation, the collective noun would take a plural form (in the present tense, "The group were pitching their tents."). |
| QUESTION |
| My middle school students have been taught that adjectives cannot modify other adjectives; only adverbs can modify adjectives. However, in the sentence "My uncle's black cat is furry," the adjective "my" modifies "uncle's," which is functioning as an adjective because it modifies "cat." Help! My middle school students want an official explanation of this on Monday. Thank you for your help. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Germantown, Maryland Sat, Dec 4, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I'm not exactly in a position to offer an "official" explanation of anything. I think the possessive pronoun "my" does behave as an adjective, but it's actually modifying the word "uncle." The word "uncle" is then transformed into a modifying word by the added apostrophe -s. The word "my" is still modifying a noun, but it's a noun behaving like an adjective through the addition of the possessive "sign." (Nouns behave like adjectives all the time, as in "the second-hand book shop.": Second-hand is modifying book, and book is modifying shop.) |
| QUESTION |
Which sentence is correct:
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| San Jose, California Sat, Dec 4, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The short answer is neither. It's very confusing to try to refer to a choice (or a non-choice) between more than two things by using "neither" or "either." You could, however, use "nor" as a connector between each of the "elements": "Neither the red nor the white nor the blue cars have any problems." Otherwise, you have hopelessly confused the cars' colors. In the negative presentation of two things, it is not impossible to use "neither - or," and Burchfield cites several examples from good writers — but it's probably not a good idea. "Use neither - nor." 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.
|
| QUESTION |
| What is meant by something being 'disjunctive'? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| London, England Sat, Dec 4, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| "Disjunctive" refers to something that is not integrated within a clause. For instance, in the sentence, "He is not walking naturally." the adverb naturally falls within the clause and modifies the way he is walking. In the sentence, "Naturally, he is not walking." (which means something different) the same word is not integrated within the clause. A disjunct tends to "evaluate" the meaning of the entire rest of the clause. Authority: A University Grammar of English by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum. Longman Group: Essex, England. 1993. 126. Used with permission.
|
| QUESTION |
| I was recently criticized for using "apropos" along the lines of "your comment was apropos to this topic." Is my usage justifiable given that I am using the word as an adjective? My tormentor claims that "apropos of" is the proper usa ge. Are "apropos" and "relevant" essentially interchangeable without concern for the surrounding sentence structure? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Largo, Florida Mon, Dec 6, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The word apropos is usually used as either an adjective — "I don't think his answer was apropos." — or as a preposition with or without of: "His response apropos the economic downtown seemed especially insightful. Apropos of nothing at all, the narrator's remarks seemed superfluous." According to Burchfield, one will sometimes hear "apropos" as a substitute for "appropriate" — "I don't know if his analysis of Poe's short story is apropos to this discussion." — but Burchfield says this usage is not recommended. (He didn't say why.) 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.
|
| QUESTION |
| We're having an argument over a sign that was tacked up on a door to a laboratory. The sign reads "Yeast or Bacteria is not permitted in the tissue culture hood." One camp says that the verb should be singular, one camp says that the sign has multiple errors and should read "Neither yeast nor bacteria are permitted in the tissue culture room." Could you arbitrate? Thank You! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Cleveland, Ohio Tue, Dec 7, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The second camp, the one arguing for "Neither yeast nor bacteria are permitted. . . . ," gets the most points. The people inside this lab, however, may well be the last people in the world to use the word bacteria as a plural form of bacterium. The rest of the world often regards bacteria as singular, as in "The bacteria was destroyed. . . ." You could solve that problem by putting bacteria first, and then the singular (non-count) yeast would control the number of the verb (is permitted), and then no one would blink a grammatical eye and everyone would be deliriously happy. If you want to avoid the "neither-nor" (for some reason), you'll probably have to say "Bacteria and yeast are not permitted in the hood" (which sounds more like a sign on some kids' clubhouse than a warning on a lab door, but there you have it). |
| QUESTION |
In the following sentence where would comma(s) be placed:
"In every case of this nature the law places on the plaintiff the burden of convincing the jury by the weight of the evidence that he is entitled to the verdict which he seeks."I am a court reporting student and this is verbatim so no words can be added or ommitted. This is part of a literary paper and it is due on Monday so any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Rialto, California Sun, Dec 12, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I would put a comma after the introductory modifier (ending with "nature"), and I might set aside "by the weight of the evidence" as a parenthetical element (but I really don't think it's "added information," so I will use only one comma in this sentence). Your question makes me glad I'm not a court reporter. |
Previous Grammar Log