|
The Grammar Logs # 364 |
|
| QUESTION |
| Is there a rule covering the use of "more than" vs. "over?" Example: The College is celebrating more than [over] 100 years of women's basketball. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Lynchburg, Virginia  Sun, Dec 12, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| According to Burchfield, this continues to be an important distinction in American journalism. In the U.S., "over" isn't used to mean "in excess of" or "more than." In England, he says, no one pays attention to this distinction. In casual speech, we certainly hear "There were over four thousand runners in last year's marathon." and "He's well over six feet tall." But in writing, it's apparently a good idea to use "more than," at least on this side of the Atlantic. Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. (looked up "over") Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.
|
| QUESTION |
| This is a question about hyphenating eras using "mid," "early," and "late". I understand that "mid" uses a hyphen (mid-1900s), and I don't believe that early and late do (early 1800s, late sixteenth century), but what about when mid is used with early or late? Is it "early to mid-1900s" or "early- to mid-1900s"? Is it "mid- to late sixteenth century" or "mid- to late-sixteenth century"? I'm obsessing. Please help. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Minneapolis, Minnesota Mon, Dec 13, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| When "mid" is combined with a number, a hyphen is added. Because we wouldn't say "early-1900s," we wouldn't add the hyphen after "early" in "early to mid-1900s." "Mid," we're told by Burchfield, could stand by itself at one time, as in "mid air," which Fowler said should never be hyphenated; nowadays, however, it is always hyphenated, "mid-air." According to the Chicago Manual of Style, "mid" is nearly always connected as a closed word, as in "midlife crisis" or "midweek conference," unless the second word of the compound begins with a capital letter (mid-Atlantic, mid-Victorian) — or, they add later (under noun forms), a number. But the fact that "mid" used to stand by itself suggests to me that we could write the compound as "mid to late sixteenth century." Or you could write it as "mid-to-late sixteenth century," and I don't think anyone would question it. (That possibility doesn't seem to be covered in CMOS.) In short, I think you can stop obsessing and do whatever you want to here. You seem to be in control. Authority: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. 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 publish something called The Plexus Commentary. When referring to the set of these publications, should we refer to them as the "Commentarys" or as the "Commentaries?" |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Los Angeles, California Thu, Dec 16, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| In speech or casual writing,
we could refer to that stack of "Commentaries" over there. In formal writing, don't we have to
write about ISSUES or COPIES of the Plexus Commentary? We don't seem to have this problem
with cars, do we? We talk about Fords and Chevrolets. But if you've got several copies of the New
York Times in your doorway, you don't talk about the Timeses. In fact, we might even treat it as a
non- count noun: There ARE several New York Times in the door.
|
| QUESTION |
| Obviously "elder" can be either a noun or an adjective; but when is it correct to use elder as an adjective, instead of "older," and why? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| San Diego, California Sat, Dec 18, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| According to Burchfield, it is regarded as appropriate to use elder as a modifier only when we are clearly referring to two people: "He is the elder brother." We can use older in that context, and we would use older in all other contexts in which we wish to imply a comparative age. 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 |
Is it incorrect to state:
"I felt a sensation on my knee" instead of "in my knee"? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Vista, California Tue, Dec 21, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| It would mean, first of all, that the sensation occurs on the surface of the knee, as if someone were touching the knee — so I guess it's possible. The odd thing about the expression, though, is that it's a bit redundant. A sensation is a feeling, so it's like saying that you "feel a feeling." At least modify the word sensation: "I felt an odd/burning/tickling sensation my knee." |
| QUESTION |
| When would you capitalize "church", "priests", "pastor", "nuns" and "sisters" in a sentence? I'm typing verbatim comments from a Catholic Church and because the comments are so inconsistent (capitalization of the above words) that I'm really confused at this point! Ex...We want the nuns back singing, for this Mass. I believe the church is becoming too consumed with money. The children need to be welcomed in the church to establish a relationship with God early in life. They need to be active in church........Have a great day and I look forward to a response. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Sacramento, California Tue, Dec 21, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Although we capitalize names of deities and words derived from those names, none of those words qualify — except God. If you're referring to the name of a specific church, of course, you can capitalize that name. And you would frequently find "Church" capitalized in documents promulgated by any specific church in order to distinguish that church from any other church: "The Church's policy on. . . . " |
| QUESTION |
| Which is correct to say, "The staff are on a rotation schedule" or "The staff is on a rotation schedule" |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Tue, Dec 21, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Normally, "staff" is regarded as a singular entity and will take a singular verb. This is true in your sentence ("The staff is on a rotation schedule."). However, something else in the sentence might make us regard "staff" as a group of individuals, so we would use a plural verb: "The staff have put (plural) on their new uniforms." |
| QUESTION |
| Which is the correct plural form of the proper noun "Spiderman" — Spidermen or Spidermans? On the highway, a car absolutely crammed with little Spiderman action figures passed us and I said, "That car is filled with Spidermen!" My husband said the correct plural is Spidermans. Thanks! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Edneyville, North Carolina Tue, Dec 21, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
To avoid the problem, you should have said, "that car is filled with little Spiderman action figures." Now you've gotten into an existential or ontological debate that can only be solved by priests and rabbis. Wherein does the essence of Spiderman reside? Can this essence be shared by others, so that there can be Spidermen? Or can there, in fact, be only one Spiderman and the illusion of Spidermans be just that, an illusion. Perhaps the utterance of the word in its plural form should be, in fact, "a word which should not be spoken," a taboo. Also, this might be a guy-girl thing. I would have said "Spidermen," myself — ![[E-Mail Icon]](../gif/email.gif){kind=small} but then I was never a great believer in Spiderman, being a fan of Superman — and of that Plastic Guy, whatever his name was. Perhaps only the true believers — those who regard the essence of "spiderness" as a singular entity — will say "Spidermans." In short, I refuse to get involved. I will leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else wants to suggest a better answer.
|
| QUESTION |
I know that a comma is appropriate between two independent
clauses, but in the following case, is the second clause considered independent (subject implied
from first clause) or dependent? Is a comma needed?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Costa Mesa, California Wed, Dec 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Neither of those sentences needs a comma, for they both contain only one independent clause. In each, you have one subject -- "He" and "firm," respectively -- and what is called a compound verb: "hit" and ran" and "is owned" and "has." But there are not two subject-verb relationships, so you have only one independent clause. |
| QUESTION |
| I'm curious to know if there is a rule governing the use of "age." For example, should one say "children age 6-10," or "children aged 6-10," or "children 6-10"—or even "children 6-10 years of age"? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| San Francisco, California Wed, Dec 22, 1999
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| "Aged" is the appropriate modifier when referring to someone who has attained a specific age: "a child, aged 6." I don't know if you can use it when referring to a range of ages, though: "children, from 6 to 12 years of age," would be much better, I would think. If "age" is being used plurally, you could write, "two children, ages 6 and 12 . . . " In England, Burchfield says, they say "at age eighteen," but in the U.S. we say "at the age of eighteen." (I'm not as confident of that distinction as I am of most things that Burchfield chronicles.) 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.
|
Previous Grammar Log