QUESTION |
What is the correct way to write this sentence:
- I didn't know about the cow's eating its cud.
- I didn't know about the cow eating its cud.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Tulsa, Oklahoma Wed, Mar 29, 2000
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
You have to decide whether your sentence is about the cud-eating or a specific cow that's up to this particular activity. (Do cows actually eat their cud, or just chew on it? In either case, we should put a stop to it.) If it's a specific cow you have in mind, then the second sentence is correct. If you're talking about "eating/chewing its cud" and how this activity belongs to cows in general (probably what you have in mind), you'll want to use the possessive form, "cow's."
|
QUESTION |
I am wondering what the correct wording for this sentence
should be. Should it be, "Orders placed Friday through Sunday will be shipped the
following Monday",
or should it be, "Orders placed Friday through Sunday will ship on the following
Monday?"
Or, are both incorrect?
Thanks.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Sausalito, California Wed, Mar 29, 2000
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
I have heard people in the moving and shipping profession say something to that effect, that an order "will ship. . . ." The dictionary at least my dictionary doesn't actually provide for that usage, however. There is an intransitive form for the verb "ship," but it refers directly to going on board a ship. I'd go with "will be shipped," myself.
|
QUESTION |
Here is the sentence I'm having trouble with:
- The only thing smoking is the ribs.
or
- The only thing smoking are the ribs.
Does the verb agree with thing (singular) or ribs (plural)?
Much thanks!
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
New York, New York Wed, Mar 29, 2000
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
The subject is still at the beginning of the sentence. Even though the predicate noun, "ribs," is plural, the subject, "thing," is singular, so we want "is" to be the verb. This is an excellent example of those situations in which a singular subject is connected to a plural predicate (or vice versa). The verb is apt to feel a bit odd.
|
QUESTION |
I'm promoting consistency in use of computer terminology in my workplace.
However, no matter how much I research, I cannot come to any conclusions about the
following terms:
Is website one word or two? Is it capitalized?
Is e-commerce, e-mail, etc. hyphenated or not? Should the e be capitalized or not?
Is it online or on-line?
Is Web always capitalized even in Web page?
Is home page one word or two?
Please help! I know there may be more than one "right" answer and that consistency is
most important, but if could guide me toward the most widely accepted form, I'd
appreciate it.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Baltimore, Maryland Thu, Mar 30, 2000
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
This Guide to Grammar and Writing has been quite inconsistent about the spelling of such words. If you're troubled by such hobgoblins as consistency, you might refer to Yale University's Web Style Guide at http://info.med.yale.edu/caim/manual/. They use "on-line"; "e-mail"; and they always capitalize "Web" and write it as a single word separated from "pages" or "sites." That's as good as anyone else's advice, I suppose, but you will find other resources with other spellings. I don't see anything wrong with "online," myself. It will be a while before the editors of dictionaries get together on these matters. Oh, and "Internet" is always capitalized.
|
QUESTION |
In the sentence "The heavy beam fell, causing paralysis to the man below it." what part of the sentence is "paralysis" and why? Is it a direct object?
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Orion, Illinois Thu, Mar 30, 2000
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
The participial phrase "causing paralysis to the man below" is what you could call a sentence modifier; it
modifies the entire rest of the sentence before it and not any particular word (which is part of its
problem, I suppose). Within a participial phrase you will frequently find a complement, just as if the
participle itself were a regular verb phrase (which it is not). For instance, in "The faculty members
causing all the trouble have left the hall," "causing all the trouble" is a participial phrase just like yours.
"Trouble" in that sentence is the complement of the participle, and if you were to diagram the sentence
you would indicate that the word "trouble" is an object of the participle. ("Causing" would be shown on
a curved line right under "members," because it clearly modifies that word.) The short answer to your
question is that "paralysis" is the complement in the participial phrase.
|
QUESTION |
"His team was winning by two points." Is the use of the
verb "win" in this sentence correct? Technically, the verb "win" indicates a finite
action. You either win or you lose. It would seem more correct to say: "His team was
ahead
by two points." So, is my first sentence grammatically correct? Or is it just something
that seems okay because it's used popularly?
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Columbus, Indiana Wed, Apr 5, 2000
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
I'm not convinced that winning is a finite action (I'm not even sure what that means). Surely we can say that at some point it was clear "that the United States was winning the war," even before victory was secured. One could argue that "to die" would be an extreme example: you either die or you don't. But dying, like winning, is a process and the progressive verb does not seem inappropriate. On the other hand, it is probably more precise to say that the team "was ahead by two points," so the change is an improvement, however insignificant.
|
QUESTION |
I'm managing editor of an education journal. When I get an
English spelling, I change it to U.S. spelling, except for quotes. This isn't usually a
problem, but in a current article, the author refers to an activity called Rumour Clinic
and then uses the word rumour in the same paragraph. I would normally leave
Rumour Clinic as is, since that's the title of the activity (It's also quoted in a figure) and
change rumour to rumor where it's not quoted. But this looks inconsistent, especially
within the same paragraph.
I don't find an answer to this question in your web site or in any of my sources. It may
just be a matter of opinion, but if you have a source that addresses it or an opinion, I'd
appreciate it very much.
|
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Columbus, Ohio Wed, Apr 5, 2000
|
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
If I were editing a book, say, or an entire article that was first produced in an English periodical, I'd leave the British spellings alone. In "setting" a British text for first publication in an American printed book or journal, however, I'd change the spellings to American orthography. Unless I'm misinterpreting things, this seems to be what the Chicago Manual of Style is calling for:
The practice of the University of Chicago Press is generally to change British spelling to American (e.g., colour to color) in books published under its imprint and composed in the United States. . . . Retaining British orthography is particularly perilous when heavy editing is called for.
I'd try to stick with that policy consistently regardless of where the British spelling occurs.
Authority: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. p. 195.
|