|
The Grammar Logs # 392 |
|
| QUESTION |
| YOUR QUESTION WAS: When someone starts a sentence with; "Well, I'd like to know the answer." What part of the sentence is the word "well" and what does it actually mean. Thanks |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Santa Barbara, California  Mon, Jun 12, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I think you could call it an interjection. Burchfield calls it the "preliminary or resumptive well," and says it's kind of a call for pause, a moment in which to gather one's wits. Most of the time, it's unnoticeable, until someone begins to use it constantly, and then it becomes tedious. In formal or academic writing, of course, it should be used sparingly, if at all. 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 |
Where is it proper to place commas in the following sentence:
This is a formal request by LANCO to convert to a community charter to serve persons who live, work, worship, or attend school in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, as well as businesses and other legal entities located within the county. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Lancaster, Pennsylvania Mon, Jun 12, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| There's nothing wrong with the placement of commas in that sentence. I think we have problems with the proliferation of to's. Can we change it to "charter which would serve persons. . . "? The sentence felt all right as long as we were dealing with citizens and businesses (maybe put "the" in front of "businesses" and change the final "the county" to "that county"). Do we really have to end in something so vague as "legal entities"? I trust it is clear in context to whom the request is being sent and what, exactly, is being converted. |
| QUESTION |
| Is "why'd" a word? I'm trying to convince my 13 year old that it isn't. She is convinced it is a conjuction of why would or why did. Thank you! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| West Milford, New Jersey Tue, Jun 13, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| That would probably be a passable contraction of "why would" in the most informal kind of writing or in writing that is attempting to reproduce the way that people talk. Shakespeare contracted "he would" to "he'ld," but I don't think that's an excuse to contract "why would" to "why'ld." In truth and in most circumstances, we're better off not contracting that construction, but in casual writing, it's probably all right. |
| QUESTION |
| What is the difference between grammar and syntax? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Tlokweng, Botswana Wed, Jun 14, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Most of the time, people mean pretty much the same thing with those two words. It might be helpful, though, to think of syntax as part of the larger considerations of grammar — syntax being the study of the principles by which words are ordered into phrases and clauses (the order itself and what happens to words — inflections, etc. — as they fall into such order), and grammar covering that as well as larger issues of preference, rules, etc. |
| QUESTION |
| Is it ever proper to use "off of" in a sentence, or is that double-dipping? Thanks! |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Bloomington, Indiana Wed, Jun 14, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Many careful writers will insist that "off of" is redundant. We don't need to say "He took it off of the table"; we can say "He took it off the table," instead. Certainly the "off of" construction is more common in speech and informal writing than it is in edited text. Personally, I don't see much difference between "off of" and "out of." "He jumped out of the window" or "He looked out of the window" can be written with or without the "of," and the widely accepted "out of" construction is older in usage than "out." My Merriam-Webster's says that "off of" is idiomatically acceptable in any case, but that dictionary tends to be rather liberal in such matters. 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. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Electronic Edition. 1994. Used with permission. |
| QUESTION |
Are both of these phrases correct?
"Alaska native" vs "Alaskan native"I question the first usage of noun-noun versus an adjective modifyinig a noun. You don't say "America citizen". Thank you. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Suitland, Maryland Wed, Jun 14, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| It's true that we don't say "America citizen," but then we don't often use "America" as an attributive noun. We say American products, American continent, etc. On the other hand, we do use state names as attributive nouns: Connecticut native, Texas representative, Vermont syrup. State names that end in "a" sometimes get an "n" tacked on for both adjective and noun forms: Oklahoman, Californian, Alaskan, Arizonan, Nevadan (those last two sound odd to me, but they are in the dictionary). Sometimes "ian" gets tacked on instead: Floridian, Arizonian. |
| QUESTION |
Please help settle an office debate:
"At each corner of the base (is? are?) a post and a plastic wheel."Some are inclined to say "is" because post and wheel are singular. Others think "are" is correct because there "are" two objects. Which should it be, and why? |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Bethesda, Maryland Wed, Jun 14, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| The subject(s) of this sentence are "a post and a plastic wheel," and the subject determines the number of the verb. Assuming the post and wheel are separable items, we want "are." If they're really one thing, then "is" will suffice. |
| QUESTION |
I need to know the proper way to say this:
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Sacramento, California Wed, Jun 14, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Since you want to show joint ownership, one way of saying this is "Byron and my car." The problem with that is that it can lead to ambiguity, as in "My brother-in-law stole Byron and my car," in which it can appear that your brother-in-law stole Byron as well as your car. Avoid the problem and show possession another way: "the car that belongs to Byron and me," "our car," etc. |
| QUESTION |
| Please settle an argument. Is it improper to use the superlative where there are only two things to compare. For example, "Jane is the tallest of the two girls." Your section on adverbs implies that it is improper but are there any exceptions? Thank you. We need to be sure because the argument got pretty heated. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Victoria, BC, Canada Thu, Jun 15, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| In casual speech, you might hear "Janest is the tallest of the two girls," but it surely would not be acceptable in formal writing or even speech. I'll cite Quirk and Greeenbaum here: "The superlative is sometimes used for a comparison between two. . . , but this is considered loose and informal by many." Authority: A University Grammar of English by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum. Longman Group: Essex, England. 1993. Used with permission. p. 130.
|
| QUESTION |
My question is about prepositon. Please tell me which of the following is correct.
Thank you very much. |
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Hong Kong Thu, Jun 15, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| "Support for" would be fine, but "subscription for" would be a bit odd. We need two separate prepositions here: "subscription to and support of/for" CABLE TV service. |
Previous Grammar Log