The Grammar Logs
#509

Which of the two pronouns should be used in the following sentence?

No one other than [she/her] can do it.

The subject of the verb "can do it," is "no one." "No one" is modified by the phrase that begins with "other than." The question then becomes whether we regard "other than" as a compound preposition (meaning "besides" or "except"), in which case we would want the object of the preposition, "her," or as an adverbial construction, in which case we would want "she." If I am reading him correctly, Burchfield suggests that either construction would be acceptable, but the "her" would be more commonplace in the U.S. and "she" more commonplace in England.

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. (under "other than")

I am questioning whether to use who or whom in the following sentence...

It was at that moment that I grasped how much my position as a medical assistant has matured me and helped me to further empathize with those who/whom are less fortunate.

I think 'who' but my grammar check on word is telling me that is incorrect...Please advise Thank you very much

You're looking for the subject form for the subject of that clause, "who are less fortunate," so your instincts are correct here. If your grammar checker tells you to use whom in that slot, you need a new grammar checker. May I suggest that you rewrite that first clause a bit:

It was then that I understood how much I had matured in my position as a medical assistant and how the experience has helped me empathize with those who are less fortunate.

The verb mature works much better as an intransitive verb, and besides, you should take credit for the maturing.

We are having a discussion at work regarding plural possession. A couple is sending an invitation. Their names are Barbara and Michael Eisenson. The invitation says:

The party will be held at Barbara and Michael Eisensons'

The party will be held at Barbara and Michael Eisenson's

If you dropped the first names, you could pluralize the last name and use your first construction, "The party will be held at the Eisensons'." But you can't pluralize the last name when you use both the first names (you wouldn't say, for instance, "Bob and Alice Smiths"); therefore, your second example is correct.

A sentence currently reads: "Add xyz to your Service for $5.00 additional per month then your XYZ current Service..."

I know "then" is incorrect...and that "than" would also be wrong. What word should be used in place to indicate that the $5. is incremental to the cost of the basic service. Would one use "with?"

Thanks!

You're right: the "then" is completely wrong, but the correct word, "than," doesn't help much either. Can we say something like "Add XYZ to your basic service for only five dollars more per month"? I have a feeling that consulting any of your various bills — telephone, cable TV, Internet service, etc. — would reveal several ways of saying this kind of thing.

why is firefighters one word and fire fighting two words?

I have to admit I didn't believe you until I went to the my Merriam-Webster's to check it out. My answer is I don't know, and I doubt if anyone does. My Roman Catholic friends tell me that with the proper upbringing I would be more capable of accepting such divine mysteries.

What is the correct grammer?

• I graciously accept the offer
or

• I accept the offer graciously.

In terms of the placement of the adverb, either order would be fine, although putting it before the verb is probably a bit more common. Are you sure this is the word you want, though? Maybe gratefully? Isn't it up to the person who made the offer to say whether you are gracious or not in accepting it?

Is this sentence correct? Thank you.

The testimony of both the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the facts of the accident are similar.

It would be a better sentence without the both. With the word both in there, we're left wondering what these two things are similar to. Perhaps a word or phrase more descriptive than "similar" would be helpful: "alike in detail and substance" or something like that?

I found a phrase on the container of a drugstore item that made me do a double take. The sentence reads:

60% fewer incidence of GI side effects when compared to immediate release Iron tablets.

I complained in a letter to the company that "incidence" isn't quantifiable and therefore can't be modified by "fewer." I also offered the alternatives "lower incidence" and "fewer incidents."

No one replied to my letter.

The Oxford American Dictionary maintains this useful disctinction between incidence and incident (the plural of which, incidents, sounds exactly like incidence): incidence refers to the rate at which something occurs or at which it affects people or other things; incident refers to an event, a happening, a discrete unit of experience, especially a minor one, although it can also refer to any event that attracts general attention. Using these definitions, your objection to the ad copy is quite appropriate and exact.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary's definitions of these two words are not nearly as discriminating or useful. That dictionary provides "occurrence" as a synonym for both words. (But when you look up the usage notes for "occurrence," only "incident" is listed as a like word.) That would seem to allow for the use of "incidence" in the ad copy. My writing manuals, my "usual reliable resources," do not speak to this difference, I am sorry to say.

I think you are quite right to point this out to the drug company that wrote this ad copy. The fact that they do not respond probably indicates that they would prefer not to acknowledge the error or to spend whatever pennies would be involved in rewriting the ad copy.

I'm wondering if using the words "and also" in any given sentence is correct or incorrect. It sounds redundant to me in that the word "and" indicates an addition just as the word "also" does. So, is it wrong to use them together in such a way?

I've noticed that I can nearly always remove one word or the other to good effect. Are there rules to this effect? No. "And also" is called an "additive conjunct," and the word "also," remember, contains an adverbial intent not contained within "and." Where it's not actually redundant, it's not really wrong. (For instance, you would seldom object to a sentence that contained "but also.")

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. (under "also")

Could you please tell me what type of sentence this is: Riding a bike is an exciting experience.

Also, what is a Gerund predicate?

That's a simple sentence. The subject is "Riding a bike" (a gerund phrase) and it's linked to the predicate nominative "an exciting experience" by a linking verb, "is." A gerund predicate would simply be a gerund serving as the completer of a sentence, as in "I love walking in the park after dark."

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing