The Grammar Logs
#510

I asked this question before but I did not see an answer on the site. I have a question about verb tenses following "who." Which verb tense must I use after "who" for the present singular verb? "You who gives sandwiches to us" or "You who give sandwiches to us" If you take out who, then the second sentence is correct. But everyone tells me that once who is added, then you must use the 3rd person tense. If so, the first sentence above is correct. Is there a rule and can you give references?

This is really not a question about tense. Tense is about past, present, future — the chronological sequence of events, etc. This is a question about number — meaning, simply, singular or plural. The relative plural pronoun who has no number: it can be either singular or plural, depending on what it refers to: My brother, who is a mathematician, can't balance his checkbook. My Boston friends, who are visiting this weekend, are quite wealthy.

This gets a little perplexing when the who refers to you because you takes the same verb form whether it is a singular you or a plural you. You (singular) are my best friend. You (plural) are my best friends. So whether the You of your sentence is singular or plural, you want give to go with the pronoun who. Your friends who say that there must be an agreement between the who and some third-person verb are mistaken.

Having said all this, I must admit that the sentence itself is rather clumsy. You will find your construction "you who" more frequently in sentences such as "Blessed are you who are poor, for you shall inherit. . . ." and "For those of you who are interested . . . . "

In the following sentence should the form of the verb "try" be tries or try:

The Fed's mission statement requires that it tries (try?) to achieve low inflation and low unemployment.

And why? Thank you very much

You want the verb form try in that sentence. This is an appropriate use of the subjunctive mood, because you are reporting a request or requirement. The present tense of the subjunctive uses only the base form of the verb (try in this case). Using the verb "to be," for example, we would come up with a sentence like "I requested that my aides be ready for a drill on Monday." Reporting a demand, we would write something like "She demanded that her chief assistant show up for work at five every morning."

Just when I thought I'd figured out how to use the word "comprise," I came across its use in a Pulitzer prize-winning book that made me wonder if I'll ever "get" how it is supposed to be used. Joseph J. Ellis writes in Founding Brothers (Vintage, 2002):

• "...the states and regions comprising the new nation had no common history as a nation..." (p. 11)
• "...they [the Founding Fathers] comprised...the greatest generation of political talent in American history." (p. 13)

Has Ellis used "comprise" correctly in these passages?

Most of my writing manuals insist that there remains a useful distinction between comprise, meaning "to include, contain or consist of," and compose, meaning "to make up" or "constitute." With those definitions in mind, compose or constitute would have been better choices in Ellis's sentences. (Frankly, I can't see how the verb comprise makes sense in the second sentence regardless of how you understand it.)

However, my Merriam-Webster's, in a usage note, observes that comprise has been widely used to mean "compose" or "constitute" since the late eighteenth century, especially in scientific writing. But then the dictionary editors conclude that if you want to stay out of trouble with editors and picky readers, use comprise only to mean "include, contain, or consist of." Bernstein insists that "The whole comprises the parts," not vice versa. And the writing manuals also suggest that we avoid the passive form of comprise, "The symphony is comprised of four parts."

Authority: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Electronic Edition, Version 1.5. 1996. Used with permission.

Authority: Dos, Don'ts & Maybes of English Usage by Theodore Bernstein. Gramercy Books: New York. 1999.

Why can't we say "more better" when we can say "much better"?

We can't modify a comparative adjective with the comparative adverb "more" — mostly because it doesn't tell us anything that the comparative adjective wouldn't tell us by itself. Let's say I heat a substance on the stove. The substance is now hotter than it was before. And then I heat it some more. I have made it hotter, not more hotter (i.e., the "more" doesn't add anything to the comparison). However, if I want to intensify the process somehow, I can say that I made the substance "much hotter." In the same manner, I can say either that "Joe is taller than his brother," and if Joe grows over the summer, I can say that "Joe is now much taller than his brother," but not that he is "more taller." Also, "Sarah was beautiful last year" and now "She is even more beautiful" (but there is no way to impose a second comparison upon the comparative "more beautiful").

In this sentence.....
1 out of 3 relationships ____ abusive. Is the space supposed to be is or are?

Thanks.

The subject for that verb is "one [relationship]," so you're looking for the singular verb, "is."

Why should there be AND instead of & in this title?

Major Duties and Accountabilities

No reason, really, other than the conventions of typography. The ampersand symbol is generally limited to situations in which saving space is very important, or situations in which we're trying to bind the elements of an abbreviation A&P, R&D, and for company titles such as Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. Frankly, it calls attention to itself in text or titles where it's not necessary and is probabably harder to type (for a good touch-typist, that is).

Is "best means" singular or plural, or is the verb determined by what follows?

Example, "Our best means of ensuring competent service is/are strong relationships, vendor management programs, and the watchful eye of the consultant.

The word means is plural in appearance but singular in usage, so you want the singular "is." Because your predicate is plural, however, you end up with a rather clumsy sentence. Can you consider rewording into something like "We ensure competent service through strong relationships, vendor management programs, and the watchful eye of the consultant"? ("Strong relationships" is kind of vague compared to the other two things, isn't it?)

This is for a wedding invitation:

We have experienced love...in our parents, our families and friends and now a new love in each other

Deborah and Antonio invite you to share with us a celebration of love...

Do these two sentences flow?? Especially with the use of "We" and "us."

The first sentence seems to work OK, but the second sentence shifts into a third-person plural point of view — what Deborah and Antonio are doing — and the "with us" tries to toss us back into the first-person plural, the "we" point of view. It's painful, as much as one wants to go along for the ride. Can you simply omit the "with us," and maybe substitute "in a celebration of love"?

AND HEARTY CONGRATULATIONS! MAZELTOV!

About the order of adverbS.... I'm really in trouble writting very simple sentence. Please tell me which is better or correct and if possible, tell me why.

1. Those flowers were planted in the garden by my mother.
2. Those flowers were planted by my mother in the garden.

Thank you!

The second sentence leaves open the possibility that you have another mother somewhere else besides the garden. There is an order of adverbs, just as there is a (even more definite) order of adjectives, but the order of adverbs is much more flexible than the order of adjectives. Still, sense will govern the order in your sentence. You might try, instead of the options you give us, "Those flowers in the garden were planted by my mother" or avoid the passive form altogether and write "My mother planted those flowers in the garden."

First of all, I love your website! I am an attorney and, needing all the help I can get, will likely revisit it in the future. I have a dispute with a close friend of mine, who is an English teacher! Please help us. The following sentence is the subject of the dispute:

"I love sports, but you don't necessarily have to."

Please assume, for purposes of this inquiry, that ending a sentence with a preposition is forbidden and grammatically incorrect. (I do, however, note your comments on this rule being relaxed)

One of us sees the above sentence as ending in a preposition, and therefore grammatically incorrect.

The other person takes the position that the word "to" is not a preposition in this sentence. It is likely an infinitive (i.e., "to love" — with the word "love" implied) and therefore the sentence is perfectly correct. The (implied) infinitive is acting as the object of the verb "love" (i.e., as a noun) and the sentence may properly end with the word "to."

Who is correct? Actually, the main issue here is whether the sentence ends in a preposition or not. If not, is there anything else grammatically wrong with this sentence? If the word "to" is neither a preposition nor an infinitive, what is it? Any other comments?

"The other person," in this case, is correct. The "to" at the end of that sentence is not a preposition. It is the "particle" of an infinitive that remains implied. You can even have two of these in the same sentence, as in "You don't have to if you don't want to." ("To what?" to do something?) Ending a sentence with this "open infinitive" is perfectly acceptable.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing