The Grammar Logs
#515

1) as an attorney, I would ordinarily have the letters Esq. after my name on the signature line of a letter. However, I also have an M.B.A. degree. Should I add that after Esq., or leave it off, or do something else with it?

2) Before I am licensed as an attorney, is it appropriate to sign as Esquire, or should I only use my degree, J.D.? I presume I should only use Esq. after I am licensed.

Thank you so much for your time!

I was surprised to find out, in Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage, that is inappropriate to use Esq. after one's own name. In other words, I could put the Esq. after a lawyer's name if I were writing, say, to Tom Hanks, Esq. But Tom Hanks wouldn't put the Esq. after his own name on his "cards, stationery, or self-addressed envelopes." It is regarded as particulary gauche ("non-U" or not upper-class) to put Esq. after a name when Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. precedes the name — or at least that was the case back in the 1950s and 60s. I don't know if lawyers actually practice the convention this way (I suspect not, given what I see on the Internet), but there it is (based, apparently, on evidence found in some law review articles about this issue). In any case, the Esq. is probably best saved until you're a licensed and practicing lawyer.

I'll leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else wants to voice an opinion on this weighty matter.

Authority: A Dictionary of Modern American Usage by Bryan Garner Copyright 1995 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press (New York: 1998).

How is it that it's called a "near miss," when it's actually a "near hit?" Is it just one of those quirks of the English language? Could you please tell me how this phrase came about? Thanks

I don't know how it came about. I suppose if you can find a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary, you might find its first uses. I have a feeling it's a bit of military terminology used by folks who thought that an enemy's shell had hit too close for comfort but was a "near miss." You're right: it's one of those phrases, idioms — like "I could care less" — that you can use and almost everyone will know what you mean, but that doesn't withstand any measure of logical analysis.

Regarding the effect / affect usage, I have a sentence that contradicted what I was taught. For the sentence "Lifeguards have been known to effect rescues even during tumultuous storms." I'm confused about why "effect" used instead of "affect." Shouldn't "affect" be used instead because the "effect" is being used as a verb?

Generally, you're right: "affect" is nearly always the verb and "effect" is nearly always the noun. "Effect," however, can be used as a verb when we mean "to cause to come into being" (as in "to effect a change") or "to accomplish" (as in "to effect a settlement between two warring parties"). "To effect rescues" is rather a hifalutin phrase, but it's quite acceptable.

When a proper name is being used, and it ends in a "sh", which possessive is correct?

• The Bush's are a wonderful family
• The Bushes are a wonderful family

-or- is there another answer?

Could you tell me where you found the answer or rule?

Generally, we just add "s" to form the plural of a proper noun. This is true even of a family name like Kennedy = Kennedys, Romano = Romanos. When a family name ends in s, x, ch, sh, or z, however, form the plural by added -es, as in the Marches, the Joneses, the Maddoxes, the Bushes.

When a proper noun ends in a hard "z" sound, don't add any ending: "The Chambers are coming to dinner" (not Chamberses), "The Hodges used to live here" (not Hodgeses).

Authority: The Gregg Reference Manual by William A. Sabin. 9th Edition. McGraw-Hill: New York. 2001. Used with the consent of Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

In my English grammar book...confectionery..is the collective name for things sold by a confectioner....My American friend says it should be...confectioneries, as in:

• The shop sells various types of confectionery for your enjoyment.
• The shop sells various types of confectioneries for your enjoyment.

Which is correct?

My Dictionary of Modern American Usage refers to "confectionery" as a collective noun for candies. So it is meant to be used with a singular verb. There might be a difference in the way that British folks use this word that I am not able to account for. My Merriam-Webster's, however, does include the plural form, confectioneries. I would use "confectionery," myself.

Authority: A Dictionary of Modern American Usage by Bryan Garner Copyright 1995 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press (New York: 1998).

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

What is the difference between partly and partially? In what contexts/situations is one preferable to the other?

Partially is used in contexts in which a partial or biased manner is being described; in that context, of course, partly has no role. In an initial phrase or clause, you will nearly always find partly, as in "Partly because he lived in his own house, and partly because . . . ." Other than that, the uses of these two words seem to merge in meaning, especially when they mean "in part." The old Fowler's maintained this difference — that partially was opposed to completely and that partly was opposed to wholly — but the difference, according to Burchfield, remains ambiguous and doesn't hold up well.

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.

Please advise which option in the brackets of the following is better:" Most people in Hong Kong add too much salt to their food. This (food/x) can harm their (heart/hearts)"

The problem with adding the word "food" is that it's not really the food that's harming anything; it's the salt that people have added. On the other hand, if you leave out the word "food," the reader might be temporarily puzzled about what "this" refers to (although I think it's clear enough that it refers to the practice of adding too much salt). I would either leave out the word "food" or change it to "practice" or "habit" or some such equivalent. As to using "heart" or "hearts," you have to decide whether the plural makes it sound as if the people in Hong Kong are running around with more than one heart — or the singular "heart" makes it sound as if the people in Hong Kong are sharing a single heart. In this context, I'd stick with the singular organ, "heart," as that is what counts here. As a general principle, when the predicate refers to something owned in common, we want the singular noun, as in "The children all had a sweet tooth."

How to know when to use SOONER or EARLIER? This really gets me confused sometimes... Which one is the correct or most appropriate form? "If I had known that, I would have bought the house EARLIER" or should I say "If I had known that, I would have bought the house SOONER"?

Thanks in advance!

I don't find anything in my usual reliable reference books that would help us out here, but I think that "earlier" is a simpler adjective, denoting chronological sequence. Something happened, or should have happened, prior to something else — earlier. "Sooner" seems to convey a sense of speed or urgency that is not carried in "earlier." So "I wake up earlier than my brother so I can get to work sooner than he does." I'll leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else cares to offer an opinion.

Hello,

is there a difference between "assessment" and "evaluation"? If so, please explain it to me

Not much of a difference. An evaluation, it seems (from reading my dictionaries), would have more to do with setting a price, a monetary or emotive value, on something — what is its value? Assessment is a word frequently used nowadays to describe processes of evaluation. For instance, our college has an extremely elaborate and well defined procedure for assessing programs, describing their goals and objectives, the means they use to achieve these goals, their success over time, etc. The college president might want us to evaluate a program — do we keep it or not? — and we would use this assessment process (over time) to help make that decision.

Another question for you if you wouldn't mind. In the following sentence, should there be a question mark?

'The only question is, how much cash will your club get'

I'm pretty sure there should be in this case, but I'm not always so sure if the question appears to be rhetorical.

Is there a one-rule-fits-all kind of answer?!

Thanks for any help you can give.

An indirect question — such as "He wanted to know if his sister was dating the quarterback." — does not have a question mark. There is a difference, however, between an indirect question like that and a question that is embedded within a statement (which is what you've got). End that sentence with a question mark:

The only question is, how much cash will your club get?

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing