The Grammar Logs
#516

In the following sentence which verb form is correct?

A total of six lymph nodes were/was isolated. (Do you use singular or plural verb?)

This question arose after reading in the AAMT Book of Style for Medical Transcription the following—

number of
A collective noun that may be singular or plural. If preceded by "the," it takes a singular verb. If preceded by "a," it takes a plural verb.

• The number of adhesions was minimal.
• A number of adhesions were present.

It was questioned whether "total" could be exchanged out for "number."

Please let me know your thoughts.

The rule you cite for "a number" (plural) versus "the number" (singular) has pretty well established itself in American usage, anyway. Generally, when you're dealing with numerical quantities like this, you have to consider whether the things you're including are acting as one lump quantity or as individual, discrete things. Thus "a high percentage of the grain was ruined" (not countable) but "a high percentage of the students were on campus" (countable). I suspect that one's lymph nodes are discrete countable elements, and we would want the plural verb, "were." It is not inconceivable, however (especially since I know so little about medicine), that the total is a lump sum, a singular quantity, and the singular "was." would be appropriate. In short, the "a number/the number" does not apply quite so neatly, and you'll have to decide how you're using the phrase. (But chances are, I would add, you're using it to describe a plurality of things.)

In determining prepositional phrases, are descriptive clauses part of the phrase?

example:
from the latin term, Aprilis.
does the prepositional phrase include the word Aprilis

example:
of the deity Cybele, "the great nature goddess"
does the phrase include "the great nature goddess" ?

Those phrases, "the great nature goddess" and "Aprilis," are appositives (not clauses) for the objects of the prepositions ("from the Latin term" and "of the deity Cybele"). They are, respectively, the same thing as the thing they identify or rename. If you were diagramming these sentences, you would put the appositive (or appositive phrase, in one case) on the same line as the object of the prepositional phrase and include it within parentheses. For me, anyway, that means that the appositive should be regarded as one of the elements of the prepositional phrase.

Can you help me distinguish between the correct use of method vs methodology in business writing? For example:

"Our method/methodology for this study included field research, data analysis, and data cleansing."

My company likes "methodology," which I find pretentious. The American Heritage Dictionary has an interesting commentary but not convincing enough for my audience to let go of their "ology."

Can you recommend a good, up-to-date source on business usage" I have the WSJ guide, Harper's, and Fowler's. None of them were any help with this.

I was surprised to find in Bryan Garner's Dictionary of American Usage a great contempt for the word "methodology." In the academic world, the word is used to describe a student's overall approach to a subject, especially in the disciplines of science and education. The "science of his methods," then, becomes nearly a study unto itself, and the word is probably appropriate. Garner's point is that in most contexts the word method or methods will nearly always suffice quite nicely, and that "methodology" is thus pretentious. It's hard to argue with that. So if you're looking for ammunition against an overuse of the word methodology, find Garner's book.

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

What is the difference in usage between "on the contrary" and "to the contrary"?

"On the contrary" is used to reflect a contrast with a preceding statement or entire argument; "to the contrary" is used to reflect a contrast with a specific word or phrase just mentioned.

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

I'm subscribed on a baby web site and I receive weekly information related on babies' development. I have often seen that the pronoun "she" is used for refering to the babies in general ( i.e. .. if she is fussy..., ... if she seems hungry...) either males or females. Can you tell me which is the correct pronoun for "baby" when refered to? And why can it be refered as "she" as a generalization and not as "he"? Is this a grammar rule? This Web site is generated in the USA. Thank you for your help.

I doubt if the pronoun "she" is ever used to refer to a male baby. That would be a mistake. However, in an article in which the author must refer to a singular infant (for example, an essay of advice to the parents of a newborn), the author must, from time to time, use the singular pronoun. Traditionally, using the masculine pronoun "he" all the time was the normal convention. Nowadays, however, that can be regarded as male biased. It might be a matter of political correctness, but the editors of the Web site apparently believe (quite rightly, I think) that it's a good idea to mix the pronouns. As long as the pronoun references are consistent within an article, that's fine.

In what circumstance should intention versus intent be used?

According to Merriam-Webster's, an intention is merely a set of mind, what one set out to do; the word intent implies a greater determination or clearer formulation of purpose.

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

President Clinton said the following on CNN last night. "He's got a lot of incentive not to use them now because he knows he'll be toast if he does."

Should he use "he'll be toasted" instead of "he'll be toast" for passive sentence?

"To be toast" has become an idiomatic expression, a bit of slang meaning that someone will be "burned," which is yet another idiomatic expression and bit of slang meaning that someone is in serious trouble, a hot spot, as it were. ("Oh, oh! Mom's home! Clean up fast! We're toast!") So Clinton's saying that someone "will be toast" is in line with that peculiar metaphor (or cliché, depending on your point of view).

In a sentence comprising three clauses that ends with a prepositional phrase, how do you determine which clause the prepositional phrase modifies? Does it matter where the commas are placed or omitted? Does it matter whether each clause can stand on its own without the prepositional phrase or whether they are dependent upon it to make a complete sentence?

Specifically, in the case of this sentence:

The purpose for which this organization is formed is to provide a center for higher civic and social life, to initiate and maintain educational and philanthropic enterprises and to investigate and improve the conditions in the industrial districts of Chicago.

does "in the industrial districts of Chicago" modify only "to investigate and improve the conditions" or does it modify all three preceding clauses?

We are trying to interpret this purpose, and unfortunately don't have the option of rewriting it to alleviate the ambiguity. We have checked Strunk & White, Webster's Dictionary, your site, and our local library to no avail. Any concrete rules you can provide would be much appreciated! Thank you.

You don't have a series of three clauses here, you have a series of three infinitive phrases. And because they are rather complex and lengthy, you have quite correctly maintained the "to provide," "to initiate and maintain," and "to investigate and improve" pattern (holding on to the particle "to" throughout). That very parallelism, however, nicely separates the three infinitive phrases (and, incidentally, argues powerfully for an additional comma, one after "enterprises"). As a result of that separation, the final prepositional phrase, "in the industrial districts of Chicago," dwells and has influence only within that final infinitive phrase. It modifies the word "conditions" only.

What part of speech is "concentrated" in this sentence:

"The data is concentrated in the first portion of the diagram."

We're terribly confused about this one!

It's always a nice question — whether a verb form (like "concentrated" in your sentence) is behaving as a predicate adjective or as part of the verb string. And, finally, it really doesn't matter. Martha Kolln has a sentence very much like yours: "The record collection was stored in the attic," and she calls "was stored" a passive participle. That's good enough for me. If you were diagramming this sentence, "was stored" would go on the same horizontal line, together, as one verb string.

I appreciate the fact that you're not trying to get me to bite on the word data being used with a singular verb. Most writers nowadays — in all but the most formal writing — regard that as acceptable.

Authority: Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln. 4rth Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. 1994. p. 188.

Is it correct to capitalize a name like da Vinci if it appears at the beginning of a sentence? (I assume so, but there seems to be some controversy at work over this. I'm an editor.)

Yes, the first word of a sentence is always capitalized, regardless of how it would be treated elsewhere in a sentence.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing