The Grammar Logs
#517

Can you advise if this sentence needs the two commas as placed?

The combination of a unique opportunity to visit the Titleist Fitting Center, plus network with senior people from different sectors of the home industry, should make for a great experience for all of us.

Thank you very, very much for your assistance.

You can solve your problem by using the perfectly happy conjunction "and" (instead of the inappropriate "plus" that is now there). Then you can eliminate the unnecessary commas:

The combination of a unique opportunity to visit the Titleist Fitting Center and to network with senior people from different sectors of the home industry should make for a great experience for all of us.

The notion of "combination" is still confusing here, though. What is being combined with what? What if you eliminated all that and wrote:

The opportunity to visit the Titleist Fitting Center and to network with senior people from different sectors of the home industry should be [not "make for"] a great experience for all of us.

I never liked the verb "network," but I guess it's pretty well established as an American idiom, at least.

My question this time is this — my dictionary says that the past tense and past participle of 'leap' is leapt. However, I see the word 'leaped' being used in the national newspapers in England. What tense is 'leaped' please ?

Thank you.

"Leaped" and "leapt" are both past tense verbs. I would have thought that "leapt" was more British than "leaped," but Burchfield says that both variants of this word are commonplace in both the U.S. and U.K.

In the following sentence, is "whomever" used correctly?

"I think he's done whomever becomes dean a great service by tackling this," said Mr. Jones of Columbia's president.

My opinion is that because "whomever" is the subject of the verb "becomes," then it should be "whoever" instead of "whomever." But because "whomever becomes the dean" is also the direct object of the clause "he's done whomever...," then perhaps "whomever" is used. Please help me settle this matter. Thanks,

You're correct in thinking that you want "whoever" to be the subject of your clause "whoever becomes dean." What happens then is that this clause becomes the indirect object of your verb "has done." (The direct object is "service.") But the subject form of the clause is not altered when the clause becomes the object of the verb. (I hope that makes sense to you; to me, it seems astonishingly, brilliantly clear. It's like the stars over Egypt.)

I have found in my dictionary that "understand" can be followed by a noun and an infinitival clause, as in (1).

(1) I understand him to be my best friend.

Then, I would like to ask whether the passive counterpart of (1) is grammatical or not. That is, is (2) grammatical?

(2) He is understood to be my best friend.

Yes, that passive construction is acceptable. I think the phrase probably works better with objects: "We understand this treaty to be the first step . . . " or "This treaty is understood to be the first step . . . ," but it works with people as well.

My coworkers and I had an argument about the following sentence:

• That is a damned good cd.
• That is a damn good cd.

My coworker maintains that the spelling "damned" in the first sentence is correct. I feel the second one is. Now I know that if I were to say, "I hate that damned color," I would spell it as so because it is a modifier. But if I say, "that damn good cd," I would be using damn as an adjective...

I know there is a historical/biblical reference to the meaning/spelling of this word, but isn't its usage as an adjective spelled damn — especially when in the context of today's vernacular?

The copy that we were writing was for content to go out to college/teen/young adults...Isn't there leniency because we are using current vernacular?

Thanks

First, I would recommend eliminating the word altogether and seeking a more useful, precise, and elegant modifier. Second, the correct word is "damned," the word "damn" being, at best, a casual substitute. (In speaking, the "-ed" ending often disappears as we slide into the next word.) You've described the choice well (except that I doubt there's anything historical or biblical about the word); however, I'm not convinced that writing for this young audience is a signal for indulgence.

I am a fussy old tech. writer.

One of my personal pet peeves is the use of the word "proper" when the definition indicates "correct."

I'm sorry, but when I'm writing about servicing the toe adjustment on a Chrysler, using the word "proper" makes me think about on which side of the plate the knife should be placed, or the correct manner in which to bow before the queen.

Your opinion, please?

I have been corrected, more than once, when I used the word right when I should have said correct, as in "Is this sentence right?" But I have never heard an objection to proper (used in place of correct) before. The dictionary (at least Merriam-Webster's) doesn't really support this distinction. The definition of "marked by suitability, rightness, appropriatness, fit" seems to be just what you're looking for on the toe adjustment of a Chrysler (if not a Hyundai). But I think you have an interesting point, and I have no objection to this nice distinction you are making. (None of my usage manuals address this issue, by the way.)

Is it grammatically correct to use the term "character traits"? A friend of mine was corrected for using this, and told that instead he should use "traits of character." Is there a difference? Is one more correct than the other? Thank you!

The phrase "character traits" is certainly a well established term for talking about the traits of individuals in fiction or drama, say. When you're talking about those traits in your neighbor or best friend, a more decorous and formal phrase would be "traits of character." I wouldn't go so far as to call "character traits" incorrect in that context, however.

Is the term, something doesn't "sit well with you" or "set well with you." What is the history of this expression? Is it grammatically correct?

According to my dictionary, the phrase "sit well with" is well established; the phrase "set well with" is a colloquial (read very informal) variant of that phrase. A search in Google.com reveals that "set" is used about one-tenth as often as "sit" in this phrase. I'm afraid I don't own the reference books (Oxford English Dictionary) that would tell us where this phrase comes from.

What is the rule of capitalization regarding a breed of dog, such as German Shepherd and Irish Setter? Do you capitalize both words, as I have? Only the nationality as in "German shepherd" or "Irish setter"? Or only the breed as in "irish Setter and german Shepherd"?

Capitalize only that part of the name that comes from a nation or other proper noun, as in "Irish setter" and "Jack Russell terrier" and "Boston terrier."

In this phrase, "the subjects' capacity for shape recognition," can "capacity" be used in the plural form, or should it always be singular? Thanks a lot

In this context, "capacity" is an abstract noun and should remain singular. Although the word "capacity" is not, strictly speaking, incorrect in this sentence, might we not be better off with "the subjects' ability to recognize shapes"? (I offer the revision quite tentatively because psychology might require the nuance of "capacity.")

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing