The Grammar Logs
#518

I am thinking too much about this sentence. Which is correct?

• Last summer, Yale University and The Junior Statesman of America Program was fortunate enough to meet two of our brightest students.
• Last summer, Yale University and The Junior Statesman of America Program were fortunate enough to meet two of our brightest students.

Those two subjects — Yale and this program — are discrete elements. You have to use a plural verb, "were." Perhaps it's really the image of Yale University and this program standing around at a cocktail party for bright students that bothers you? Perhaps you need to blow this sentence to smithereens and make those two students the fortunate ones.

It seems to be that when using the possessive of "others," (e.g. looking at each other's faces) that the apostrophe is used as if the word is singular (other's). But since the rule is that "each other" refers to two of whatever is referred to and "one another" to more than two, why isn't the plural used (i.e. each others')? Is there a rule governing this or does the "each" or "one" make it singular?

Yes, "each other" means that two people are involved, but the "each" means that we take them one at a time. This is also the reason that, logically, "each other's face" would make more sense, as in "They praised each other's performance (singular)."

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 was taught that no matter when the research was done, you always cite it in present tense as if it "lives on." For example:

• In his 1975 research, Roswell notes that reading theory has been ignored by educators.
• Marion outlines 5 reasons teachers should be paid more money.
• Stanovich describes the differences between reading and writing theory in five of his studies.

This notion of citing resources as if they live on in the present is well established. It is particularly appropriate in the discussion of literature; it gives the reader the impression that writer is describing things within the literary piece as if they were happening now. In a description of a resource or study (such as you give us), the present tense is often used for the same reason. If your discussion were to go on to describe these studies in greater detail and slip in the past tense, however, it might be wise to convert all the verb tenses into that past tense. You wouldn't want to mix tenses within that discussion.

Which is correct, (MYSELF) or (I) ? example:

• Both MYSELF and the rest of the volunteers hope...
• Both I and the rest of the volunteers hope...

"Both" and "and" want to conjoin two equal grammatical terms. Here, they're trying to connect two subjects, so you want the subject form of the pronou, "I." English maintains this rare polite form, however, of putting the other person or persons first, so the "I and the rest" sounds clumsy to us. You might be better off with something like "Along with the rest of the volunteers, I hope that . . . ."

In the sentence "We plan on visiting Paris," why is the word "on" needed?

For my class, we are suppose to identify the mistakes in sentences, fix them, then find out WHY it is wrong. The sentence is "We plan visiting Paris." So, "on" needs to be stuck in there. But WHY? I know it sounds right, but that is not a reason.

Please help.

Verbs that take other verbs as objects are called catenatives. Whether a catenative verb takes an infinitive form or a gerund form (or either) often seems capricious, especially to someone learning English as a second language. For instance, we "decide to run" but never "decide running"; we "avoid running" but never "avoid to run." "Plan" is one of these verbs. "We plan TO VISIT Paris," we don't "plan visiting Paris."

In your sentence, you've combined "plan" with a preposition, "on," to form a phrasal verb, which means pretty much the same thing as "plan." That's why you've got that preposition there: if you leave it out, you've got the wrong form of the verb (a gerund instead of the infinitive). With the "on," though, you need the object of the preposition, a noun, so you use the gerund form (a verb acting as a noun), "visiting." I hope all that makes sense to you.

Can you tell me how to word this sentence: I have read and understand the policy. Or should it be: I have read and understood the policy. Please advise.

The "have" can control both verbs, which would make "understood" correct. However, that isn't what this sentence means. I believe you mean to say that in the recent past, in a period of time that includes right up to the present, you read this policy, and now you understand it. This is an appropriate use of the present perfect tense, "have read," and using the present tense "understand" with it is also appropriate. (The present perfect and the present are not incompatible.)

(Come to think of it, perhaps you can get away with eliminating the verb "have read" altogether — because the fact that you understand the policy is really all that matters.)

Which of these are correct?

• When more than one rule or entitlement is...
• When more than one rule or entitlement are...

Thank you!

Although it seems to defy logic, "more than one" is always followed by a singular verb. You want "is." The word "one," according to the Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage, draws the verb into "its sphere of influence."

Authority: The Penguin Dictionary of American English Usage and Style by Paul W. Lovinger. Published by Penguin Reference (New York: 2000).

In the sentence, "Death be not proud," a strange case of the verb "to be" is used. What is the name of, and what are the rules regarding, this case? Thanks.

I thought, for a second, that we were dealing with an instance of the subjunctive as it is used in a command ("He insisted that his associates be at work by five o'clock"). But that's not happening here. This is a simple imperative sentence. Just as you would use the root form of the verb in a command such as "Joe, stand straight!" or "Ladies, be brave!"), this sentence uses the root form of the verb "to be." It sounds unusual because nowadays we would usually insert the auxiliary "do" in the negative construction: "Death, don't be proud." (We would be much more apt to say "Children, don't be afraid" than "Children, be not afraid.") I'm also not sure why the comma is missing after "Death." I rather imagine that's another indication of antiquity (the line coming from John Donne's poem, one of his holy sonnets, written around 1630).

A friend and I had a disagreement about punctuation. I would like to know if the following sentence is properly punctuated:

My buddy, Kevin, and I visited the community church.

Thank you for taking the time to solve our little disageement.

It depends on how many people are actually involved. If Kevin and you are accompanied by your unnamed Buddy, the sentence is fine (except we're wondering why you didn't name your friend). If it's just the two of you — Kevin and yourself — then you've got problems. Setting off your friend's name with a pair of commas tells the reader that we really don't need the name, that it's parenthetical to the meaning of the sentence. Sadly, that means that you have only one buddy. Assuming that only two people are involved here, you want to leave out the commas so that name is regarded as essential. (This explanation seems to be more complicated than it needs to be. Leave out the commas.)

In the following example, I am not sure if the punctuation is correct right before my closing quotation mark (after the word "domain"). My gut reaction is that it should be a comma, but it was originally written with a period. Which is it?

"We are delivering on the promise we made to our customers to continuously improve our CORBA products by adding the security and management features they have requested. Our goal is to leverage standards to enable the secure interoperability of CORBA, Java and Web Services under a siingle, consistent security policy and management domain." stated Michelle Bass

The period doesn't work at all, and the comma would be a big step in the right direction. It is, however, a humongous quotation to attribute in this fashion. Wouldn't you be much better off with something like "Michelle Bass described the company's commitment to CORBA for the _______:" (or something like that), and then put her language in a blockquoted paragraph, without quotation marks.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing