The Grammar Logs
#522

Here is a sentence in which the nouns must be identified as subject, direct object, indirect object, or object of the preposition. What is the function of the word "morning" in this sentence.

Early Sunday morning, the baker gave Sue and Luis the cake from the shelf.

Baker - subject, Sue and Luis - indirect objects, cake - direct object, shelf - object of the prep.

I was sort of hoping we could call "early" a preposition in this case. It would have been tidier. But the dictionary says it's either an adverb or an adjective. This means that we have to regard "Sunday morning" as a kind of abbreviated prepositional phrase, without the preposition, as if it were "Early on Sunday morning." This makes "morning" the object of an understood preposition.

Which is grammaticaly correct:

• Mary and Jane have oversight for the Planning Dept;

or
• Mary and Jane oversee the Planning Dept.;

Technically, either sentence is correct. Personally, I like to steer clear of the word oversight. It's one of those words that can mean the opposite of what is intended. Administrative oversight can mean something that was botched by the folks in charge. With the verb oversee, you don't have that problem.

In the sentence, "The album went platinum in 1994," would "went" be a linking verb and would "platinum" be a predicate adjective or a predicate nominative? I didn't think "went" would function as an action verb because it seems to be making a statement about "album." My guess is that this is an s-lv-pa sentence pattern, but for some reason I don't feel completely sure.

I was also wondering what the word "times" would be in the sentence, "She won more times than he." Is it a direct object? I didn't think so, but again I wasn't entirely sure. Thanks for any advice you have on both points.

I, also, would regard "went" as a linking verb in this context and "platinum" as a predicate adjective. In the sentence "He went bonkers," it is perhaps more clear how "went" functions very much like "became."

The dictionary defines times, in the plural, as "added or accumulated instances," and says that it's a noun. If the sentence read "more often," we wouldn't have a hard time identifying "often" as an adverb, and I want to say that "more often" is also functioning as an adverb, modifying "won." How a noun phrase can function as an adverb is a bit of a mystery to me. My Merriam-Webster's says that "more" is often used as an adverb to mean "in addition," and I guess that's what's going on here.

In the sentence, "You could sense every one of the students' uneasiness." Did I punctuate "students'" correctly? Should it be singular possessive or plural possessive?

The problem with this phrase is probably not the possessive but the "every one" in front of it. Without the possessive in there, it would say "every one of the uneasiness," and what could that mean? You'd be much better off descrbing the students, either individually or as a group, and then noting their lack of ease: "The students milled about in the hallway, visiting the drinking fountain, leaning against the statues. Their uneasiness was palpable."

I have two questions I would be grateful if you could answer.

What is the preposition that goes with anticipation. Is it in anticipation of or for. I think it should be of.

Second, can what be a relative pronoun? I know what is an interrogative pronoun as in What is your name? or an interogative adjective as in what time is it?

Use "of" with "anticipation." As for what, it's not, technically a relative pronoun, but it can introduce a nominal clause and play a part in that clause just as a relative pronoun ("who, which, that, whose, whoever, whomever"), as in "Tell me what I should do next."

Authority: Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln. 4rth Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. 1994. p. 341.

When using a city, state, and Zip Code in a sentence, do you include a comma after the state?

• Boca Raton, Florida, 33486
or

• Boca Raton, Florida 33486

This is assuming the state name is spelled out.

Whether the state nme is spelled or abbreviated, treat the state + ZIP as a single unit — no comma between them.

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

My question concerns separating independent clauses. I understand that independent clauses have to properly separated, but does that apply even if it's obvious one of the ind. clauses relies on the other in order to make sense?

In the example below, I'm pretty sure the second clause is independent (engine efficiency is the subject and measure the verb), but standing alone, this clause doesn't make sense. Does it? (To measure engine efficiency in terms of the ratio of fuel flow to thrust produced.)

It would seem reasonable; then, to measure engine efficiency in terms of the ratio of fuel flow to thrust produced.

I see similar sentences where even though there are two different independent clauses, one of the clauses obviously relies on the other for clarity.

I'm was just wondering if something like this was an exception to the rule, or maybe I'm improperly misinterpreting the clause as being independent, and the sentence should be rewritten as below.

It would seem reasonable then to measure engine efficiency in terms of the ratio of fuel flow to thrust produced.

As in the past, your help is greatly appreciated.

We cannot use a semicolon in that sentence because, in fact, we don't have two independent clauses. It's probably a good idea to set off the transitional tag device, "then," with a pair of commas, though. Your second version (with commas around "then") is a huge improvement, precisely because we have only one independent clause. After the word "then," you have a rather complex infinitive phrase (beginning with "to measure"); it is complex because the object of the infinitive phrase, "efficiency," is then modified by a prepositional phrase (beginning with "in terms"). The subject-verb relationship of your independent clause is contained within the first three words: "It would seem. . . ."

I work for a company owned by four brothers (last name Brennan).

The name of the company currently is Brennan's Office Interiors, Inc.

They are discussing removing the apostrophe. My question is should there be an apostrophe and if so, where should it be placed.

Some people think it should be removed all togther (Brennans), some people think it should be moved (Brennans'), and others feel it should stay where it is now (Brennan's).

If one brother takes control and says this is Joe Brennan's Office Interiors, then you can leave it the way it is. If the company is owned by the Brennans, though (the plural form), we would form the possessive as "Brennans' Office Interiors." To leave out the apostrophe isn't really an option here, I don't think. Well, it's an option, but not a very good one.

In this sentence, "Liz,whose is this telephone message?", is 'whose' a subject or an object pronoun? The answer key in our book says it is a subject pronoun, but we think the only reason it is a subject pronoun is because it can't be an object pronoun. We want a better reason for whose to be a subject pronoun in this sentence!

It's a subject pronoun in that sentence because it (the word "whose") is acting as the subject of the sentence. I suppose it would be more obvious in a simpler sentence. If I walked into the classroom and found a book on the desk, I might ask "Whose is this?" Now, in truth, I've really left out a noun and the "whose" could be regarded as a modifier, "Whose [book] is this?" But we can also regard "whose" as the subject in that sentence. What's happened is that the interrogative pronoun has simply filled in the subject slot of the sentence. The same thing happens in a sentence like "What is going on here?"

Listening to the news this morning, I heard one of the announcers say, "...a mob of youths." Is this correct? Should youth be plural?

The word "youth" is sometimes as a collective noun that takes a singular verb: "The youth of America has yet to realize . . . ." But it is often used in the plural form, too, as "youths." Nearly always, in the plural form, the word refers to young males in a siutation in which they are more or less countable.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing