The Grammar Logs
#523

A tourism-related client has requested that we change all references of Native American to American Indian. What information and/or opinion do you have concerning both of these terms? Or where do you suggest I look?

Thank you. I always appreciate your time and knowledge.

Although "Native American" is a more recent term, "American Indian" seems to be regaining ascendancy. "Native American" seems to leave out a lot of people: Aleuts, Hawaiians, Solomon Islanders, not to mention anyone who was born in the U.S. and might, thereby, consider himself/herself a Native American. I suspect that this usage might be influenced by the spoken and written idiom of a region, also. Whenever it is possible or appropriate, one can use the names of Indian tribes or nations, and that seems to please everyone. But if I had to choose between Native American and American Indian now, I'd go with the latter. (Note that the Smithsonian Institutution is host to the National Museum of the American Indian. The Native American Times — a newspaper operating out of Oklahoma — declares itself the official website for American Indian news," so that's no help at all.)

I am confused about the correct verb use in the following phrase.

• Therein "lays" the problem.
or

• Therein "lies" the problem.

There is no direct object in that sentence. It's simply an inverted sentence; changing it back around (uninverting it, so to speak), we'd write: "The problem lies there." So "lies" is correct.

What is the difference between empathic and empathetic?

According to Garner, these words mean the same thing, but empathetic is five times more common and empathic is what he calls a "needless variant."

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

Can you say very true or is this nonsense. Surely something is either true or not true. There are not degrees of truth.

As a general rule, you're probably right: there shouldn't be degrees of being true and the phrases "very true" and "quite true" can be shortened, simply, to true. However, one is reminded of folks who add, "That's like being 'very pregnant.' Either you are or you're not." You wouldn't want to say that to a woman who's in her ninth month with twins. I think the person who says that something is "very true" is saying that the truthfulness of a statement, its veracity, is impressive, that one is surprised (more or less) by the truth one sees there. It is also possible for one statement to be closer to the truth than another. (Shades of Plato are giving me the willies as I write this.) To say that there are not degrees of truth is to risk the charge of being ingenuous. You certainly wouldn't want to enter the world of politics or law.

I have 2 questions again.

1. People sometimes ask 'What is the longest sentence in English?' Is it possible to answer this question?

2. While I was reading a book, I found this phrase which is grammatically wrong, that is, 'a very wooden floor'. But the book says 'a very wooden performance' is okay. Can you tell me why the latter one is okay? I don't understand.

I don't think there's any way you can say what the longest sentence is. It's a silly question. Some sentences in William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury must be over twenty pages long. Sometimes they're not grammatically correct or even coherent, but they're sentences.

A friend recently used the phrase "two twins." When I inquired as to whether this was four people or two people, the person mentioned it was two people. I then mentioned this phrase was a redundancy, to wit, the person challenged my position. Who is correct?

It depends on the context. If a woman says she gave birth to "two twins," it would probably be a redundancy unless she really means "two sets of twins," or four people. On the other hand, my wife, a third-grade teacher, happens to have three twins in her classroom this year, and none of them are related (there happen to be eight sets of twins in her school — something in the water?). So in a certain context, "two twins" is perfectly acceptable, but usually, yes, it's redundant (the sentence, not the twins, who have their own problems).

"When she leaves, we will begin our meeting." "When she leaves, we are beginning our meeting." Why, gramatically, is the second sentence incorrect?

We can't mix the simple present with the present continuous that way. When the present tense exists in the sentence, the present continuous becomes confusing. With arranged events, we can use the present continuous to denote a future event: "Later this afternoon, at four o'clock, we are leaving for Chicago." You can, however, mix the present tense with other forms of the future, as you do in your first sentence.

How should this sentence end? With a question mark or an exclamation point? "Wow, did you see that small bird"

An exclamation mark is often used to close questions that are meant to convey extreme emotion, as in "What on earth are you doing now!" See exclamation marks.

I have before me a name for an organization called the "Northwest Potato Varietal Development Committee." This committee is charged with directing the breeding of improved potato varieties for the Pacific Northwest potato farmers. My question is whether the use of "varietal" is correct in this context. My gut feeling is that it should read "Potato Variety Development." I think of the whole phrase, "potato variety development," as a noun when used in a sentence, rather than the bizarre adjective, "potato varietal," modifying the noun "development."

Many thanks for any advice.

I could be terribly wrong about this, but it seems to me that the potato farmers are envious of the cachet of vineyards that deal in such fancy nomenclature as varietals. Whoever heard of a potato-tasting party? On Google.com, however, I do find a number of resources (most of them pointing your way, geographically) about potato varietals, and some of them even refer specifically to potato varietal development. In fact, there seems to be an entire faculty at the University of Idaho devoted to the care and feeding of potato varietals. I'm persuaded that you better go along with the potato farmers on this.

Is the following an acceptable sentence structure?

Their request shall be honored provided it contains the subject matter they wish to speak about, and is mailed at least one week prior to the meeting.

I am asking because a girl insists we change the language to "provided it contains the subject matter about which they wish to speak," Somehow this does not roll off the tongue very easily, but I am always willing to stand corrected.

This "correction" ups the ante on the ancient (but apocryphal) scripture that forbids the preposition at the end of a sentence and says we cannot end even a clause with a preposition. I agree with you — that the change is not an improvement.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing