The Grammar Logs
#524

What is the plural form of 'mouthful' and 'handful'? What's the general rule for this type of noun?

The plural of words ending in -ful is formed simply by adding "s" to the end of the word: teaspoonfuls, truckfuls, cupfuls, etc.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

When is it proper to use "awhile," and when "a while?"

"Awhile" is an adverb, used to modify a verb: "He waited awhile and then he left." "A while," of course, is a combination of an article + noun; you'll use this combination after a preposition: "He waited for a while and then he left." You'll also use the two word combination when you plainly need a noun (usually an object): "It took a while before he won his first tournament."

I was presented with the sentence "No living man could do better" and asked if it was grammatically correct. The alternative suggestion was "No man who is living could do better" Attempting to express the idea that there is no person currently living that could do an undefined action (could be singing or writing) as well as the undefined subject of the action.

First, Which subject is better "No man living" Or "No living man" Both act as the subject and living in both cases is a gerand. I believe "No living Man" is correct because living is acting as an adjective describing what kind of man. I cannot find ANY reference to this grammatical situation.

Secondly, The verb pharse "could do better." Could is the past tense of can implying that some action has been completed. Would "Could have done better" be more appropriate.

The third options is "No man who is living could do better" Same questions. Grammatically correct?

No living man could have done better. "no living man" being a gerund noun. could an auxilary verb past tense indicating the action has been completed. " have done" puts the verb state into the past perfect because the action was completed before a specified time.

I think my friends are wrong because "could do" is incorrect.mixing tenses. "could" past and "do" can't be used in this tense. But not quite sure why.

As for "no living man" or no man living" Both seem to express the same thing. My guess is "No living man" would be correct. The entire phrase acts as a predicate although not quite sure what kind.

It doesn't matter whether you use "no living man" or "no man who is living"; the second phrase almost demands that the feat in question was accomplished by someone who is no longer living. Also, let's assume that the feat was not accomplished by a woman. The real problem is that "no living man" includes the person we're referring to (unless he's dead), and the statement becomes silly. If the person is still alive, we have to say "No other man alive [no other living man] could have done this." I don't see a problem with using either "could have done" or "could do" (which suggests an attempt to do this feat again, in the future). The phrase in question is not the predicate, though; it's the subject of the sentence. Finally, "no living man" is not a gerund: it's a noun, "man," modified by a determiner and a present participle.

I've noticed [the phrase "as such"] being used increasingly as a multipurpose transition at the beginning of sentences. I can't tell if it's used as a referent, like "this," or quite how it's being used. But it's generally misused, as in the next 3 examples I'm sending to you. How do I explain it grammatically? I'm so confused now that I can't even think of examples where it's used correctly!

1) However, a microbrewery revolution began in the late 1970s, which created over 600 brewpubs in the United States, with that number predicted to increase to 2,000 by the year 2000.As such, the future holds a great deal of potential for well-managed brewpubs like The Sonic Brewery & Grill (SBG).
2) We recognize that one of the keys to success in this business is access to expert support services. As such, we retained the following professional service providers.
3) While commercial breweries cut corners to speed up production and reduce costs, we reject these compromises and follow the strict standards of the Bavarian Pure Beer Code, the oldest pure food law in the world. As such, our beer consists of the following four basic ingredients with no chemical preservatives or additives used.

"As such" is OK as long as it refers to something specifically and clearly: "His actions were not felonies as such," or "We do not operate under the semester system as such" (where "such" refers to "felonies" and "system"). I agree that the "such" in your examples has no clear antecedent. Another transitional phrase such as "in principle" or "accordingly" or "therefore" would make those sentences much clearer. (And sometimes just omitting the "as such" would be helpful.) Garner complains about the misuse of "as such" in his book, but your examples are even better than his.

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

Hi! I have an Australian exchange student living at us for the moment. I showed her one of my English assigments and she saId that I was wrong on one question. What I want to know is if "contents" is an excepcion in that way it can only be in plural? Like in "the content of this bottle ARE" and not "the content of this bottle IS"? Am I correct, because my English books said so.

Usually, we use the plural form in this context, and we use a plural verb with it. An exception is often made when we refer to immaterial things, as in "The content of his fiction was [note singular verb] judged to be inappropriate for youngsters."

I was chided the other night for using the phase "each and everyone" in a prayer when i said "May God's love go with each and every one of you." I was told that using "each and everyone" was incorrect and that I had embarrased myself. I disagreed. I have searched the Internet but can not find anything on this subject. What is your response?

You're using "everyone" sometimes as a compounded single word, and sometimes as two words. It makes a difference. We can't use "each and everyone"; it just doesn't make any sense. But unless you wrote the prayer, how would your listener know you weren't thinking "each and every one." That phrase is acceptable if you're really trying to emphasize the individual receipients (and their separateness) of this blessing. Gardner calls this phrase "trite" (except when it's used for that special emphasis), but Burchfield calls it a "tempting phrase" and not one easily replaced. "May God's love go with every one of you" or "with each of you" would probably suffice. The claim that you had embarrassed yourself, however, is a gross overstatement.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

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

In the sentence, "Ann helped Mary by making sandwiches." I am uncertain as to what part of speech "making" is and how it would be diagrammed. As an object of the preposition "by", it would seem to be a noun, but if that is correct, what does that make "sandwiches", and how would that be diagrammed? Is there an implied preposition, "of", that would make sandwiches the object of that preposition? (I am a Literacy for Life tutor who has a student who is pretty savvy in grammar, and I got caught up in trying to answer her question about gerunds in examples such as this one.) Thanks so much for your help and time.

"Making sandwiches" is a gerund phrase in that sentence. In turn, it is also the object of the preposition, "by." That prepositional phrase is adverbial, modifying (telling us how) the verb, "helped." If you are diagramming the sentence, then, the preposition "by" would go on a slanted line under the verb and connect to a horizontal line on which you would place a standard to hold the gerund phrase, showing "sandwiches" as an object of the gerund "making" (which sort of curves down at the beginning of that same line). You'll see an example for the diagramming of a gerund phrase in our section on diagramming sentenes

What is the past tense of the word strike?

Example...
The last sentence of the paragraph needs to be striken.

All my usage manuals say that "stricken" (watch the spelling) is archaic when used as a past participle. It's acceptable as an adjective, however: "the stricken deer," etc. So use "struck" in your sentence.

Please enlighten me about the word "anytime." When is it used as one word, and when should it be divided into two words? I have asked several English teachers and have gotten several answers. HELP! Thanks!

In England, you'd never see anytime (as a single word); in the U.S., the one-word form is widely used but has not gained general acceptance among usage manuals, and you're almost always better off using it as two words anyway. You will often see anytime when it means "at any time" ("Call me anytime.") When any clearly serves as a quantifier and time as the noun it modifies, it is imperative that the words be kept separate. "I can't find any time to finish my novel."

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

What is the difference between "compared to" vs. "compared with?"

In formal use, we use "with" to make a comparison of x with y. We use "to" when we say that something is similar to or can be likened to something else, as in "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" In an intransitive situation, we would use "with," when we mean "to be compared," as in "No one can compare with you."

Authority: The Oxford Guide to English Usage compiled by E.S.C. Weiner. Published by Oxford University Press (New York: 1983).

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing