The Grammar Logs
#534

Is the following sentence grammatically correct:

With that summer following the fictional publication A Little White Lie, a bestselling mystery involving incest, the privacy of Bob had come abruptly to an end.

Thank you.

We would underline or italicize the name of the novel; otherwise, it seems OK. The phrase "the fictional publication" seems odd because the publication, of course, was not fictional. (Can we simply delete "fictional"?) And maybe we could say "Bob's privacy abruptly came to an end" instead of "the privacy of Bob had come abrupty to an end"?

The Washington Post contains this sentence today:

A pediatrician, she died of cancer in 1997.

My mother always told me two third person references are incorrect.

Better

She was a pediatrician who died of cancer in 1997.

Is this true? Thanks.

What you probably have in mind is the insertion of a superfluous pronoun in a sentence like "The doctor he cut my leg off." Your mother was right in cuffing you on the ears for saying such a thing. In the sentence you quote from the Post, the pronoun "she" serves as an appositive for "a pediatrician." I would not argue, however, if you suggested that the sentence might be improved with some additional language between the two items that serve as subject for this sentence, something like "A pediatrician for the towns of Milford and Chevy Chase, she [or give her name again, Dr. ____ ] died of cancer in 1997." But technically, the sentence is not incorrect as it stands.

"All search critera below is/are optional for the user to fill in."

There's no reason to want that "is" option. "Criteria" is a plural noun, and we can't use a singular verb with it under any circumstances. Using the plural does not violate the logic of your statement.

I'll start with the sentence I have a question about :

Lofty and majestic, the mighty Himalayas have formed a breathtaking part of the Indian landscape for centuries. They are amongst the world's largest and India's best mountain range.

My question: At the end of the sentence, should it be " range" or should it be" ranges"? When we say the Himalayan mountain range, we use " it". When we say the Himalayas, we use " they". Which is why it should be" ranges" Am I correct?

First, let's change "amongst" to "among." The Himalayas might be India's "best mountain range," but it's hard to say what "best" means in this context. Perhaps the second sentence could read "They are the world's highest mountains and India's most spectacular tourist attraction" (or something like that). Even the first sentence is a bit perplexing; the Himalayas have been around for a very, very long time.

A local TV anchor used the possessive of the city of St. Louis in describing their football team. The written form would be St. Louis'. What is the correct pronunciation, "St. Louis" or "St. Louises". I maintain that it is St. Louis, not St. Louises. Which is correct and why? Thank you,

One would say it "St. Louises favorite sports team," and one would write it "St. Louis's favorite sports team." As long as the possessive can be formed in this way without undue complications in pronunciation, this is how it is done. With a name like Los Angeles, you've got problems saying "Los Angeleses airport," so we would write (and say) "Los Angeles' airport."

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

Please enlighten me on the proper usage of (sic). Is it used after each time the word mentioned in a paper, or is it used only after the first time? Also when the word is mentioned in a citing, is that particular spelling used, or should one spelling be consistently used throughout with (sic) after each?

We use sic — italicized (but not underlined) and in square brackets, as in [sic] to indicate that a word in a quotation was misspelled or otherwise miscast in the original language. We should use this only when it is really important to retain the original spelling and grammar for some ethical or historical reason. Otherwise, it is regarded as bad manners to retain the mistaken language. If misspellings litter the quoted language, it would be better to note at the beginning of the text that you are using the original. To pepper your quotation with here-a-sic, there-a-sic simply becomes annoying.

Authority: New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage HarperCollins: New York. 1994. Cited with permission. p. 304.

In one of my advanced English courses an exercise is written as…

Begin each question: "How much do the family spend on …?"

Shouldn't it be written as, "How much does the family spend on…?"?

Yes. Family is a collective noun, and it functions as a singular, requiring a singular verb, like "does." I'm not aware of any difference between American and British English in this regard. (In England, some collective nouns — like team names and words like "staff" — do take a plural verb, but I don't think this extends to the word family.)

Should it be "appertaining to" or "appertaining of"? The sentence is:

"The secretary shall perform all duties usually appertaining to the office of secretary."

According to Garner, the appropriate preposition is always "to," and he cautions the writer to make the distinction between "appertain," which means "to belong to rightfully," and "pertain," which only means "to relate to" or "concern." So I think you've got it right.

From The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Styleby Bryan Garner. Copyright 1995 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

Is the following statement grammatically correct?

No referrals equal no hassles.

Normally, "no" followed by something plural would require a plural verb (like "equal"): "No apples were left on the tree." However, I think that "no referrals," in this sentence, refers to a singular condition or singular idea (a situation in which we have no referrals, whatever that means). So I would go against the grain here and use a singular verb, "equals." (It doesn't make your sentence any easier to say, but I'm confident the singular verb is correct here.)

My daughter had written — ''The Articles of Confederation were signed…" Her teacher told her that since the Articles are a single unit one should use the singular "was" — "The Articles of Confederation was signed…" Yuck! I think that though this may be techniquely correct one ought to go with the sound and say "the exception proves the rule." What do you think?

One can find an abundance of Websites — most of which seem to be written by good people — in which the Articles of Confederation is/are discussed using a plural verb:

• http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/documents/articles/index.html
and

• http://supreme.paxtv.findlaw.com/documents/consthist.html

If the sentence is referring to the document itself (the piece of paper), though (which might well be the case when you're talking about the signing), the singular ought to be used.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing