The Grammar Logs
#552

Which of the following sentences is right:

1. What he really wants to do is get into science program.
2. What he really wants to do is to get into science program.

The first one is. The "get," in this situation, is called a "bare infinitive" (i.e., the "to" is understood), and that is perfectly acceptable. If you had a series of things that he wanted to do, you would want a parallel series of "real" infinitives (with the "to" intact).

What is the best way to punctuate the following sentence?

• I believe that it would be wrong to levy an additional tax on our senior citizens, who are on a fixed income, at a time when they are sick and most vulnerable.
• I believe that it would be wrong to levy an additional tax on our senior citizens who are on a fixed income, at a time when they are sick and most vulnerable.
• I believe that it would be wrong to levy an additional tax on our senior citizens who are on a fixed income at a time when they are sick and most vulnerable.

If it's just too fuzzy using the above sentence, I might go to the alternate listed below:

It's good to drop the comma, although one unintentional understanding of your sentence might be that it's OK to tax healthy senior citizens. Your final rewrite is an improvement because you don't want to suggest that it's OK to tax them when they're on a fixed income as long as they're healthy. If you throw in an "especially," does it help (and get rid of the "I believe that" and maybe the "at a time")?

I am wondering which sentence is correct? If one is accepted in Britain and the other is accepted in the US I would like to know.

• I would appreciate it if you would come to dinner.
• I would appreciate if you would come to dinner.

Thank you

Nothing in my usage manuals suggests that there is a difference between British and American usage here. The "it" seems to be recommended, but the phrase itself is suspect. The same level of courtesy and formality is present in the more concise and elegant "Please come to dinner …"

My Merriam-Webster's uses an interesting term to define "over"; it calls it a "function word" used to indicate position or motion. Under the definition of "there," the same dictionary gives us a definition of the word as adverb to mean "in or at that place" (and gives an example of "Stand over there"). You're right: it doesn't make sense to call this a prepositional phrase; that requires a noun or pronoun as object. I'd call it an adverbial phrase, then, and be done with it.

When writing an ad for a property, which would be correct when speaking of two sep. bathrooms?

• Lady's & Gentleman's baths
• Ladies & Gentleman's baths
• Ladies & Gentlemen's baths?

I must use the & sign to save space. Please advise. Thanks a lot!

Because you are talking about separate bathrooms that are "owned" separately, we need to show this as a compound possessive, not a joint possessive, which means that both "owners" have to have the apostrophe. If it's appropriate to use only a singular lady and gentleman (a single-family dwelling, I suppose?), then your first option (of the three) would be correct. If it's a more public place, then you'd want to pluralize both words and then make them possessive, as in "ladies' and gentlemen's baths." I doubt if it's necessary to capitalize these terms.

1. 1. Phrasal Verb. Since a sentence can not end with a preposition, can it end with a Phrasal Verb? Ex. The effect or impact religion has is based on which social group a person belongs to. Is that correct or should to be left out?
2. 2. Agreement. Would this be correct? These actions show that the clergy is still somewhat unsure of their faith.
3. 3. I read the section on Capitalization. Archbishop would be capitalized because it is a religious term, correct?

Ending a sentence with a preposition is no longer regarded as even a venial sin. In your first sentence, however, you could try "… is based on the social group to which a person belongs." In your second sentence, use the plural verb with "clergy," as in "the clergy are still somewhat unsure of their faith." You can capitalize archbishop when it appears before the individual's name (who happens to be an archbishop) or is part of the name of his office ("He was Bishop of Erie for less than two years when he was appointed the Archbishop of Hartford…").

I would like to know if I can use the word most as an adjective to describe a unanimous decision. For instance, is it correct for me to say:

The decision taken by the Prime Minister and his cabinet was most unanimous.

Or shouldn't I use "most" since unanimous means the majority? Please help.

Your instincts about using "most" in this context are quite correct. Readers will either think it's silly or a typo for "almost" — and the math, as you point out, isn't exactly in its favor. Save "most" as an adverb to modify adjectives like "most unhappy" or "most intelligent," etc. Incidentally, in the U.S., we would not say that a "decision" is "taken"; rather, it is made. But English influenced by England might be different in this regard. We can take a position, but not a decision.

I'm thinking of this message coming from the West Indies to a very snowy Connecticut in early March. May I come live with you? I'll be quiet, I'll do small jobs around the house, I'll help with grammar.

When enclosing multiple items with a letter, is it proper to say "Enclosed is three books" or "Enclosed are three books"?

I have been taught that "enclosed" is the noun and that its tense is singular (only one state of being "enclosed"). Others in our office disagree arguing that because there is a plurality of items being "enclosed" (note my use of "is" and not "are") that the correct verb would be "are."

"Enclosed" cannot be a noun, ever. It's a participle, a verb form. Your real subject here is "three books," and that, of course, is plural, so you want the plural verb, "are." So this time the others in the office are correct, but send me another question so we can put them in their place.

Is "lots" a singular or plural word? I would have thought plural (e.g. "there are lots of people here", but I have often heard it used in the singular (e.g. "there is lots to see and do there").

It depends on what you've got lots of — is it countable or just one pile of stuff? The people are countable, so "There are lots of people here" is correct. On the other hand, "lots to see and do" is just one thing, really, a quantity of fun, and "there is" would be appropriate. Or try simpler examples: "A lot of people do not know that" and "Lots of snow on your roof is a bad thing." Usually, "lots" gets translated to "a lot of" when it's singular: "There is a lot of things to see and do here." And, of course, a more formal and elegant way of saying the same thing would be "There are many things to see and do here."

In the following sentence:

An x-ray is a penetrating kind of light with short wavelengths that can pass through solid objects such as you and I.

Should the final part be "you and I" or "you and me"?

Thanks

If you used "like" instead of "such as," you would use the object form, "like you and me." Most writers think of what follows the "such as" as an understood clause, however — something like "such as you and I [are}," and so would use the subject form, "I."

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing