The Grammar Logs
#563

I would like to know if you can use the words [exactly and same] in a sentence. For example;

That car is exactly the same.

You can use "exactly the same," but do not use "the same exact" (a bad shortcut for "exactly the same") as in "That's the same exact car we used yesterday." (And, while we're at it, avoid "just exactly," as in "Just exactly what do you mean by that?")

Is there something wrong with the sentence,

We'll return your file in as little as 12 hours.

It's the "as little as" with reference to hours that bothers me.

I think you're right to be bothered by that phrase. Most people, I'm sure, will know what this means, but it doesn't withstand scrutiny, does it? What is "as little as 12 hours"? (The problem might be that it sounds like we're saying that something is as little as something plural, and we're not used to using the word little in that way. The fact is that "12 hours" is a single entity of time here, not plural, but it still sounds plural.) "Within 12 hours" or "less than 12 hours" would be much happier expressions of the same thing. I will leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else cares to offer an opinion on this phrase.

Rikkert Wiggerink (of the Netherlands) wishes to correct the above, as follows:

The question I will talk about was about the phrase: "We'll return your file in as little as 12 hours."

To me this sentence seems to be the same as sentences like "He bought 200 kg of cheese for as little as 50 pounds," "You may spend as much or as little as you want," and "Students were able to complete this course in as little as two weeks."

These sentences all seem to imply a word. For instance, the word in the last sentence is "time" (which explains "little" instead of "fewer" as "time" is uncountable). "Students were able to complete this course in as little time as two weeks."

The original sentence would be (again "time" is implied): "We'll return your file in as little [time] as 12 hours."

Now I don't know if the above is valid, but it is the way I read sentences like these. That's why I also do not understand why "as little as" would mean the same as "within." To me "as little as" seems a way to describe that I should be happy about the fact that it only takes them 12 hours to return my file (others are even slower than that). For me it all becomes much clearer when I look at the "money" variant of the sentence instead of the "time" variant.

"He bought 200 kg of cheese for as little as 50 pounds": This sentence doesn't tell me he bought 200 kg for less than 50 pounds. This sentence tells me that 50 pounds is really cheap for 200 kg of cheese. Just like the original sentence isn't telling me that I will get my file back within 12 hours, but that I will get my file back after 12 hours and that that is a really short time for actions like these.

This should be straightforward enough for a writer, but I am just unable to confirm it is correct through normal channels. The sentence is:

The balance of the proceeds was/were used to repay the outstanding sponsor facility.

I thought the verb should be were. However, a client thinks it should be was. I thought there was some grammar rule about the verb following a plural noun, but Im not sure. Please help!

The subject for this verb is balance, not proceeds. "Proceeds" would be plural, but balance, taken as a singular quantity, a sum of money, wants a singular verb, "was." I take it that "outstanding sponsor facility" makes sense to your client?

I would like to know if I can use "lest" as follows:

I don't want to eat too much lest I have a stomach-ache

Thank you

It doesn't quite work in that sentence. It means "for fear that," and you wouldn't restrain your appetite for fear that you have a stomach-ache, but you might for fear that you will get a stomach-ache. So that you could say, yes. Because lest introduces an idea that is possible, not definite, it is often accompanied by the subjunctive mood:

John avoided drinking milk at supper lest his evening be ruined by his intolerance for lactose.

"Lest" has an air of the attic about it, and you might always consider using "or else" or "because" or "for fear that," instead.

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.

Would you use who or whom in this instance?

"Although Jack the Ripper's identity remains unproven, many theories exists as to who/whom this infamous serial killer is."

First, let's change "exists" to "exist" so it can agree with our plural subject, "theories." It's tempting, isn't it, to use "whom," because it feels as though what follows should be the object of the preposition "to." However, we need the subject form in the subsequent clause, "who this infamous serial killer is." That entire clause, then, becomes the object of the preposition "to," but that fact does not change what goes into the clause. Because of the "iffiness" of the statement, we probably should make that final verb more subjunctive, substituting "might be" for "is."

Safety Slogan: Think Safety. Your life depends on it and so do/does ours?

If you started this sentence at the other end and said "Our lives do depend on it," there's no question you'd come up with the plural "do." However, in the word order you suggest, the verb choice in question comes after the singular "does," and "do" sounds stupid. Also, I think we can argue that we could be thinking the singular "our life," which is perfectly legitimate. So stick with the singular "does" (as in "so does the life of everyone").

On a memorial card, for example, should the age of the deceased appear as follows:

• Aged 60 years.
or

• Age 60 years.

I will offer some advice that would be OK for American writers, but I don't know what is regarded as appropriate on your side of the Atlantic. In the U.S., we would probably write, "60 years old," or we might include the years as a parenthetical element. "John Citizen, 60, was a member of …" Nowadays, we'd save "aged" for descriptions of wine and cheese. "Age 60" is OK, but "age 60 years" is a bit redundant.

The reason why she quit the job is because she will marry John.

I know the sentence is wrong ..."because" should be corrected "that" my tecaher told me that the sentence begins with "Because" is "adverbial clause" not "noun clause" I agree with him.

However, I often see many sentences begin with "It's because..."..or "That's because".....I know it's correct ..but I don't know how to explain it. ....

What's difference between them?

In the clauses you're pondering — It's because / That's because — the word "because" is stretching way back to its origins: "by the cause that." It's as if you are saying "That is by the cause that [something + verb] … " So it's OK for your subject ("that" or "it") to be connected to what follows with a linking verb.

Regarding hypenation. Is is correct to say that you never hypenate words ending in "ly" when used as adverb is helping describe the adjective describing the noun, such as "regularly-scheduled appointment" Thank you!

That's the general idea: that when an adverb is combined with an adjective in a compound modifier — especially when the adverb ends in -ly, we don't need a hyphen between them. The most important exception to this rule, however, is with adverbs such as "well, ill, better, best, little, less, and least," as in "well-known politician," "ill-fitting clothes," "best-loved novel," "least-desirable result."

When writing a business letter, would you capitalize "workers compensation" when used in a sentence....We are requesting a copy of our workers compensation policy.

Use the plural possessive form: "workers' compensation."

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.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing