The Grammar Logs
#565

Is the singular verb "is" correct in the following sentence, or should it be "are"?

The fund, and any payment in excess of the fund, is charged to current-year income.

In most sentences like this, I would say that the commas are not appropriate: the "and" is capable of connecting two things all by itself (except for two independent clauses, when it usually must be accompanied by a comma). But I have a feeling that the sentence would be better served by a more pronounced connector such as "as well as" (instead of the "and"). Then the sentence would read as follows:

The fund, as well as any payment in excess of the fund, is charged to current-year income.

Another possibility is that the two commas in your sentence should be replaced by dashes, and then, too, you would use the singular "is."

A division within my company recently published a newsletter titled "Learnings." The newsletter is about lessons learned in corrective actions. To the writer's ear the use of the plural "learnings" does not sound right. Searching the internet, I found a plethora of "learnings" in use. My question then is if the use of the word "learnings" is correct grammar.

You're right: a search on Google.com yields thousands of uses of "learnings." My Merriam-Webster's seems to allow for it, meaning the plural of "the act or experience of one that learns" or "skill acquired by instruction or study." It seems to me like a voguish term, the kind that professional educators are so fond of, and I would rather see "learning" left as a singular, non-count noun, as in "A little learning is a dangerous thing" or "an institution of higher learning." The notion of breaking "learning" into little bits and pieces seems like a dangerous concept — as if all those little "learnings" could then be reconstituted into something called "learning"? I think I would prefer "lessons" or "skills," myself ("learnings" smacks of "leavings" to me), but there's probably no stopping the flood of learnings now.

I was hoping you could help us settle an argument here at our pharmacy. It is proper to say "Take 2 teaspoonfulS by mouth daily" OR "Take 2 teaspoonSful by mouth daily"? And what is the reason? Thank you!

The dictionaries don't go so far as to say that "teaspoonsful" is wrong, but all of my dictionaries, anyway, prefer "teaspoonfuls."

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.

I would like to know if there is such a word as "exodusing". My boyfriend and I disagree on this subject. I agree that Exodus is a noun, but I do not think that "exodusing" is the proper usage. I believe people use this noun incorrectly, and such a sentence as "the people were exodusing" is incorrect. I would appreciate if you could shed light on this subject.

The Shorter OED doesn't contain a verb use for the word exodus. You can have people join an exodus, or they can emigrate, but exodusing is not recommended.

Is the coined word proselytization okay? And is it proselytizing TO or FOR? (to students)

I'm not sure why you're calling it a coined word. It's listed in my Shorter OED without comment. You can proselytize students or you can proselytize to them. If you proselytize for someone that means that you're trying to enlist others to believe in that someone (or some such thing).

Is this a correct sentence?

These two items are exactly similar.

That sentence is OK. We take it to mean that these two items are alike in exactly the same way(s). Just don't say that things are almost exactly alike, because that gets confusing.

Which is correct?

1. She did it for us who care the most.
2. She did it for we who care the most.

You want the objective pronoun form, "us," as an object of the preposition "for." The relative clause that follows, "who care the most," can still refer to the pronoun, even though it is in the object form. Still, the sentence sounds clumsy, and you might consider "She did not for those who care the most."

When do I use "ex" and when do I use "former". Example:

• Former president or ex-president?
• Former husband or ex-husband?

I seem to remember hearing that "ex" applied if the person was deceased, i.e. ex-president Kennedy and "former" applied if the person was still alive, i.e. former-president Carter.

Thanks for your help.

The "ex-" is simply a colloquial expression meaning "former." In newspaper writing, for example, you would probably see "former" within the article, but you would see "ex-" within a headline or caption. To the best of my knowledge, it has nothing to do with whether the ex- is dead or not, although the sense of formality in writing about the departed might dictate the use of "former." Incidentally, always use a hyphen when the "ex-" means "former," but don't use it in Latin phrases such as ex officio, ex parte, ex cathedral, etc.

Authority: The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. by Allan M. Siegal and William G. Connolly. Times books: New York. 1999.

In the sentence below, is it correct to say, " working families, who..." or "working families that...."

More and more we are finding that our food, distributed through 90 local human service agencies at 177 sites and a number of Direct Distribution Initiatives, is going to working families, who run short of food due to the high cost of living in the area.

I don't think the "who" is wrong. You can use "that" because you're referring to people in kind of a general way, but if you do use "that," drop the comma. That is the construction I would use: "working families that run short of food …" Do you really need to capitalize "direct distribution initiatives"?

Yes, capitalize that phrase. It's sort of like "Old West," a recognized geographical entity. Without the capitals, the phrase will probably perplex some readers.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing