The Grammar Logs
#571

Recently, a newly hired high school principal was quoted in our local newspaper.

"I want to find out where the kids are at."

I think this is obviously bad grammar. When I mentioned it to a friend, they said that this is not referring to the location of the kids, but instead to their state of mind and therefore, is correct.

Who is right?

Either the principal wants to know the physical location of his students, but used a superflous preposition at the end of his sentence, or he has indulged in a casual bit of trendy jargon to say he's interested in the essential nature of "the kids," the true state of affairs regarding their development. Knowing where something or someone "is at" entered the American vocabulary back in the 60s and never went away, unfortunately. I don't know whether you should be more worried about your new principal's use of "where they're at" or "the kids."

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.

Is the expression "last and final" an acceptable phrase or is it redundant? I repeatedly heard the announcement at the airport tonight, "this is the last and final boarding call." It seems to me that it is either the last or the final but last and final is like saying, "shut the door closed."

I can't think of a situation in which the "final call" is not the "last call," nor can I think of a situation in which the "last call" is not the "final call." Even if the final call is the first and only call, it's the last call, isn't it (first and last)? I think your instincts are right: the phrase is redundant.

I was confused by the "marriage" between a plural subject and a singular verb as shown in the following sentence:

Criminals ripping off big insurance companies probably isn't an issue that's high on your list of personal concerns.

You see: "Criminals....is...." Is this usage correct? Can you help me? Thank you.

In the normal course of events, "criminals" is a plural noun and would be in search of a plural verb to form a happy subject-verb marriage. The writers of this sentence, however, apparently feels that the subject isn't really "criminals"; it's "criminals ripping off big insurance companies," a singular idea or notion. I wouldn't object to the singular "isn't" in this sentence. However, since the "ripping off," in a sense, belongs to the criminals, I think I'd turn "ripping off" into a gerund and make "criminals" possessive: "Criminals' ripping off big insurance companies." Now I'm on safer ground with the singular verb. Better yet, I could change the whole subject to something a bit less slangy, like "The defrauding of [or 'Swindling'] big insurance companies probably is not high on your list of personal concerns."

In the sentence below, should I have put an apostrophe in "The Missing Person's Unit," or should it be "The Missing Persons Unit" without the apostrophe? as well as "missing person's reports." Thank you.

The Missing Person?s Unit handles an estimated 2200 cases per year. Diana is responsible for entering and updating the missing person?s computer, MUPS, JDIC, and LARCIS, on each of the missing person?s reports.

The unit and the reports don't belong to the missing person or missing persons. Rather, the reports and the unit are "about" the missing person(s). I'd just go with the plural form here: "Missing Persons Unit" and "missing persons report."

Is this sentence grammatically correct:

Regardless of some opinions of Larry, his death was an inauspicious ending by which we are stunned.

Note—we are stunned by the ill-fated timing and circumstances of his death but the lawyer was not well-liked by many. Thank you

The beginning phrase is ambiguous because you probably mean other people's opinions, but the phrase makes it sound like the opinions belong to Larry. I suppose death is always an inauspicious ending, isn't it, whether we liked the deceased or not? You might try something like "Regardless of some people's opinions of Larry, we are shocked by his death." But frankly, it's probably better just to say that you're shocked by Larry's death and save your remarks or reservations about his character to another sentence, another paragraph.

Please tell me which choice is better and why? Thank you!

1. Based on the growth rates of large modern …
2. On the basis of growth rates of large modern …

reptiles such as the Galapagos tortoise and examinations of fossils of juvenile dinosaurs, scientists estimate that the largest dinosaurs probably lives to be between 100 and 200 years old.

The first version suggests that the scientists are based on the growth rates, which doesn't make sense (your initial phrase is a dangling modifier). The second sentence says that scientists estimate something "on the basis of growth rates of large modern reptiles … " That is a definite improvement.

Given the following sentence:

According to the translation of its name, the pianoforte can play both loud and soft.

What role does "both" play? I believe it is a pronoun. Please inform.

"Both" often functions as a pronoun, in a sentence like "Both of them are fine." And it's sometimes a determiner or adjective as in "Both candidates are dishonest." In your sentence, though, it's acting as a conjunction. It works along with the conjunction and "to indicate that each of two things in a coordinated phrase or clause is included."

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Is it correct to say:'I would like to come to England to work as a doctor' by a person who is not in England? I said to my friend that this kind of question can only be asked by a person who is in England at the moment of speaking, and who e.g. is applying for a residence permit. In other words 'go' should be used. Please let me hear what you think.

If both you and your friend are in Denmark, you would say to your friend, "I would love to GO to England to work as a doctor." However, if your friend lives in England (or if you're addressing a medical college, say, in England), you (from your home in Denmark) would write "I would like to COME to England to work as a doctor." Actually, in that case, I think you could use either one. If you are in England, though, you would certainly use "come."

Generally, you're safe to use "more than" when referring to numbers, especially specific (not rounded off) numbers. "There were more than 350 people in the church last Sunday." However, when you're working with numbers that are rather vague or that are meant as a lump sum, a singular quantity, it's permissible to use "over," and speakers and writers use "over" in this manner all the time: "He's over six feet tall," "He makes over fifty thousand a year," "She won by over a million votes." It's a bit casual, but it's perfectly acceptable.

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 began teaching 11th grade AP English last fall. Throughout the year, on students' personal essays, I suggested again and again, the need for a contraction to make a given sentence less stilted. The students informed me that they had been threatened with dismemberment for EVER using a contraction in any paper submitted for a grade. When I discussed this with the district's English curriculum head, she concurred that contractions should never be used in essays or narratives submitted for grades. Am I crazy? I understand and fully accept the avoidance of contractions in literary analyses and research papers, but not in essays or narratives. Help!

My, aren't they uptight in Dallas? You are making a distinction between essays and literary analyses and research papers that I am not familiar with, but be that as it may, the banishment of contractions to the sports pages seems unusually strait-laced. I would much prefer this bit of advice from John Trimble's Writing with Style: "Use occasional contractions. They'll keep you from taking yourself too seriously, tell your reader that you're not a prude, and help you achieve a more natural, conversational rhythm in your style" (78). I think it has to be a matter of balance: too many contractions can create an inappropriately casual, breezy off-handedness; no contractions can makes the writer seem like one in need of dietary fiber.

See, also, 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