The Grammar Logs
#572

Is "ahold" a word? For example, "He grabbed ahold of me." Or should it be, "He grabbed hold of me." Or "he grabbed a hold of me." Thanks.

Garner says that both "ahold" and "aholt" are dialectal, but that "ahold" is so commonplace that it has become nearly standard English. In somewhat more formal settings, use "grabbed hold" or something fancier like "seized." ("Aholt" is rather slangy.)

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.

The proper use of the word, recourse. My car had a leak from the fresh air door under the dash. I am talking to the dealership and asked if I had any recourse on the situation. They said you mean recall. I said no, but recourse. Meaning any action that I could take to have it repaired.

You have a pretty good sense of what "recourse" means, but the folks at the dealership don't seem to have that same facility. Actually, the word recourse might have been more accurate if your car, for instance, were still under guarantee, and the dealership said, no, they weren't going to fix it. Then you might well ask, "What recourse do I have?" In other words, to whom or to what office might I (or must I) appeal to over-ride your stupid decision not to fix my car? It's that sense of appeal that's missing in your first statement, and maybe that's what threw the people at the dealership.

By permission. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, 11th edition © 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. (www.Merriam-Webster.com).

Proper use of apostrophe and verb in this sentence:

Each of our customers' needs is unique.

That sentence is correct, but I'm not sure it's what you mean. It means that each need of your customers is unqiue. Don't you mean that your customers have unique needs? Or that each of your customers is unique? In short, even though your sentence is grammatically correct, it's apt to puzzle the reader.

In the following sentence:

"Studying in university is a dream come true."

Why is "come" used here? I read from the newspaper that the explanation is the following: The original sentence is "Studying in university is a dream that has come true.", but the "that has" are omitted.

However, I learnt that in these sentences, when "that has" are omitted, since the verb in the clause is in active voice, the verb in the clause should be changed to a gerund, i.e., "coming" here in this case.

So, why isn't the sentence like this: "Studying in university is a dream coming true"? Or the newspaper was wrong?

The newspaper's account of this sentence is correct enough, "a dream [that has] come true." It's actually a simply noun post-modified by a participial phrase — similar to "We just drove past a house painted purple." The "painted" parallels the "come" of your sentence. And a participle often consists of a modifying clause with the machinery of the clause omitted (the relative pronoun and verb, like the "that has" in the sentence you're using): "The speaker, who was renowned for his expertise in Asian matters, never showed up."

Hi. I am wondering if there is a real difference in the words "abilities" and "capabilities." Specifically, is there a time when one is preferable over the other, or where one would be right and the other wrong?

I work as a proofreader and have found that I often change "capabilities" to "abilities." I am not sure why I do this—it just "sounds right" in some cases. Is there any reason to do this or should I perhaps desist?

Thanks for your help.

The word "capabilities" is often associated with the potential ability to do something. If I say that I am capable of doing great things, that means that the potential is there — but maybe I haven't done a darn thing yet. If someone says that I have the ability to do great things, that observation might be based on past experience: he saw me do something great. If the text has that overtone of potentiality, then "capability" is probably the word you want; otherwise, "ability" will probably suffice.

With the following sentence:

That salesperson quite often forgets the old woman's order.

I need to know what "old" is labelled as. In other words, the is an adjective modifying order, woman's is an adjective modifying order, order is a noun but what is old? Is it an adverb because it modifies the adjective woman's? or is it an adjective? Regardless, old is talking about the woman and not the order.

You're right: "old" is modifying "woman," so it has to be an adjective. Your question nicely illustrates why some people are reluctant to call a possessive noun an adjective. Although "woman's" does, indeed, modify "order," some people don't want to call it an adjective because the possessive noun can be modified by another adjective (and only adverbs are supposed to be modify adjectives — and "old" is obviously not an adverb). Personally, I see no problem in calling both "old" and "woman's" adjectives. The article the is a determiner, but determiners serve an adjectival function.

I know how to use neither -- nor --, but some people use nor for any negative compound using 'or'.

eg.
I did not drink any beer nor whisky

I have been told this is incorrect, but to me it makes it clear that the negative also applies to the whisky

According to Merriam-Webster's Guide to English Usage, nor can be used in negative statements like that. It quotes William Faulkner: "I wasn't interested in literature nor literary people." Most authorities, however, would prefer "or" in that sentence — or in any sentence in which the negative element is established from the outset (as in "I did not drink … ").

By permission, From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. (www.Merriam-Webster.com).

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 anytime used correctly in the following sentence:

We are not building a cell site in your area anytime soon.

The question we have is, should this word say, Anytime or any time? Thank you for your help

Most authorities agree that if you can substitute "at any time" or "whenever" for the word, go ahead and use the single word anytime. That certainly fits the situation in your sentence.

Which is correct and why?

1. thanks for your continual responses
or

2. thanks for your continued responses

"Continued responses" means that the responses keep coming in — and that seems to be something that makes us happy, as in "Keep those cards and letters coming in." "Continual responses" can mean the same thing, but it also can suggest that we're getting sick and tired of this constant flow of responses.

When you start a sentence with a written percentage such as eight-two percent, is it permissible to switch to numbers in the rest of the sentence. Example: Eighty-two percent responded to the first question, but only 56% answered the second question.

Do your best to avoid that shift from numbers written out to numerals, even if it means rewording the sentence: "We received responses from 82% [of ???] on the first question, and only 52% on the second." Most writing manuals I own — including the New York Times Manual of Style — insist that numbers at the beginning of a sentence be written out.

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

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

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing