The Grammar Logs
#574

The chameleon's tongue is propelled by a set of muscles that can extend it as far as one and one half times the length of the chameleon's body.

Question: In this sentence is as far as a phrasal preposition and if so what is its object?

Yes, "as far as" is regarded as a preposition. It usually means "concerning" or "in regard to" and its use is reserved for speech or casual writing: "As far as being invited to the prom is concerned … ." When it refers to actual distance, though (the "far" being literal), it is unobjectionable. Here, the object of the preposition is "length," which is modified by another prepositional phrase, "of the chameleon's body" and the determiner "one and one half times."

I told my dad today that I thought that sitting at the breakfast table would feel more right than sitting at the dinner table. He says that you can't say "more right" because he says that right is an absolute and you can't have a degree "more." I say you can. Could you please settle this argument for us? Thank you very much.

At first glance, your father seems to have a point, and you might have been "more right" to say that it would feel better to eat at the breakfast table. But we do have many common expressions such as "You couldn't be more right" (to balance off the "You couldn't be more wrong," undoubtedly) and "The janitors were more right than the architects" (when they were both right, but the janitors' argument was logically more sound, more compelling). Some things that seem to be absolute are sometimes not so absolute, as in "a more perfect union." I don't know if that will really settle a family argument, but it might get you a seat at the breakfast table. Besides, it does my heart good to hear that people still discuss such matters over Wheaties and orange juice.

How do I say,

1. "Make Blue Jackets victories even sweeter!"
or, is it:

2. "Make Blue Jackets's victories even sweeter!"
or:

3. "Make Blue Jackets' victories even sweeter!"

As long as you leave out the determiner, "the," you can use "Blue Jackets" as an attributive noun and leave off the possessive apostrophe altogether (your first option). If you change it to "the Blue Jackets' victories," then the victories belong to the Blue Jackets in a possessive sense, and you will want to add the possessive apostrophe after the team's name (your third option).

Is there an actual rule for spacing between state and zip code, or is it just preference? i.e. Great Falls, MT 59405 or Great Falls, MT  59405? Thanks

Use one space between the state name (abbreviated or otherwise) and the zip code. This has more to do with the optical character recognition system used by the postal service than the aesthetics of your addressed envelope.

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

Which use of the word "couple" is correct in the following examples? "John bought a couple hamburgers" or "John bought a couple of hamburgers"? I have recently read several authors who did not use the "of" after "couple". This strikes me as somewhat awkward phrasing. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks!

The editors of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage remark that leaving out the "of" is much more common in American English than it is in British English and that the of-less construction is seldom found in prose "that aspires to formality and elegance." It is quite common, though, in constructions that include more or less — a couple more promotions, a couple more players — and in expressions of time: "a couple weeks more," etc.

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

In the sentence:

"What would you like to see improve in the future?"

and more specifically, regarding the use of an infinitve after "see":

How is this structure referred to? A coworker contended "What would you like to see improved in the future?" would be more accurate, and I think it's more of a French-like structure and a mistake. Can you confirm that?

The "improve" in that sentence would be called (as you suggest) an infinitive — more specifically, a "bare infinitive" (without the particle "to"). This is a typical construction after a catenative verb such as "like." Your friend has a good point about "improved," I think, although I don't think "improve" is wrong. The bare infinitive "improve" suggests that something might improve on its own; the past participle "improved" suggests (probably more accurately) that the improvement will be accomplished by someone upon the objects (or process).

You could never find a surface ______________because the planet is less dense than water.

1. solid enough to stand on Saturn
2. on Saturn where it is solid enough to stand

Why is the answer 2?

If you chose the first option, we'd have to repeat the preposition "on": "a surface solid enough to stand on on Saturn" (otherwise, the surface is trying to stand, not a person trying to stand on a surface). The second sentence is a definite improvement over that.

"Psychedelic music" is one of those rubbery, ephemeral terms that shifts and changes meaning… .

should it be shift and change, or is it correct as written?

Many grammarians insist that we determine the subject of those verbs by turning the sentence inside out: "Of those rubbery, ephemeral terms that shift and change [using the plural] meaning, 'psychedelic music' is one." Other grammarians, however, point out that the verbs can be notionally attracted to the singular "one" (instead of the plural "those") and thus we end up with singular verbs, "shifts and changes." John S. Kenyon, in an article in American Speech, writes that "Perhaps this is but saying in grammatical terminology what may be otherwise expressed by saying that the writer or speaker is more immediately concerned with one than with those."

The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage quotes Kenyon and goes on to say (after many examples) that "there is abundant evidence that one has controlled number in modern English sentences from Shakespeare to James J. Kilpatrick, and there is likewise abundant evidence that those has controlled number in other sentences. Addison was not troubled by using both constructions. You need not be more diffident than Addison."

In short, you can use either the plural or singular verbs and find an authority to back you up on your choice and excellent models in excellent writers. I find it easier to use the principle of "turning the sentence inside out," as it were, and thus I would arrive at the need for plural verbs. But the singular verbs should certainly not be considered wrong.

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

Example:

• Harry shook his head,"no".
• Harry nodded a "yes"

Question: Is the no and yes in quotes?

I am shaking my head no — no quotation marks and no comma in either construction.

Are there any verbs that MUST take a direct object? For example, is the following sentence grammatically incorrect because it lacks a direct object?

• The title screen displays.
or...

• The dialog box opens.

There's certainly nothing wrong with "the dialog box opens." The verb open can be either transitive ("he opened the letter") or intransitive (as in your sentence). "Display" is an interesting verb, though. It has long had an intransitive use in describing the mating habits of male birds. A peacock "displays," which means that he makes a great show of his tail feathers, etc., in trying to impress the neighborhood hens to come out and play. It was probably that meaning that gave rise to the use of "display" as a verb meaning "to show off," a meaning that is now listed as obsolete in most dictionaries. The dictionaries do not provide, yet, for the meaning that you enlist in "the title screen displays," but whether "the title screen is displayed" or "the title screen shows up" or "the title screen is activated" is adequate is another matter. As of now, according to the dictionary editors, "displays" has no intransitive sense that doesn't belong to the realm of peacocks.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing