The Grammar Logs
#576

What is the capitalized clause considered? I know it needs to be set off by commas, but what is it called?

The company will have the opportunity to hear the needs AND WITHIN REASON meet the expectations of the full time employees through the survey and feedback program.

Clauses always contain subject-verb relationships, which that group of words does not contain, so it's not a clause. The phrase "within reason" is a prepositional phrase. The "and" is connecting the two infinitives "to hear" and "meet" and is not affected or a part of "within reason." The two-word prepositional phrase in question is acting like an adverb; it is modifying (setting conditions on) the infinitive phrase "meet the expectations." Yes, you would set it off with a pair of commas. Most writers would put a hyphen in "full-time employees."

Are these sentences grammatically acceptable ?

1. "Who does this umbrella belong to?"
2. "Is anyone sitting here?" (This one sounds like illogical for me.)

Thank you very much.

In formal speech or writing, you'd want to use "whom" at the beginning of the first question. The "who" would probably go unremarked in most conversations, however.

"Is anyone sitting here?" will sometimes get a quizzical look or smart-aleck answer from someone. Like "Yes, but she's invisible." What it usually means, of course, is "Was someone sitting in this seat, and is it likely he or she will return?" The alternative "Is this seat occupied?" is no better.

"You must react proactively to problems." What is wrong with this sentence? Our boss used it in a memo today.

Grammatically, it's all right, but I'm not sure that it passes muster in the logic department. Unless you're a psychologist and you're using "proactive" in a very specialized sense, to be "proactive" generally means that you anticipate future problems (and act in such a way that the problems never happen or are at least ameliorated). You can react, of course, to a problem, but that means the problem is already at hand and the time for dealing with it proactively has passed. At best, your boss has proposed a paradox for us to ponder; at the worst, he's not making a lot of sense. Perhaps it was a bad day in Red Oak.

Which is the standard punctuation of "first come first served"?

My guess is, "first-come, first-served." But I have seen it with and without the comma and hyphens.

If the phrase stands by itself, write it with a comma and no hyphens: "first come, first served." If it's acting as a modifier, use all hyphens, no commas: "a first-come-first-served basis."

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.

When is the use of Every Day an adverb, and when is it a noun?

In "we work hard every day," the phrase is an adverb, telling us when we work hard. In "every day is a blessing," it's a noun (or a noun and its determiner). When you combine the words, they can become an adjective: "We threw out the everyday dishes."

Is the following sentence grammatically correct? If not, please specify why. My boss tells me it is acceptable, but I'm having some problems with the syntax. Thank you for your time. Here is the sentence:

However, based on correspondence received from your wife, Mrs. Jones, she states that Betsy's date of birth is May 2, 1983.

The piling up of appositives — your wife, Mrs. Jones, and "she" (all meaning the same person, I assume; otherwise, you've got serious problems) — makes the sentence hard to read. Also, it's doubtful that Mrs. Jones states this information "based on correspondence"; she probably makes the statement IN the correspondence, doesn't she? You might try something like

In correspondence dated {___________}, your wife, Mrs. Jones, states that Betsy's date of birth is May 2, 1983.

Role of the infinitive in the sentence below?

"Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

It seems to have the same structure as does the simple:

"Don't make me laugh."

Each has a pronoun that is the direct object and each has an objective compliment that is an infinitive without "to." In the first instance there are two infinitives-- seek without "to" and "to satisfy" with the "to." The infinitives back to back puts me off.

This falls short of a complete analysis, but it's a start.

Your second sentence, "Don't make me laugh," is a good example of what is called a causative verb. Causative verbs are followed by other verbs in the form of an infinitive, as in "She allows her students to read out loud." But three causative verbs — "make," "have," and "let" — are followed by bare infinitives (infinitives without the particle "to"). This is why there is no "to" accompanying the "seek" in your first sentence. The infinitive phrase "to satisfy our third for freedom" serves as the object of what you are seeking.

Which preposition goes with the verb "confide", IN or TO? Example: somebody confides something TO someone, or IN someone?

I had never noticed this before, but "confide" works in two difference ways. You can confide in someone, meaning (for instance) that you are sharing secret information with that person. On the other hand, you can confide [something] to someone. When an object follows the verb "confide" ("information," for instance), the preposition changes to to.

We need your help desperately! We're having a HUGE debate about the use of a comma with a coordinating conjunction, specifically in imperative sentences where the subject is not expressed. We write a great deal of sentences in this form, such as:

"Switch to HTML mode when you're done, and add the following tag before the /head tag."

Some of us think it's incorrect to put a comma before the "and," while some of us think it is correct. I was under the impression that, while you can omit the comma if either clause is short, it is never WRONG to include a comma before the "and." The only examples I could find on any Web site or grammar book had sentences where the subjects are explictly repeated. I finally found this explanation and example in The Gregg Reference Manual:

When one or both verbs are in the imperative and the subject is not expressed, treate the sentence as a compound sentence and use a comma between the clauses. For example,

• "Please look at the brochure I have enclosed, and then get back to me if you have additional questions."
• "Call Ellen Chen sometime next week, and ask her whether she will speak at our conference next fall."

What do you think?

The first example from Gregg uses the conjunctive phrase "and then," which is a bit more heavy duty than a simple "and"; this explains why the comma is definitely needed in that sentence. The second sentence falls into that category of two independent clauses that are long and complex enough to warrant the use of the comma. I believe that would apply, also, to your sentence (about switching to HTML). In compound imperatives with brief, nicely balanced clauses, the comma can safely be omitted: "Open the faucet and flush out the drains." I realize that this turns the practice into a judgment call (what constitutes brief and nicely balanced?), but the sample sentences from GRM are good examples of well used commas.

Consider this sentence:

There were three people wounded in the room.

Is this sentence ambiguous? Does it only mean:

• a-Three people GOT wounded in the room. (active meaning)
or could it also mean:

• b-There were three wounded people in the room. (Three people in the room were in a wounded state. Stative meaning).

The sentence is not really ambiguous. It can only mean that three people got wounded while they were in the room (e.g., they were shot, someone axed them in the head, etc.). If you want to express the stative meaning of the verb — that three people in the room were in a wounded state — you'd have to put "wounded" in front of "people."

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing