Search is not available for this dataset
query
stringlengths 1
13.4k
| pos
stringlengths 1
61k
| neg
stringlengths 1
63.9k
| query_lang
stringclasses 147
values | __index_level_0__
int64 0
3.11M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
"There is an apple, an orange" vs. "There are an apple, an orange" Consider these There is an apple, an orange and a banana on the table. There are an apple, an orange and a banana on the table. which one should I use? | Plurality of verb depending on plurality of list elements This question is also open on EL&U: Considering the amount of controversy it aroused, I believe it's past "Learners'" level. An edit was suggested to my sentence. There was were an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate. In my native language plurality of the verb always follows plurality of the first element on the list. There were an orange,... sounds awkward to me, no matter what follows up. My simple solution was reordering: There were some grapes, an orange, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate. But that's not the first time I faced this situation and I'd like to know what the rules of grammar say about that — was my editor overzealous or am I trying to copy rules of my language that don't apply in English? | Correct use of will & would? What would be the correct use of will & would in these sentences? 1) What will happen if I say to my boss that I will not come tomorrow? 2) What will happen if I would say to my boss that I will not come tomorrow? 3) What will happen if I will say to my boss that I will not come tomorrow? 4) What would happen if I would say to my boss that I will not come tomorrow? There are four sentences which one should I use and in which situation? | eng_Latn | 17,000 |
Inversion in relative clause The gardens stretched back to some reasonable-looking pasture land on which grazed a few cattle and sheep. Why is this inversion valid here? I would expect maybe "on which there grazed" (as in "there comes a time") if an inversion were to be happen. | Can you explain the sentence structure 'In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit'? Why put the verb before the subject? The opening sentence to The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien reads, In a hole in the ground there lived [verb] a hobbit [subject]. I wonder if there are accepted stylistic purposes for such a structure. When is it natural, and when is it unnatural? | Can cited works hold grammatical positions in sentences? Though I read this style quite often, I was recently told unambiguously by a reviewer that I was NOT supposed to use citations "as if they are objects in a sentence." The following sentence is an example of what the reviewer considered unacceptable: We analyzed the data using the Wilmerding method, guided by [12]. The references section might include the following: [12] Smith, D., Marshawn, J., & Devenshaw, A. 2011. Techniques and Procedures for Applying the Wilmerding Method. Prince Publications, Inc, New York, NY. The Wilmerding method1 is not a step-by-step algorithm that can be precisely followed as if by a machine, and thus [12] does not provide a step-by-step algorithmic description but rather guidance for using the method. [12] is a relatively slim but authoritative textbook about how to use the Wilmerding method. Within this question, for the purpose of discussion, I have intentionally put [12] in grammatical positions where it's an important element of the sentence and the sentence would make less sense without the reference. Sometimes that seems to be the most efficient way to communicate the intended message. Is using a reference as a grammatical sentence element like this OK? Why might this not be considered acceptable? Should I be rewording those sentences? Is it enough of a violation to be worth passing the note on to authors of papers I review? I considered posting this on but it seems more specific to academia than general English usage, and the comment came from a content reviewer rather than a copy editor. is related but it seems to be more about when to put authors names' in vs. outside of the parentheses in an APA-like style. The numbered citation style (as opposed to following APA, for example) is required by the venue. 1: Fictionalized for the purpose of this discussion | eng_Latn | 17,001 |
'None is' or 'none are', when the antecedent is plural? Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, speaking by the invitation of the Speaker of the House of Commons in a , quoted a Financial Times article and, in passing, 'corrected' its grammar. Quoting the article, Rees-Mogg said of entries on a Wikipedia list (of entries in a table) that 'none are' from Europe and then corrected the article saying that it should be 'none is'. 'None' may refer to 'not one' in which case I would say it is singular. But 'none' may also refer to 'not any' in which case I would suggest it is plural. Thus I think that Mr Rees-Mogg is not correct in correcting the FT article. 'None of the entries' (that is, not any of the entries) are from Europe' seems quite correct to me. 'Not one of the entries is from Europe' is also correct, I would say. Is Mr Rees-Mogg correct ? entry for 'none' : a. Not any (one) of a number of people or things. Also: neither of two persons or things (now regional). ====================================== EDIT : I have read the suggested duplicates and they are inconclusive. I was hoping for a definitive (and thus an academic), decisive answer to the question. ======================================= | "None" as plural indefinite pronoun In my grammar book (English Grammar, HarperCollins Publishers), I read that none is occasionally treated as plural, but it is usually regarded as singular. Can you give me an example of sentence where none is used as plural pronoun? | Formal writing: "…for my colleagues and {I/me/myself}."? I'm currently using Cambridge English Advanced 1. It's a book that contains past examination papers, and includes numerous samples of authentic writing. This material helps, candidates and teachers, understand what the examiners are ‘testing’ and how these papers are marked. The assessment covers four categories: content, communicative achievement, organisation and language. Each category is awarded a mark between 1 and 5, so the maximum score is 20, and each mark has a brief note attached by the examiner. Any errors of punctuation, orthography, grammar, appropriacy, and vocabulary are left intact. In fact, there are no corrections because the ‘examiner’ does not specify where the errors lie. This can be frustrating, even though spelling mistakes are rare at the advanced level, and errors in style, collocation or register are still relatively easy to identify, sometimes I'll read a phrase that forces me to ponder. Dear Director, [ TEXT ] To conclude, this letter is a polite request to cover the costs of a 2 month language course for my colleagues and me. We would be very pleased if the company would do us this favour. Yours sincerely John Smith The following marks were awarded Content 5 blah, blah, … Communicative Achievement 2 blah, blah, … Organisation 3 blah, blah, … Language 3 blah, blah, … I am able to pick out six minor errors in that brief extract, maybe some users will identify more, maybe some will identify fewer, and maybe some will say that the language used is perfectly acceptable. But if I can help a candidate attain that elusive B, I would be delighted. I am interested in (what could be) the 7th error, emphasised in bold. Because the letter of proposal is formal, I feel the phrase, for my colleagues and me, is jarring. I want to change it to for my colleagues and I, but the antecedent requires an object. You would not say: “This is a request to cover the cost […] for I”. So, why use the subject pronoun I in the expression “my colleagues and…”? Could I use instead, myself? Which of the following is preferable in a formal written proposal? …for my colleagues and me …for my colleagues and I …for my colleagues and myself EDITED: I found a of the writing sample (11/11) if anyone is interested. I've looked at the following question, Some answers appear to be contradictory, the accepted answer says using I and me are both grammatical, which in my example is not true. Moreover, there's no mention of myself, as a possible solution, in the question. | eng_Latn | 17,002 |
Misplaced clauses However, most assets are still subject to some price volatility and inflation, even those considered a strong store of value, such as gold. Is ”even those considered a strong store of value” a misplaced clause? Or is the sentence wrong for some other reason? | "Dangling Participles" My case here is that I was writing something for school, and my teacher explained an error which I really can't see. She referred to articles about "dangling participles", which was previously unknown to me. I find it hard to relate the examples I've found about it to my situation. So this is a text I've written and the bold part is where the problem arises: (You could read only the bold part if you please) Wandering, and lost in his thoughts, there is a deep despair occupying the mind of this man. He is barely aware of his surroundings, except for those few moments when the loud blissful voices break through the protective barriers, developed by his immense sadness and grave frustration, into his mind. ”How can they all possibly be so happy?” he thinks to himself. Staring blindly, with his head low, as he walks in a slow pace, whispering ”Mary, Mary, my Mary,” over and over again. Yesterday was her funeral. She had passed away from a severe type of cancer, at a relatively young age. It was his wife. They had been together since high school and were greatly attached to each other. Having spent nearly half his life by her side, we cannot but imagine his grief. Indeed, he could hardly picture a life without her. So, alone he roams in the midst of all the seemingly incessant cheering and noises, drowned by his sorrow. Her comments on that part was: we is slightly out of place here – see my comment below These few sentences are about him and his emotions, so ‘we’ seems out of place. If the sentence starts: ‘Having spent nearly half his life by her side’, the reader expects it to continue: ‘he’. After all we have not spent half our lives by her side. Is she right? If so, could anyone try to explain why? | Which form should be used for attributive nouns like “student union”: singular or plural, or possessive singular or possessive plural? When should a noun that’s used attributively to describe another noun be plural, and when should it be singular? And when should it be possessive, like baker’s dozen and when should it be plural possessive, like farmers’ market? In other words, why do we say teachers union rather than teacher union? And why do we say wedding planner rather than weddings planner? Which of these variants is or are correct? student union students union student’s union students’ union What about community values versus community’s values? Please note I am looking for a general rule or at least some tips. These are only examples. Update: It seems even native speakers follow their personal style to write such compound words. I wonder why in the IELTS listening section, the language learner has to write a specific form and there is no rule for this. | eng_Latn | 17,003 |
Should's or shoulds I can't figure out for the life of me if it should be "should's" or "shoulds." It's a follow up sentence of saying, "that's a lot of should's." (there was also question as to whether the period should go inside or outside of the quotation mark after should's) I looked over the link of Is "’s ” ever correct for pluralization? but still couldn't figure out what the solution would be to my question. Being more direct of whether it should be should's or shoulds would be more helpful, thanks! | Is “ ’s ” ever correct for pluralization? A relatively modern dictionary (I don’t know which one, because we’ve cut out the pages and used them as wallpaper in our bathroom, but I know it’s less than 20 years old) indicates that R’s is one correct pluralization of R, as is Rs, but whichever dictionary this is, it’s kind of a no-name brand, so I’m not sure I trust it. I’ve always wondered what the best way was to pluralize single letters or numerals, like 2’s or 2s. What’s correct? | "A few" takes a singular or plural verb in present simple tense? Does "a few" take a singular or plural verb in present simple tense? A few men lifts the table. A few men lift the table. A few frogs jumps out of the lake. A few frogs jump out of the lake. I have searched the same question in google, but I see both answers. Which one is correct? How come "a few" is plural? Even though it refers to many, "a" makes "few" a singular, so it should take a singular verb, right? Should I always put "a" in front of "few"? For example, are the following correct? Few men lift the table. Few frogs jump out of the lake. | eng_Latn | 17,004 |
Why do politicians all say "and" when they state a year number "In two thousand AND eight blah blah blah until two thousand AND thirteen blah blah blah" Is there some grammar rule that if you're stating a year you should say "and" within a number or is there a rule that in politics you should say "and" within a number? | How do you correctly say large numbers I saw a post on which links to a video where a person . Is he saying a large portion of the numbers wrong? Back in high school my algebra teacher was extremely picky. If we were going to say the number 135, we would say one hundred thirty-five. If a person said one hundred and thirty-five my teacher would interpret that to mean 100.35. Was my algebra teacher wrong, or did Jon just waste over 80 hours counting to 100,000 incorrectly. I tried searching the web, but searching for ‘numbers and’ doesn’t work very well. Can you point me to a reference or style guide that describes how to properly say large numbers? | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,005 |
Is "one out of ten" plural or singular? In the following sentence: One out of ten people speaks (English) as their mother tongue Is "one out of ten" considered singular, or should speaks be changed to speak? | "1 out of 100 chickens is" or "1 out of 100 chickens are"? I'm in an argument. To me "are" makes more sense. I understand the rationale for is because it's only one chicken, but chickens itself is plural. Help? | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,006 |
Should I use who or which? "a nurse is someone who/which always helps sick people." Is it "a nurse is someone who always helps sick people." or " a nurse is someone which always helps sick people."? | Should I use "who" or "which" when referring to a specific animal species? I'd like to know what option to use, specifically when referring to a species by its scientific name. | Pumpkin Noodles is a thing or are a thing? Which of the following is correct? How come pumpkin noodles is not a thing? or How come pumpkin noodles are not a thing? I want to post one of the above statements to Twitter with a picture of a bowl of pumpkin noodles i.e. the stuff that comes out of a hollowed out pumpkin. | eng_Latn | 17,007 |
How to avoid gender dependent pronouns? I have always problem with finding a suitable sentence to avoid a gender dependent pronoun. I know I can use "they" or "their", but if there were other options to totally omit them, I would prefer them. For example I wrote: The user can utilize this information to create appropriate rules to identify his items of interest. Can I here say "the items of interest"? Are they other options? In general? | Usage of "they" / "them" / "their" when the person's gender is not known I know that one can use "they" / "them" / "their" in place of "he" / "him" / "his" or "she" / "her" / "hers" when the subject's / direct object's gender is not known; for instance, just looking at the default user's about me section on Stack Exchange sites: Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them My question is what happens when someone wants to reference the subject using a pronoun instead. Should the verb be conjugated accordingly to the pronoun? E.g.: Apparently, they prefer to keep an air of mystery about them Or should the conjugation be retained? E.g.: Apparently, they prefers to keep an air of mystery about them The former looks unclear because it wouldn't allow the reader / listener to understand if the writer / speaker is talking about a single person or about a group of people, however the latter sounds very weird, at least just to the non-native speaker which I am. | Equivalent of "both" when referring to three or more items? What would be the correct word to use when referring to three or more items, in the same manner as the word both? For example, using two words, with the word both: "There are several recommendations I have to further improve the sites — both to improve their profit, and decrease their cost." Using three words, with a blank space in place of the correct word: "There are several recommendations I have to further improve the sites — _ to improve their profit, decrease their cost and improve their usability." So, what would be the correct word to use in place of the __? | eng_Latn | 17,008 |
Use These and Those | These and those are both pronouns, words that substitute for other nouns in a sentence. Knowing when to use each pronoun can be tricky, however. | This is a Wikihow that worked at certain universities. Here enjoy! | eng_Latn | 17,009 |
as best I can vs as well as I can I have to say I have an issue with the phrase "as best I can". After all, "best" is the superlative form of "well" and does not belong in the comparative construction "as... as" - not to mention that the second "as", for some reason, is nowhere to be found. This, in my view, is akin to saying: "I would be glad to help you as most I can" instead of "as much as I can" ("most" being the superlative form of "much"). Is this simply a widespread error (much like the now-ubiquitous and "the reason... is because") or has it become an idiom - and if so, when did this happen? The easy way out, of course, is to avoid the construction entirely - which is what I usually find myself doing - but I was wondering if anybody out there had similar qualms about using this phrase. | What is the structure in "as best you can"? I instinctively translate it "as best as you can", however this makes no sense. What is the real structure behind this phrase? I'll include an to illustrate the historical presence of this phrase: Whatever the structure is, I'm guessing that it has something to do with 19th century grammar. | Formal writing: "…for my colleagues and {I/me/myself}."? I'm currently using Cambridge English Advanced 1. It's a book that contains past examination papers, and includes numerous samples of authentic writing. This material helps, candidates and teachers, understand what the examiners are ‘testing’ and how these papers are marked. The assessment covers four categories: content, communicative achievement, organisation and language. Each category is awarded a mark between 1 and 5, so the maximum score is 20, and each mark has a brief note attached by the examiner. Any errors of punctuation, orthography, grammar, appropriacy, and vocabulary are left intact. In fact, there are no corrections because the ‘examiner’ does not specify where the errors lie. This can be frustrating, even though spelling mistakes are rare at the advanced level, and errors in style, collocation or register are still relatively easy to identify, sometimes I'll read a phrase that forces me to ponder. Dear Director, [ TEXT ] To conclude, this letter is a polite request to cover the costs of a 2 month language course for my colleagues and me. We would be very pleased if the company would do us this favour. Yours sincerely John Smith The following marks were awarded Content 5 blah, blah, … Communicative Achievement 2 blah, blah, … Organisation 3 blah, blah, … Language 3 blah, blah, … I am able to pick out six minor errors in that brief extract, maybe some users will identify more, maybe some will identify fewer, and maybe some will say that the language used is perfectly acceptable. But if I can help a candidate attain that elusive B, I would be delighted. I am interested in (what could be) the 7th error, emphasised in bold. Because the letter of proposal is formal, I feel the phrase, for my colleagues and me, is jarring. I want to change it to for my colleagues and I, but the antecedent requires an object. You would not say: “This is a request to cover the cost […] for I”. So, why use the subject pronoun I in the expression “my colleagues and…”? Could I use instead, myself? Which of the following is preferable in a formal written proposal? …for my colleagues and me …for my colleagues and I …for my colleagues and myself EDITED: I found a of the writing sample (11/11) if anyone is interested. I've looked at the following question, Some answers appear to be contradictory, the accepted answer says using I and me are both grammatical, which in my example is not true. Moreover, there's no mention of myself, as a possible solution, in the question. | eng_Latn | 17,010 |
How to use his/her about a general group of people Is it customary to use his instead of her even if you refer only to women like in my example below. It is a comment to a woman from a woman, likely referring to only women. Shouldn't you say "her own way"? Everybody is naughty in his own way dear. It's not if it should be his/her or their. It is if it is about women, should you not use her instead of him? Basically does it mean that the person saying it is a man not a woman? | Is it correct to use "their" instead of "his or her"? Is this sentence grammatically correct? Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in their bookcase. or should it be: Anyone who loves the English language should have a copy of this book in his or her bookcase. | I can run faster than _____. (1) him (2) he? Consider the sentence "I can run faster than 15 miles per hour." Its meaning is clear and to my eyes obviously grammatically correct. Now let me present some variations that have given me trouble for a long time. I am faster than 15 miles per hour. – To me this is clearly incorrect. Directly comparing me to a speed doesn't seem right. We need to compare my speed to a speed, or me to another person. I can run faster than him. – Compared to the base sentence, there is a distinct shift in meaning of the comparison. While before I named a speed faster than which I can run, now I am naming a person. It doesn't seem quite right. I realize the parts of speech can change, but my initial objection is that "him" is not a speed. I can run faster than he. – This seems most correct to me, but still somehow feels objectionable. Is this in fact the correct way to say it? And if so, is it proper as is or need I say "... faster than he can" or even "... faster than he can run?" I am faster than him. – With "am" instead of "can run" it now seems slightly more correct. But is it? I am faster than he. – I'm in doubt here. It doesn't seem wrong to me to say, "I am faster than he is" or even "I am faster than he is fast." (Though I suppose that is a given since I could hardly properly compare to some other category as in "I am faster than he is smart.") My speed is faster than his. – Hmm. This seems more proper as "my speed is greater than his." So which of these constructions is correct and which is incorrect? Is there a general rule that I can follow? UPDATE The scholarly article may be of great interest to some readers! Once we accept that the elided constituent and its antecedent can differ in form, it becomes reasonable to ask how large this difference can be. The answer in Rooth (1992), Fiengo and May (1994), Chung et al. (1995) and subsequent work is that the wiggle room is actually quite small: the elided constituent and its antecedent are allowed to differ only in the realization of inflectional morphology. Other than that, both constituents have to be syntactically and lexically isomorphic. | eng_Latn | 17,011 |
Singular they = general they Well, here is the situation. I have four students. They did a test. Suppose that the regulation is a student getting a score below 40 gets the remark "study hard" which is written at the bottom of the work instead of a numerical score. When I want to confirm this, may I say: They get study hard if their SCORE IS (instead of SCORES ARE) below 40, right? | "On their back" or "on their backs"? After the therapy, eight children (43%) became able to crawl/move on their back. Or should I use "on their backs"? Singular because each child only has one back, or plural because we're dealing with eight backs? | Is it correct to say "I write children books" (not possessive case)? Although Children's books is what everybody says, I would like to understand why the genitive case is applied in such case. If I write books for children, children is an adjective here; not the owners of my book! The word "children" just defines or characterizes the type of books I write. Therefore, it's an adjective. So, I understand that genitive/possessive case ("I write children's book") is incorrect grammar. My question is: is the genitive case here really accepted as right? If I use "I write children books" (following the grammar principle) as as I say "I write pets books" (books about pets, and not possessions of pets) - would I be incorrect? Why? | eng_Latn | 17,012 |
Syntax Highlighting - Two Character Identifiers I noticed a bug/feature with the syntax highlighting where two-character capitalized identifiers are not being highlighted inside code blocks. This does not appear to be a problem in the case of two-letter identifiers where only one of the letters is capitalized. I.e. System.IO fails to highlight "IO", but System.Io would be fully highlighted. Example is C#: I apologize if this has been inquired upon before, I didn't see it in my brief search. | What is syntax highlighting and how does it work? I noticed that sometimes my code gets highlighted in different colors when rendered. What is syntax highlighting? How does it work? Why isn't my code being highlighted correctly? How do I report a bug or request a new language? How do I use syntax highlighting? What languages are currently available on Stack Exchange? | When should "Mom" and "Dad" be capitalized? I am trying to understand capitalization rules with Mom and Dad. I believe I have it correct below, but please let me know if I do not. The one thing I learned from my dad was that it was good to earn the trust of one's children. Dad has shown me how good that a dad can be. One day when I went to his house, and Dad wasn't there, I ran outside.... The above passage is just made-up just so that you would see what I mean about capitalization. Let's put numbers by each one, like so: The one thing I learned from my dad(1) was that it was good to earn the trust of one's children. Dad(2) has shown me how good that a dad(3) can be. One day when I went to his house, and Dad(4) wasn't there, I ran outside.... This is one where I'm not certain. I believe in this sense I'm showing possession here with "my", and it just didn't seem right saying "my Dad". I don't know what the grammar rule is here, or if I even have it right. This one is obvious—it starts the sentence. In this case, I'm using Dad like a name instead of saying "Larry". Therefore, it should be capitalized. Again, just like 3. | eng_Latn | 17,013 |
Can I use "Firstly" while writing email? Is this a correct word to use in communication? I had a problem while writing emails where I want to tell few things in order. I had used "Firstly" in the email but I am not very sure is it a correct way to talk or write. | Can "firstly" be used in the same meaning as "at first/initially"? I've come across many sources claiming that the words firstly and first (as an adverb) can be used interchangeably. They, however, only seemed to be comparing their meanings with regard to enumerations - first(ly) I want to say ..., second(ly) ..., last(ly) ... What bothers me more is if the word firstly is also usable within the meaning of at first or initially like in the sentence: Muons (subatomic particles) were firstly observed in cosmic rays. The word first fits there very well, but is that the case for firstly too? I have not found a dictionary definition or example saying so. | Formal writing: "…for my colleagues and {I/me/myself}."? I'm currently using Cambridge English Advanced 1. It's a book that contains past examination papers, and includes numerous samples of authentic writing. This material helps, candidates and teachers, understand what the examiners are ‘testing’ and how these papers are marked. The assessment covers four categories: content, communicative achievement, organisation and language. Each category is awarded a mark between 1 and 5, so the maximum score is 20, and each mark has a brief note attached by the examiner. Any errors of punctuation, orthography, grammar, appropriacy, and vocabulary are left intact. In fact, there are no corrections because the ‘examiner’ does not specify where the errors lie. This can be frustrating, even though spelling mistakes are rare at the advanced level, and errors in style, collocation or register are still relatively easy to identify, sometimes I'll read a phrase that forces me to ponder. Dear Director, [ TEXT ] To conclude, this letter is a polite request to cover the costs of a 2 month language course for my colleagues and me. We would be very pleased if the company would do us this favour. Yours sincerely John Smith The following marks were awarded Content 5 blah, blah, … Communicative Achievement 2 blah, blah, … Organisation 3 blah, blah, … Language 3 blah, blah, … I am able to pick out six minor errors in that brief extract, maybe some users will identify more, maybe some will identify fewer, and maybe some will say that the language used is perfectly acceptable. But if I can help a candidate attain that elusive B, I would be delighted. I am interested in (what could be) the 7th error, emphasised in bold. Because the letter of proposal is formal, I feel the phrase, for my colleagues and me, is jarring. I want to change it to for my colleagues and I, but the antecedent requires an object. You would not say: “This is a request to cover the cost […] for I”. So, why use the subject pronoun I in the expression “my colleagues and…”? Could I use instead, myself? Which of the following is preferable in a formal written proposal? …for my colleagues and me …for my colleagues and I …for my colleagues and myself EDITED: I found a of the writing sample (11/11) if anyone is interested. I've looked at the following question, Some answers appear to be contradictory, the accepted answer says using I and me are both grammatical, which in my example is not true. Moreover, there's no mention of myself, as a possible solution, in the question. | eng_Latn | 17,014 |
Plurality of "neither of whom" I'm finding myself wondering about which of these you'd find more correct: "I went to dinner last night with two young men neither of whom was correctly dressed for the occasion" "I went to dinner last night with two young men neither of whom were correctly dressed for the occasion" The first one sounds right to me, but I don't know why. | Which is correct, "neither is" or "neither are"? Bob: "Can I set the font color? Can I customize the text?" Frank: "Neither of these options is available. Sorry!" Is "neither is" always correct or should one use "neither are" in some cases and what are the exact rules? of this-is-why-stackexchange-exists :P | Using apostrophes correctly I've read a great article about the . But there are still some points that are unclear. Why do we say... school project but not school's project? car service but not car's service or even cars' service (plural form)? apostrophe usage but not apostrophe's usage or apostrophes' usage? | eng_Latn | 17,015 |
Why don’t humans have eyes at the back of their heads? How does evolution rule out the possibility of humans or others fragile herbivores from having 2 pairs of eyes, one at the front and the other at the back of their heads? Why didn’t that ever happen? | Why do some bad traits evolve, and good ones don't? If a trait would be advantageous to an organism then why hasn't it evolved yet? Conversely, if a trait is not advantageous or mildly disadvantageous, why does it exist? In other words why does evolution not make the organism more "perfect"? This is a general question that would be applicable for any kind of trait. Please keep the answers precise and scientific. Read this meta post for more information: | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,016 |
Is the expression "What hath alienators wrought" correct, concordance-wise? I have seen the phrase "What hath alienators wrought" in the name of an article. Searching throught the web I learned that "hath" is the version of "has" in old English, but in the singular case (mostly used in the phrase "What hath God wrought", I guess it's biblical). Therefore, I am guessing that the phrase "What hath alienators wrought" is wrong and should be "What have alienators wrought". Can someone tell me if I'm correct in my guessing or nor, and why? Thanks. | What happened to the “‑est” and “‑eth” verb suffixes in English? What happened to them, and how were they once used? Straining my mind to sound archaic, I came up with the following: Dost thou thinkest thou can escape thy sins? and Bringeth me mine armor and favorite sword. I’d like to use these suffixes intelligently, so my questions are: how are ‑est and ‑eth properly appellated in conjugations, and when and why did they disappear? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,017 |
Do you use "there is" or "there are" before a list? When I use "there are:" (with a colon) to introduce a list starting with a singular item, should I use "there is" or "there are"? According to grammar rules, I should use "there is" if the following item is singular, but in this case the colon introduces a plural group. For example: In my room there [is/are]: a bed, 2 chairs, a table, 2 carpets and a wardrobe. | "There Is"/"There are" depends on plurality of the first list element or not? It seems I put a Bounty assigned by outside party, two lengthy, reference-citing answers, one "-1" (awarded the bounty), one "-2", two others scored "0" and "-2" respectively, the answers suggesting one or the other is correct, 73 comments and no consensus so far - and me, as the asker, lost without a clue what to think of the answers anymore - this is no longer "Learners' Level" question, so I thought I'd bring it here and hear what the experts have to say. Original question: Plurality of verb depending on plurality of list elements An edit was suggested to my sentence. There was were an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate. In my native language plurality of the verb always follows plurality of the first element on the list. There were an orange,... sounds awkward to me, no matter what follows up. My simple solution was reordering: There were some grapes, an orange, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate. But that's not the first time I faced this situation and I'd like to know what the rules of grammar say about that - was my editor overzealous or am I trying to copy rules of my language that don't apply in English? Someone linked a for negatives, where the situation is more clear-cut ("There is no..."). Same applies to connection with "or" apparently, per accepted answer there. Still, nothing for "and". It seems there is a consensus that in that if the verb goes after the list, it will be plural. an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries were on the plate. There doesn't seem to be clear consensus for: On the plate { was | were } an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries Adding more to the confusion is the abbreviated form: "There's" One last note. In North America, at least, there is a widespread use of using a singular form like "there is" and "there was", without regard for the subject item or items, and this "there is" is often shortened to "there's": There's three apples on the table! Could you please clarify this mess? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,018 |
Should I use IT or THEM? [...] tonnes of rubbish are being accumulated and the lack of space for (IT/THEM) is becoming a complex problem. Should it be IT or THEM? And why? | Why "was" not "were" in "Nearly £20 was taken from my bank account" I've always said "$100 were taken" not "$100 was taken" because I thought $100 is plural. Could you explain why "was" not "were"? Any other helpful notes about the issue would be appreciated. Nearly £20 was taken from my bank account | Changing plurality in parentheses If a set of parentheses lies between a subject and its verb, and the parentheses contain an substitutive subject whose singularity/plurality disagrees with the original subject, whose singularity/plurality should be chosen for the verb? In other words, in the following example, should "questions" (and its verb "are") be singular, or should they remain plural as shown? Many (if not every) questions on this StackExchange are answered. My intuition tells me that the two words in question should remain in plural forms, since the text in parentheses only interrupts the sentence (and the sentence would be grammatically incorrect if everything in parentheses were removed and the words were in singular form). On the other hand, when read aloud (assuming one reads the text in parentheses), this has an uncomfortable sound to it, and I've seen others write in what would be the above example's singular-form case, so I'm curious to find out which is correct. And, thinking about it, I suppose the same question would apply when commas are used in place of parentheses. | eng_Latn | 17,019 |
Alternative to "X and I's Y" I'm looking for an alternative to expressions of the form "X and I's Y", where X is a person/group and Y is a noun. Examples include: My partner and I's project was well-received. My family and I's trip went well. I'm not even sure if the above two sentences are gramatically correct, but even if they are, they sound awful. What's a better way to say these sentences? | "My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner" I just stumbled upon a : My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner. How does it look? Sure enough, the top comment immediately points out that it should be "my wife's and my". However, a cross-post to the Grammar subreddit produced : It's fine as it is written. "my wife and I" is a noun phrase, functioning as a subjective pronoun in the singular and made possessive with the apostrophe. It is exactly the same as "our". It seems weird because you would never use "I's" on its own but it is not on its own here - it is part of a noun phrase. That's a rather intriguing argument. Does it hold any water? | Formal writing: "…for my colleagues and {I/me/myself}."? I'm currently using Cambridge English Advanced 1. It's a book that contains past examination papers, and includes numerous samples of authentic writing. This material helps, candidates and teachers, understand what the examiners are ‘testing’ and how these papers are marked. The assessment covers four categories: content, communicative achievement, organisation and language. Each category is awarded a mark between 1 and 5, so the maximum score is 20, and each mark has a brief note attached by the examiner. Any errors of punctuation, orthography, grammar, appropriacy, and vocabulary are left intact. In fact, there are no corrections because the ‘examiner’ does not specify where the errors lie. This can be frustrating, even though spelling mistakes are rare at the advanced level, and errors in style, collocation or register are still relatively easy to identify, sometimes I'll read a phrase that forces me to ponder. Dear Director, [ TEXT ] To conclude, this letter is a polite request to cover the costs of a 2 month language course for my colleagues and me. We would be very pleased if the company would do us this favour. Yours sincerely John Smith The following marks were awarded Content 5 blah, blah, … Communicative Achievement 2 blah, blah, … Organisation 3 blah, blah, … Language 3 blah, blah, … I am able to pick out six minor errors in that brief extract, maybe some users will identify more, maybe some will identify fewer, and maybe some will say that the language used is perfectly acceptable. But if I can help a candidate attain that elusive B, I would be delighted. I am interested in (what could be) the 7th error, emphasised in bold. Because the letter of proposal is formal, I feel the phrase, for my colleagues and me, is jarring. I want to change it to for my colleagues and I, but the antecedent requires an object. You would not say: “This is a request to cover the cost […] for I”. So, why use the subject pronoun I in the expression “my colleagues and…”? Could I use instead, myself? Which of the following is preferable in a formal written proposal? …for my colleagues and me …for my colleagues and I …for my colleagues and myself EDITED: I found a of the writing sample (11/11) if anyone is interested. I've looked at the following question, Some answers appear to be contradictory, the accepted answer says using I and me are both grammatical, which in my example is not true. Moreover, there's no mention of myself, as a possible solution, in the question. | eng_Latn | 17,020 |
Need and need to Which one of the two sentences - "Do I need mention that she is my wife" or "Do I need to mention that she is my wife" - is correct use. | "need to do" vs "need do" Consider: I need to do this. I need do this. My English grammar knowledge tells me that "need" doesn't have the same status as the modal verbs "may", "can", "should" and what not. Hence the second usage where two verbs appear consecutively is incorrect. But yesterday, my native English speaking friends (Americans) told me that "I need compute this." is a perfectly grammatical sentence, and one is simply omitting the "to". How can this be? Is it a colloquial usage but grammatically incorrect, or is it grammatically correct? If it is grammatically correct, is it because "need" is a semi-modal verb? EDIT: in particular, is it okay to use "need compute" in a scientific paper? EDIT2: the exact phrase that raised the question was "The advantage of this representation is that we need only compute sums and products" | This is the gift that my dad sent (to) me This is the gift that my dad sent me on my birthday. Vs This is the gift that my dad sent to me on my birthday. Is to required? Also Presenting you guys, the trailer of the film. Vs Presenting to you guys, the trailer of the film. Is to required? | eng_Latn | 17,021 |
Prawn vs prawns 1) Is a pasta topped with actual calamari and prawns not a "calamari and prawns pasta" ? 2) Prawn is a noun and the plural is prawns right? 3) Whats the reason behind the "prawn cocktail" use? 4) Can I say that a plate contains five prawns? Thx | When are attributive nouns plural? Sorry for the title, it is not very evident and intuitive but I really do not how to tell it better... Well, you know, several times, or better, many times, we use this form: If I want to say: "development of special weapons was the first point in Hitler's program..." I will say this (a better form): "special weapon development was..." OK... is it "special weapon development" or "special weapons development" (note the plural...) what's the grammar rule in order to understand how to use this very used form? | Marking plural of code words In my blog (which is about programming) I often use reserved words from different programming languages. Like this: When column is nullable in both tables, this query won't return a match of two NULLs for the reasons described above: no NULLs are equal. Here, NULL is a programming language keyword. For numerous reasons, I mark them with <code> tag so they are rendered with a fixed width font, not translated into the foreign languages by Google Translate, can easily be seen on the page etc. In the example above, which would be the best way to mark the plural? NULLs NULL s NULL's NULLs NULLS Option 1 looks ugly on the page (the word and the plural marker are rendered in different colors and fonts) Option 2 adds a space between the word and the plural marker Option 3 looks nicest but is not correct Options 4 and 5 may leave the reader under impression that NULLS is a reserved word (which is not true) and this may be confusing. Also, Google Translate would leave the word as is which would be definitely wrong in other languages. What would be the least of 5 evils? | eng_Latn | 17,022 |
Two questions are what I wanted to ask In sentences like "Two questions are what I wanted to ask", should I treat the subject, "Two questions", as singular or plural? It seems more natural to treat it as plural. But when I reverse the subjects I'll need to use the singular form instead : "What I wanted to ask is two questions" and this doesn't look very natural. Does the same apply to chronological sentences like "5 months is/are what I have left to finish this project of mine"? | Is it "5–6 weeks are a lot of time" or "5–6 weeks is a lot of time"? I was just copyediting and my native English speaker Sprachgefühl told me I had to correct the grammar of one sentence: ... 5–6 weeks are a lot of time ... by changing the are to is. But as I was doing so I started wondering why is it that in this case it seems that I have to make the verb disagree with the plural subject? So is my feeling for English going bad or if I did the right thing, how could I explain this to somebody who's learning English for instance? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,023 |
Can "it's" be omitted in the following case? She wriggles herself closer to me. (It's) Definitely not my imagination playing a prank on me. I wonder if you can omit "it's" in situations like these (at least in informal writing). I checked Google Books and found only instance of this usage. But I still have some doubts. That's why I'm asking here. | "Looking forward to hearing from you" - May I omit "I am" at the beginning? At the end of a letter, is it correct to omit "I am" in this sentence? I am looking forward to hearing from you Then it will become: Looking forward to hearing from you | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,024 |
"Me and Joey's" or "mine and Joey's" Which of the following should I use? Today is me and Joey's anniversary Today is mine and Joey's anniversary | "My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner" I just stumbled upon a : My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner. How does it look? Sure enough, the top comment immediately points out that it should be "my wife's and my". However, a cross-post to the Grammar subreddit produced : It's fine as it is written. "my wife and I" is a noun phrase, functioning as a subjective pronoun in the singular and made possessive with the apostrophe. It is exactly the same as "our". It seems weird because you would never use "I's" on its own but it is not on its own here - it is part of a noun phrase. That's a rather intriguing argument. Does it hold any water? | Citation: refer to author or paper? What is the British English way of referring to a source in-text. Is it plural because there are two authors, like this: X and Y (2011) describe ... Or is it singular because you are referring to a singular source, like this: X and Y (2011) describes... So what I am asking is whether you refer to the source or to the authors? | eng_Latn | 17,025 |
Subject of a sentence the number of passengers in cruise ships is also soaring Why is the verb used here 'is' ? I thought number of passengers is plural and the verb used should be 'are' ? Pls help.. Thanks ! | The number of books in economics that we need to buy (is/are) three 1) The number of books in economics that we need to buy (is/are) three. or 2) A number of books in economics that we can buy for the course (is/are) available in the college book store. Possible answers: a)is b)are My approach: I am confused here why is and are are used in the 1 and 2 sentence. What they exactly mean according to subject verb agreement rules. | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,026 |
Genitive s for objects If you say the aim of Ben, you can also say Ben's aim. If you say the objective of the project (which is not a person but an object), do you say the project's objective or the projects objective? | Can a possessive S be attached to nouns that are not human beings (or animals)? Can a possessive S be attached to nouns that are not human beings (or animals)? For example, instead of saying "the back of the chair", can I say "the chair's back"? I remember learning that not everything can get a possessive s, but this issue is not clear to me. | How should I refer to a friend who is a girl but not a girlfriend? When I'm talking about my friend, who is a girl, but not a girlfriend, what word or phrase should I use? If the gender was unimportant, it would not be a problem. But if I want to note that the friend is female, not male, how should I say that, to avoid ambiguity? | eng_Latn | 17,027 |
List of names when there is ownership associated Ok, so I am supposed to order business cards for people, then the company sends me the proof which I check over for correctness. When I do three on the people's names are right, one is wrong. So I want to write, Angel, Jane, and Peter's cards are correct, but Jim's name is misspelled. This doesn't look right to me. It makes me feel like Peter is owning all the possesive and not sharing with Angel and Jane, who have cards that are just as correct. What would be the best way to write this sentence? Thanks, Rose. | "Nikki's and Alice's X" vs. "Nikki and Alice's X" Which option is grammatical? There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni’s and Alice Walker’s writings. There will be readings from Nikki Giovanni and Alice Walker's writings. Saying it out loud the latter sounds right, but looking at it the former looks better. | possessive apostrophe for two things or persons What is the difference between the two sentences below? Are they the same or different in meaning? Jack and Laura's new house is almost ready. Jack's and Laura's new house is almost ready. To my perception, the first says two of them have one house and the second says each one has a (different) house (which is almost ready). Is my perception correct? EDIT: If I don't use "houses" instead of "house" (for my second interpretation), does it mean the sentence is wrong? | eng_Latn | 17,028 |
Neither the plates nor the serving bowl "goes" or "go" on that shelf? Neither the plates nor the serving bowl goes on that shelf. Neither the plates nor the serving bowl go on that shelf. What form of the verb is better in this context, singular or plural? Which is correct and why? | "Neither Michael nor Albert is correct" or "Neither Michael nor Albert are correct"? What is the correct sentence? Neither Michael nor Albert is correct. Neither Michael nor Albert are correct. | "put X down to" vs. "put down X to": subjects of verbs with two particles I expect I would have to put down many coats to do the job. () One factor to distinguish phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs is particle movement. Phrasal verbs can place the particle before or after direct object, whereas the preposition in prepositional verbs must precede the noun. (Biber et al. 1999) So, I'm confused when analyzing the fragment "put down many coats to" because I'm not able to distinguish whether "put ... " is a phrasal verb or a prepositional verb. The confusion arises when I read in the Oxford Dictionary of English, under 'put' → 'phrasal verb', the form "put something down to" is correct. So, the above sentence would be rewritten as follows : I expect I would have to put many coats down to do the job. Am I right? If not, how do I correctly distinguish phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs in the cases, like this one, where there are two particles (in this case 'down' and 'to')? | eng_Latn | 17,029 |
One's or ones possesive noun or not? It is my first question on any stackoverflow site, so sorry if I have not researched the current available questions and answers enough (I tried), but I have thoroughly searched both the internet and the english stackoverflow site as well as I could (I was not sure as to what tag I should have searched to get the correct answer to my question). That aside I am stuck as to whether I am using a possessive noun or a non possessive noun. The question is pretty simple which sentence is correct. Many other online IQ tests rely on knowledge orientated questions to test ones IQ. Or Many other online IQ tests rely on knowledge orientated questions to test one's IQ. I understand one is correct and one is not, but it would be most helpful if someone could explain what the true difference between the two is, and when I should use one and not the other. I am no English language expert, and I am sure this has been answered many times on this site but I could not find it, I am sure as I continue to use the stackoverflow websites I will become more efficient at finding answers to my questions. If anyone has any tips on how to do this I would be most grateful, maybe a little FAQ on how to search? | Is the possessive of "one" spelled "ones" or "one's"? I've been confused about this as long as I can remember. Should it be: One should do ones duty. or One should do one's duty. I'm guessing it should be the latter. But that doesn't sit well with the possessive pronoun 'its'. For example: It is its own purpose. vs. It is it's own purpose. Here, the former seems clearly correct. | 'I have decided to purchase a jet for getting to NYC and back more quickly.' Are the following sentences grammatical or not? If not, does substituting a to-infinite make them grammatical? (Optional: designate if the sentence expresses purpose, reason, aim, or function) 1 I have decided to purchase a jet for getting to NYC and back more quickly. 2 I have decided to buy a jet for having a quicker way to get to NYC and back. This is my only reason and aim; this will be the jet's only purpose and function. 3 I hate hairdryers, so I am buying a space heater for drying my hair more naturally, and that is my only aim & purpose & reason and that will be its only function 4 For having a lasting shine in your hair, buy ShineOn Shampoo. 5 My neighbor and I have decided to cooperate more for having a better life together. Research done: ELL (Note the here is a restatement of Cambridge Dictionary's ) ELL ELL BBC English (Currently the best site I've found.) ELU All of which have answers that I find (i) incomplete (ii) contradictory (iii) terribly confusing, if not (iv) wrong. To sort through the haze, I am focusing on one issue. Background Some sources say that you need to use a to-infinitive for expressing purpose, aim, function, reason, etc. I find these to be rather hazy distinctions, given that the ODO defines as The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists and the same work lists as : aim, reason, function, etc. It is my assertion that at least some of the following sentences demonstrate that one can use the -ing form (be it a gerund, verbal noun, participle) to express individual purpose (aim, reason, function, intention, whatever you want to call it). Do you agree, or not? Why (not)? In shorter terms, are the sentences grammatical? or do we have to substitute a to-infinitive (including in order to + infinitive) to make them grammatical? (Optional: designate if the sentence expresses purpose, reason, aim, function, etc.) | eng_Latn | 17,030 |
Question about dual possesive nouns I am writing a technical letter for my (and my lab partner’s) senior design project (we are engineering majors) and I would like some help on properly phrasing part of the letter. The project belongs to my partner and I. I was always taught in school that in cases of dual possession, I should always proceed the other possessors. Suppose for a moment that the project was just mine. Then in that case, the sentence below would be grammatically correct. Attached to this email is my project selection. Now if the project only belonged to my partner, this sentence would also be grammatically correct. Attached to this email is my partner's project selection. However, since this project belongs to both of us, I need to phrase the sentence accordingly. The sentence below doesn’t appear to be correct in my opinion. Attached to this email is my partner and I's project selection. This one sounds better, but doesn’t follow the rules I was taught. Attached to this email is mine and my partner’s project selection. So which phrase (if any) should I use to be grammatically correct? Thanks | "My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner" I just stumbled upon a : My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner. How does it look? Sure enough, the top comment immediately points out that it should be "my wife's and my". However, a cross-post to the Grammar subreddit produced : It's fine as it is written. "my wife and I" is a noun phrase, functioning as a subjective pronoun in the singular and made possessive with the apostrophe. It is exactly the same as "our". It seems weird because you would never use "I's" on its own but it is not on its own here - it is part of a noun phrase. That's a rather intriguing argument. Does it hold any water? | Using "you" and "your" as a representation for yourself and everyone in general Example sentence: I love when your dog just lets you sit there to pet them. You don’t necessarily know if they are enjoying it, but they love you enough to just sit there with you for a bit. Is this correct? We assume the words "you" and "your" refer to the speaker of the sentence, and not to the listener, as second-person usually does. But it also refers to dog owners in general. I have always been curious about this. | eng_Latn | 17,031 |
Collecting metals from electronic waste and reusing them to make other products "is" or "are"...? I want to if this sentence is correct. Collecting metals from electronic waste and reusing them to make other products is called the “urban mining industry. In the sentence the two gerunds are used as a subject and the verb is 'is', the singular form. Is is correct? Is it wrong if I use 'are' as a verb? | Singular vs. Plural with Multiple Gerunds as Subject (IE: [Gerund] and [Gerund] are/is [something].) I'm trying to find out whether I should use a singular or plural verb when there are multiple gerunds as the subject of the sentence. For example: Running the correct course and keeping a steady pace are/is necessary in order to win. With either one of these by itself, "is" would be correct: Running the correct course is necessary in order to win. Keeping a steady pace is necessary in order to win. With both gerunds combined, I can't seem to figure out whether the verb should stay singular since each phrase is singular, or if it should become plural since there are two connected by "and". If we just treat the gerunds as regular nouns, then obviously it would become "are", but I'm not sure if gerunds have the exact same rules as regular nouns. I know that if the sentence was: Running the correct course and keeping a steady pace are both necessary. That "are" would be correct, but without the "both" it sounds incorrect to me. Does anyone know the official rule here? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,032 |
In the phrase "my dog wiggles it's butt" is the use of the apostrophe correct? In the phrase "My dog wiggles it's butt" there seems to be a division of opinion as to whether the use of the apostrophe is grammatically correct. I suggest that as the dog in question is the owner of the butt in question and that said dog is an animate object replaced by the use of the word it then the apostrophe is a correct. Just as we use the apostrophe to show possession in the phrase "Mary's head." | What is the best way to explain how to choose between "its" and "it's"? Probably one of the most frequent grammar mistakes in the English language is: The dog sat on it's mat. Since spelling checkers don't catch it, and it is even logical, since you would correctly write: The dog sat on Fluffy's mat. What is the best way to explain to a learner of English how to choose between it's and its? | Could "them" mean "those"? Background Nowadays, I see "them" used to mean "those" a lot. I don't know if it was as common in the past. For example, take "one of ". On researching about it, I found some people say it comes from a dialect of British English. Some others say it is a "non-standard" usage. I see this usage in Canadian English also, and it seems some people use it in a sarcastic way. Moreover, I have seen a song titled "one of them days". I also read, in the book called "A Broken Promise", "" Finally, Wikipedia says that it is a usage in (a common name for the Southern Midland dialect of American English): Pronouns and demonstratives "Them" is sometimes used in place of "those" as a demonstrative in both nominative and oblique constructions. Examples are "Them are the pants I want" and "Give me some of them crackers." Question(s): What would you say about the usage of this word? Is it correct? Could we use it in daily speech? Could this usage go beyond a specific dialect and be used in other dialects, regions, etc.? Does it really originate from Appalachian English? Why did this usage become popular among other English speakers? Note: I have already seen a similar question: However, it only says, "ungrammatical," there. This question is specific to this situation only, and there is more to it. | eng_Latn | 17,033 |
"One of the tools I use is/are magnet/magnets" | Is the use of "one of the" correct in the following context? | Correct usage for "all you need is/are..." | eng_Latn | 17,034 |
Is it common to use the plural when the subject is an organization? | Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular? | Singular or plural following a list | eng_Latn | 17,035 |
If you or somebody you know ... are/is ...? | When should we use proximity rule in "either/or", and "neither/nor"? | Please don't refer to 2019 as 'a great year' | eng_Latn | 17,036 |
What is the meaning of *them* in this sentence? I mean what does them refer to in this sentence? | Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")? | Does this sentence seem weird? | eng_Latn | 17,037 |
Grammar: Should the sentence say, "my sister or I" or "my sister or me"? | "My wife and I's seafood collaboration dinner" | I can run faster than _____. (1) him (2) he? | eng_Latn | 17,038 |
"that one consider" or "that one considers"? | Does "it is entirely possible that" require the subjunctive form of the verb following "that"? | Is the use of "one of the" correct in the following context? | eng_Latn | 17,039 |
What the function of the pronoun"it" here, does it refer to the contractor because the author did not know precisely what the contractor's gender is? | Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")? | Property of Entire Functions | eng_Latn | 17,040 |
Detect verb form (plural or singular) in textcite from biblatex | (semi)-Automatic pluralization around a citation | Apply empty style to the entire bibliography | eng_Latn | 17,041 |
photo caption ... me or I? | Should I put myself last? "me and my friends" vs. "my friends and me" or "my friends and I" | They are quite full up this year. | eng_Latn | 17,042 |
Why is the apostrophe positioned differently in "ones' complement" than "two's complement"? | Apostrophe difference (Ones' and Two's Complement) | Apostrophe difference (Ones' and Two's Complement) | eng_Latn | 17,043 |
What does this pronoun "them" refer to here? | ‘It’ – ambiguous antecedent? | "None" as plural indefinite pronoun | eng_Latn | 17,044 |
Is this necklace its? | "Its" as a Possessive Pronoun | This site is all about getting answers. It's not a discussion forum. There's no chit-chat. | eng_Latn | 17,045 |
human recruited as replacement "pusher" for spaceship The title says most of it. There are other crew members with different duties, and one of them talks about the tree he's going to buy when he gets home. The author's name is probably Robert. I don't know how else to look for it. | Short story with spaceship and humanity not realising they should be on it The plot is about: A spaceship travelling through the universe Earth is a rogue planet whose inhabitants have been cut off and don't realise that their true purpose is to be part of the spaceship The reason earth was in turmoil (wars etc.) was that they didn't realise that their true role was to fit into the ship The ship contained 3 or 4 beings that made the thing work Planets throughout the universe are populated with the various beings which are components of the space craft I seem to remember like an eye shaped being Each of them fulfil their role Humans are part of that as well. There are loads of planets with humans on but earth has gotten overlooked so it never realised that's what they were designed for The story concludes with the ships picking up someone from Earth and with the "human" realising that this is what they should really be doing Humans have a different name that explains their role in the ship. I probably read it around 30 years ago in English in a sci-fi collection book. | Conjugation: Do we cite authors or papers? When referencing to another work in a scientific paper, do we cite the paper or its author(s)? This question is intended to clarify the conjugation of the verb that follows the reference -- especially in these cases: One author, two papers: Jane Doe (2015a, 2015b) list-s the very specific conditions under which... -> lists (singular: referencing to Jane Doe) or list (plural: referencing to both papers) Several authors, one paper: John Doe, et al. (2015) claim-s this and that. -> claim (plural: referencing to the multiple authors of the paper) or claims (singular: referencing to the single paper). | eng_Latn | 17,046 |
Everyone singular or plural in "except" questions 1)Everyone, except Jess and Susie, was present at the company meeting yesterday. 2)Everyone, except Jess and Susie, were present at the company meeting yesterday. Which is correct? | Is "everyone" singular or plural? Which is correct? Everyone were convinced that he would go to the game. Everyone was convinced that he would go to the game. I think it's "was", because "everyone" is singular, but I just wanted to check. | taller than any student or taller than any other student Which of the following sentences is correct? a) 1. John is taller than any student in his class. 2. John is taller than any other student in his class. b) 1. No student is taller than John in his class. 2. No other student is taller than John in his class. | eng_Latn | 17,047 |
Two-year program or Two-years program? Which is correct, a "two-year" program or "two-years" program? The difference between two expressions is the absence/presence of "s", i.e., singular or plural. | Why is "letter" not plural in "two letter words"? Why is "letter" not plural in "two letter words"? For me it's very strange as the equivalent in French would be plural but my English friend finds it totally normal. | Is there an exception to the prohibition against ending a sentence with “ ’s ” at work here? The ’s can be used as a contraction representing a weak, unstressed word that is not pronounced. It allegedly cannot occur in sentence final position. She is not ready, but he is. She’s not ready, but he is. She’s not ready, but *he’s. The last one is not grammatical there. Similarly, here the last one is not grammatical: He has not started yet, but she has. He’s not started yet, but she has. He’s not started yet, but *she’s. claims this is because you cannot end a sentence with a weak form. It backs up its point with reasonably scholarly documentation. However, this does not seem to be invariably true. Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let us go. Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let’s go. Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let’s. Unlike the third example in the first two sets, here in this case the third example is indeed grammatical, despite ending with a weak form. Is this an exception to the rule, or is there another rule at work here? | eng_Latn | 17,048 |
Question about apostrophe usage with 2 possessors Normally, with a single person owning the object, I would say: This is Tom's object. However, if there are 2 people, should I have apostrophes on both subjects or just on the second one? E.g. These are Tom's and Jane's objects. / These are Tom and Jane's objects. | possessive apostrophe for two things or persons What is the difference between the two sentences below? Are they the same or different in meaning? Jack and Laura's new house is almost ready. Jack's and Laura's new house is almost ready. To my perception, the first says two of them have one house and the second says each one has a (different) house (which is almost ready). Is my perception correct? EDIT: If I don't use "houses" instead of "house" (for my second interpretation), does it mean the sentence is wrong? | Possessive Form of a Proper Noun Ending in a Plural Noun Ending in "s"? I don't think this has yet been covered in . There was , however, it was not specifically talking about the case where the proper noun ends in a plural noun. Feel free to vote to close if I am wrong. What is the correct way to make a proper noun ending in a plural noun ending in an "s" possessive? This frequently happens with corporations, e.g., "Dunkin' Donuts." Should one work off of the fact that the entity is singular—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts's—or should one work off of the fact that "Donuts" is plural and ending in an "s"—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts'? I expect that the answer might depend on dialect because some regions refer to corporations in the singular form ("Dunkin' Donuts is a company") while other regions refer to corporations in the plural form ("Dunkin' Donuts are a company"). I am specifically interested in American English, but would be interested in hearing answers for other dialects too. | eng_Latn | 17,049 |
It is us? It is we? Which would it be--it is us, or it is we? "Who is the real culprit? It is us, the ignorant, apathetic people of America." Or, "Who is the real culprit? It is we, the ignorant, apathetic people of America." Or plural? "Who are the real culprits? They are us, the ignorant, apathetic people of America." (Sounds more like the name of a retail store--They R Us.) | "It is they who lied" or "it is them who lied?" Which is the correct usage of the third person, plural pronoun? It is they who lied. It is them who lied. | What is the plural of the abbreviation of "multiplicity automaton", "MA" or "MAs"? The "multiplicity automaton (MA)" is a model in compute science and its plural is "multiplicity automata". Should the plural of the abbreviation be MA or MAs? is not a duplicate as it is focused on cases like "ATMs" where the expanded form "automated teller machines" has a regular plural ending in "s." Unlike "machines," the word "automata" has an irregular plural that does not end in "s." It's unclear from the linked answers how abbreviations that end in words like this should be pluralized. A high-ranking mentions "VIPs," but a high-ranking says VIPs' is a strange one. It could be argued that the expanded acronym, when pluralized, should be 'Very Important People' rather than 'Very Important Persons'. Using this argument, 'VIP' could be used as a singular or plural noun. "The VIP has arrived." "The VIP have arrived." I'm not sure anyone else would agree with my logic, though. | eng_Latn | 17,050 |
Are there any rules for genitive case not indicating possesion? My teacher, a native English speaker, was quite puzzled when I asked this and could not answer this question. Why there is: child seat but children's love //why these are different developer's conference //why not developers conference, they do not own it rooms' furnishings The question is, how to tell when to use the genitive and when simple noun? | Genitive case or attributive noun Is there any rule for when it is better to use genitive case or noun as adjective? I'm not sure if there is any difference in meaning in this example: The department of accounting The accounting department Can I also use both forms in situations like: The restaurants of Paris / The Paris restaurants The room window / The window of the room | "Has/Have/Had" as a main verb and auxiliary verb I need help regarding the use of has/have/had both as a main verb and as an auxiliary verb. In the sentence below, the word has acts as the main verb. I would normally follow it with the phrase "so do I." Kenny has a car, and so do I. On the other hand, the word has in the following sentence acts as an auxiliary verb. I would normally follow it with the phrase "so have I." Kenny has bought a car, and so have I. a) Are sentences 1 & 2 above correct? I'm under the impression that so do I is used when has/have/had is the main verb of a sentence, and so have/had I if it's an auxiliary verb in a sentence. b) Does the verb has/have always need a supporting "auxiliary verb" (either implied or mentioned)? (e.g., Kenny has a car = Kenny does have a car.) | eng_Latn | 17,051 |
Should "Ladies" be marked with an apostrophe in the noun phrase "Ladies beer"? What should it say on a label: Is it "ladies' beer" or "ladies beer?" | User’s Guide vs Users’ Guide I’ve been looking over what has been posted regarding the use of ’s. I used to be a Technical Writer (years ago). The title of one of our training documents was Users’ Guide. Once, a coworker said every time he saw that title he expected users to start coming. Never made any sense to me, but I have to admit that the majority of us didn't understand the use of s’ in place of ’s. What is the difference? | Bread and butter is/are my breakfast? Bread and butter (is or are) my breakfast? And what's the difference between the above sentence and saying "My breakfast is bread and butter"? Thanks. | eng_Latn | 17,052 |
When whoever vs. whomever fails the he/him test The following example fails the he/him test for whoever/whomever: Please give the key to whoever needs to open that cabinet. Give the key to him or he? Give the key to him. However, when asking who opened that cabinet, he works instead. So the question, then, is which part of the sentence do we perform the trick on? The predicate is "open that cabinet," which would mean whoever does take on the subject and is correct here. But why isn't "give the key" the predicate? | "Put me in touch with whomever created it"? He created it. Put me in touch with him. So which is correct and why: Put me in touch with whomever created it. Put me in touch with whoever created it. | Should I capitalize the word "that" in a title? Since the version of the word "that" might matter to the correct answer, I'll provide the actual title in question: Title: Existing Solutions that Didn't Work If someone could explain the why of the answer, I would be appreciative. EDIT: It has been suggested that this is a duplicate, and that may be, in a sense. However, the after reading the suggested prior question, I'm no closer to my answer. I think it may have to do with my use of the word "that." Perhaps it is incorrect? Using these definitions of the word "that:" I'm having trouble figuring out which definition of that matches my title. Am I even using it correctly? Perhaps I should use which instead: Possible Title: Existing Solutions which Didn't Work If my original usage is incorrect, and I should use which, then the answer is simple since which is always a pronoun or adjective, and those are both capitalized in a title. However, I'm having difficulty understanding which part of speech that is in my original title. | eng_Latn | 17,053 |
When to use "me or I" I would like to know the correct way to use "me" or "I" Please add George and me to the distribution list. Or is the correct way, Please add George and I to the distribution list. | Is it "I" or "me" in "Keep Tom and I/me updated"? In this case what is correct? Keep Tom and I updated. or Keep Tom and me updated. I understand that me is an object pronoun. And therefore I feel the second option is correct. Especially, because I would say "Keep him updated" and also "Keep me updated". Instead of "Keep he updated" or "Keep I updated". But something about saying "Keep him and me updated" feels wrong. However I am not sure, because several people have told me that in this case I is the correct option because it is being used in conjunction with a name (Tom) and not a pronoun. Is that correct? | “The group of fifty people {is / are} going to arrive Thursday” - which is preferred? Isn't the following sentence grammatically correct? The group of fifty people are going to arrive Thursday. What's wrong with it? Someone said it should be The group of fifty people is going to arrive Thursday. Why? People is plural so why is people is better than people are? | eng_Latn | 17,054 |
Is “What does the woman suggest the man **do** for his vacation?” correct? I just went through an official English test taken in China, and I saw something rather weird. Whenever I read this sentence, something tells me that the "do" part isn't right, it simply doesn't sound right to me. Could somebody clarify this for me? Is it, or is it not correct? Man: I can't decide what to do for my summer vacation. I either want to go on a bike tour of Europe or go diving in Mexico. Woman: Well, we're offering an all-inclusive two-week trip to Mexico for only 300 dollars. Question goes as follows : Question : What does the woman suggest the man do for his vacation? Is Do correct? Or is it supposed to be Does? Thank you for reading! Awaiting your replies. Edit: As I'm quite unclear, I'm referring to the question, not the Man/Woman text snippet. Sorry! | Why is this sentence correct? “She suggested that he go to the cinema.” Why is this sentence correct? She suggested that he go to the cinema. I would definitely use goes instead of go. | Formal writing: "…for my colleagues and {I/me/myself}."? I'm currently using Cambridge English Advanced 1. It's a book that contains past examination papers, and includes numerous samples of authentic writing. This material helps, candidates and teachers, understand what the examiners are ‘testing’ and how these papers are marked. The assessment covers four categories: content, communicative achievement, organisation and language. Each category is awarded a mark between 1 and 5, so the maximum score is 20, and each mark has a brief note attached by the examiner. Any errors of punctuation, orthography, grammar, appropriacy, and vocabulary are left intact. In fact, there are no corrections because the ‘examiner’ does not specify where the errors lie. This can be frustrating, even though spelling mistakes are rare at the advanced level, and errors in style, collocation or register are still relatively easy to identify, sometimes I'll read a phrase that forces me to ponder. Dear Director, [ TEXT ] To conclude, this letter is a polite request to cover the costs of a 2 month language course for my colleagues and me. We would be very pleased if the company would do us this favour. Yours sincerely John Smith The following marks were awarded Content 5 blah, blah, … Communicative Achievement 2 blah, blah, … Organisation 3 blah, blah, … Language 3 blah, blah, … I am able to pick out six minor errors in that brief extract, maybe some users will identify more, maybe some will identify fewer, and maybe some will say that the language used is perfectly acceptable. But if I can help a candidate attain that elusive B, I would be delighted. I am interested in (what could be) the 7th error, emphasised in bold. Because the letter of proposal is formal, I feel the phrase, for my colleagues and me, is jarring. I want to change it to for my colleagues and I, but the antecedent requires an object. You would not say: “This is a request to cover the cost […] for I”. So, why use the subject pronoun I in the expression “my colleagues and…”? Could I use instead, myself? Which of the following is preferable in a formal written proposal? …for my colleagues and me …for my colleagues and I …for my colleagues and myself EDITED: I found a of the writing sample (11/11) if anyone is interested. I've looked at the following question, Some answers appear to be contradictory, the accepted answer says using I and me are both grammatical, which in my example is not true. Moreover, there's no mention of myself, as a possible solution, in the question. | eng_Latn | 17,055 |
Is "Greenplant are proud sponsors of..." correct? How is it different from "Greenplant proudly sponsors.."? Greenplant proudly sponsors and Greenplant are proud sponsors of (Greenplant is a business name. It consists of two sites and has a number of employees. However, for me the key aspect of this sentence is that the word Greenplant is singular. Is that correct? It would be good to understand the difference between the two sentences, because, I am being told that one way is right and the other is correct. | Is a company e.g. Pfizer, singular or plural? Here is from an article from the magazine: One drug he talks about is an antidepressant called reboxetine (branded as Edronax by its makers, Pfizer) that he used to prescribe to his patients. Pfizer is a drug company. It is a singular noun. Why is it described as its makers, which is plural? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,056 |
Is this necklace its? If we say, Is this necklace yours? Then would it be the same if a dog has a necklace and we refer it by saying, Is the necklace its? It sounds so weird to me but is it grammatically correct? | "Its" as a Possessive Pronoun Since its can be both determiner possessive pronoun and nominal possessive pronoun, an example of its as determiner possessive pronoun would be: We saved this question for last because of its complexity. Because complexity is a noun, so its must be a determiner possessive pronoun in this sentence. I'm looking for an example where its is used as nominal possessive pronoun in a sentence as above. | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,057 |
Why we say "More than one person "is""? I'm always curious about why we have to use "is" or "does" when we mention "more than one thing" though this phrase means few people, not one person. Please let me know if you don't mind, and sorry for gramatically incorrect sentences cuz I'm not a native. | "more than one does" or "more than one do"? However, if no x satisfies the equation or more than one x does—that is the solution is not unique—the problem is said not to be well posed. In the line(source: ) above it uses "more than one does", but logically and intuitively it should be "more than one do" since "more than one" means two or more, then it is plural. I have tried my best to interpret it as it is, but hardly can I convince myself to make "more than" collocate with "does" as an adv., which may only make it make sense. | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,058 |
Is the punctuation of generational suffixes dropped when they occur at the end of a sentence? Is the punctuation of generational suffixes (e.g. "Jr.", "Sr.") dropped when they occur at the end of a sentence? For instance, I liked Gerald Rudolph Ford Jr. The obvious answer seems to be yes, since having two periods back-to-back seems incorrect. If that is the case, however, it seems strange because there appears to be "information loss" in that the shortening of the generation suffix and the end of the sentence both share the same punctuation. | When "etc." is at the end of a phrase, do you place a period after it? Example: It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc. VS. It's all about apples, oranges, bananas, etc.. Update What happens if the abbreviation is inside parentheses, do you place a dot after and before the closing parenthesis? It's all about fruit (apples, bananas, etc.). | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,059 |
Confusion about usage of "who" in a relative clause I'm confused about two particular examples where "who" is used as a relative pronoun: Example-1: ...people who I have no idea who are. ...people who I have no idea who they are. Example-2: ...people who we have no idea what their intentions are. What is the correct phrasing for these two examples? Also, is it okay to drop "who"? I've seen instances of example-1 on various webpages; in fact, a quick google search for "who I have no idea who they are" gave 97,200 hits. So, is it acceptable in colloquial usage regardless of whether it is grammatically correct or not? Thanks. | "Give him a box that everyone knows what it contains." "Give him a box that everyone knows what it contains." Is this correct English? It sounds wrong to me. | Can cited works hold grammatical positions in sentences? Though I read this style quite often, I was recently told unambiguously by a reviewer that I was NOT supposed to use citations "as if they are objects in a sentence." The following sentence is an example of what the reviewer considered unacceptable: We analyzed the data using the Wilmerding method, guided by [12]. The references section might include the following: [12] Smith, D., Marshawn, J., & Devenshaw, A. 2011. Techniques and Procedures for Applying the Wilmerding Method. Prince Publications, Inc, New York, NY. The Wilmerding method1 is not a step-by-step algorithm that can be precisely followed as if by a machine, and thus [12] does not provide a step-by-step algorithmic description but rather guidance for using the method. [12] is a relatively slim but authoritative textbook about how to use the Wilmerding method. Within this question, for the purpose of discussion, I have intentionally put [12] in grammatical positions where it's an important element of the sentence and the sentence would make less sense without the reference. Sometimes that seems to be the most efficient way to communicate the intended message. Is using a reference as a grammatical sentence element like this OK? Why might this not be considered acceptable? Should I be rewording those sentences? Is it enough of a violation to be worth passing the note on to authors of papers I review? I considered posting this on but it seems more specific to academia than general English usage, and the comment came from a content reviewer rather than a copy editor. is related but it seems to be more about when to put authors names' in vs. outside of the parentheses in an APA-like style. The numbered citation style (as opposed to following APA, for example) is required by the venue. 1: Fictionalized for the purpose of this discussion | eng_Latn | 17,060 |
When is it appropriate to use "patient-specific" vs. "patient specific"? I am writing a scientific research paper. As is common in the field, I am about 2000 words over the limit for submission, and I am trying to cut words. "Patient-specific" in its hyphenated form is only counted as one word, but I do not want to use it incorrectly. When is it appropriate to use "patient-specific" vs. "patient specific"? In most cases I am using the phrase as an adjective, such as "patient-specific anatomy". | "object-oriented" vs "object oriented" When should we use "object-oriented" and when "object oriented" when talking about programming? An example: Why should I start writing object oriented code? I personally think that there should be a hyphen, because "oriented" connects to the word "object", but I am not sure. | Can cited works hold grammatical positions in sentences? Though I read this style quite often, I was recently told unambiguously by a reviewer that I was NOT supposed to use citations "as if they are objects in a sentence." The following sentence is an example of what the reviewer considered unacceptable: We analyzed the data using the Wilmerding method, guided by [12]. The references section might include the following: [12] Smith, D., Marshawn, J., & Devenshaw, A. 2011. Techniques and Procedures for Applying the Wilmerding Method. Prince Publications, Inc, New York, NY. The Wilmerding method1 is not a step-by-step algorithm that can be precisely followed as if by a machine, and thus [12] does not provide a step-by-step algorithmic description but rather guidance for using the method. [12] is a relatively slim but authoritative textbook about how to use the Wilmerding method. Within this question, for the purpose of discussion, I have intentionally put [12] in grammatical positions where it's an important element of the sentence and the sentence would make less sense without the reference. Sometimes that seems to be the most efficient way to communicate the intended message. Is using a reference as a grammatical sentence element like this OK? Why might this not be considered acceptable? Should I be rewording those sentences? Is it enough of a violation to be worth passing the note on to authors of papers I review? I considered posting this on but it seems more specific to academia than general English usage, and the comment came from a content reviewer rather than a copy editor. is related but it seems to be more about when to put authors names' in vs. outside of the parentheses in an APA-like style. The numbered citation style (as opposed to following APA, for example) is required by the venue. 1: Fictionalized for the purpose of this discussion | eng_Latn | 17,061 |
Is "their" used wrongly here? I found a sentence in : "Another example: You work in a kindergarten, and one day a child starts to walk in a strange way, and saying he broke his legs. You examine and find nothing wrong. Then you can reasonably infer that one of his parents broke their legs, since children then often actuate as described," I thought this should be corrected to be: "Then you can reasonably infer that one of his parents broke his/her legs," And logically "legs" should be leg(s) given that if one walks in a strange way it doesn't necessarily mean that his/her two legs are hurt. | Usage of "they" / "them" / "their" when the person's gender is not known I know that one can use "they" / "them" / "their" in place of "he" / "him" / "his" or "she" / "her" / "hers" when the subject's / direct object's gender is not known; for instance, just looking at the default user's about me section on Stack Exchange sites: Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them My question is what happens when someone wants to reference the subject using a pronoun instead. Should the verb be conjugated accordingly to the pronoun? E.g.: Apparently, they prefer to keep an air of mystery about them Or should the conjugation be retained? E.g.: Apparently, they prefers to keep an air of mystery about them The former looks unclear because it wouldn't allow the reader / listener to understand if the writer / speaker is talking about a single person or about a group of people, however the latter sounds very weird, at least just to the non-native speaker which I am. | Framing a question whose answer is an ordinal number I am the third daughter (or son) of my parents. OR How should a question that is answered with the above sentences be framed? | eng_Latn | 17,062 |
I can see a bear go over the river A bear goes over the river. I can see a bear go over the river. Are the sentences above correct? If the sentence has "can", goes will become to go? | "He saw it stop and his son get out" I have been reading Men With Brooms for a few days. I read a sentence which did not make any sense to me, so I landed here to get some help on it. I have pasted the sentence from the novel. Please go through it and let me know your valuable feedback on it. An excerpt from the novel (Men With Brooms: A Sweeping Epic, paperback 2002, a novelization by Diane Baker Mason): Gordon was about to walk away from the Impala when he saw it stop and his son get out. So it was real the boy had come. As per my opinion it should have been: Gordon was about to walk away from the Impala when he saw it stopped and his son got out. So it was real the boy had come. I have two questions here: Why did the writer use stop and get instead of stopped and got? As she is telling us a story which happened in the past. Let's say the writer is telling us her mind's situation and she used the present tense for it but why did she use stop and get instead of stops and gets? | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,063 |
Systems Manager -- noun as adjective As an ESL teacher, I am currently teaching the topic on nouns as adjectives. Some examples are shoe shop, boat-race, apple tree, etc. One of the rules of nouns as adjectives that I have learnt is that when nouns are used an adjectives, they are usually in singular form. Some cases that seem like exceptions but aren't really, are news reporter and sales manager, as we all know that news and sales are really singular nouns ending with an s. But for these other job titles, Systems Analyst and Systems Manager, could anyone give me a clear explanation on why we use the plural form systems instead of its singular form before I resort to telling them it's an exception? | singular/ plural in the attributive A doll house or a dolls house? Which is correct for the toy? ... There's that thing called Same Sex Couples Act; how about calling it Same Sex Couple Act? The question is - when should I put attributives in plural? As far as I remember, Bill Bryson claimed in his Dictionary of Troublesome Words that - and that's what I vaguely recall from my classes - attributives should be in singular. Except for some exceptions. If so, what are they? I'm looking for some rule of thumb here other than "when in doubt, JFGI", of course. NOTE: I leave out forms like a doll's house/dolls' house as they're pretty clear to me, as well as cases like The 'Big Boys and Their Motors' Club in which attributives are separate entities. | Can "cattle" be singular? I've grown up on a farm, and my dad and his dad, apparently, always used "cattle" to refer to both the singular and plural forms of the domestic bovine. I've always assumed it's how the word "deer" is. However, I've heard people say that this is incorrect and the singular is just "cow", but this has always offended us as a cow is a mother cattle, and is incorrect if you're referring to a steer, a bull, or a heifer. So, is cattle singular as well as plural? If not, is there some general, non-gender-specific word that should be used instead? | eng_Latn | 17,064 |
What is the accepted stance on using "they" in a singular form? Is it good English to say "They have just left", when talking about a single person (perhaps someone you don't know the gender of)? (I am a native English speaker, I'm looking for the view held by lexicographers). | Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")? Is there a pronoun I can use as a gender-neutral pronoun when referring back to a singular noun phrase? Each student should save his questions until the end. Each student should save her questions until the end. | a cold vs flu / the flu Have you got a cold? Have you got flu? Have you got the flu? Why can't we say a flu or the cold in the previous examples? | eng_Latn | 17,065 |
English sentence without a verb I know that in speech we say "the bigger the better", but is this ok in written English as there is no verb.... | Is a sentence always grammatically incorrect if it has no verb? Is the following grammatically correct? My friend says the second sentence is grammatically incorrect, but couldn't explain why. I have always been fascinated by statistics. The different ways in which you could look at data and infer knowledge from it. | Help + Noun + Gerund or Infinitive Help my sister peel oranges. Help my sister to peel oranges. Help my sister peeling oranges. Help my sister with peeling oranges. Which of the above is/are correct, and why are the others incorrect? | eng_Latn | 17,066 |
Doesn't and Their 'Everyone who doesn't cook their food' Is it correct? If it's correct then can you explain why do we use doesn't but the possessive pronoun is Their? | Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")? Is there a pronoun I can use as a gender-neutral pronoun when referring back to a singular noun phrase? Each student should save his questions until the end. Each student should save her questions until the end. | Attributive or Possessive noun: the Dell Company's staff. or the Dell Company staff? In the following is it better to use a possessive noun with an apostrophe or an attributive noun without an apostrophe? The following list details the assumptions that have been made in conjunction with the Dell Company’s staff. Or The following list details the assumptions that have been made in conjunction with the Dell Company staff. Assume Company is the name of a company, such as Dell. | eng_Latn | 17,067 |
Usage of Personal pronoun "I" Books like word power suggest "Ramu and I are going to theatre today" may be wrong. Does "Ramu and me are going to ..." a right structure. | When do I use "I" instead of "me?" From some comments in the answers for (now deleted, 10k only), there's confusion around the usage of I vs. me: While the sentence, "the other attendees are myself and Steve," is agreed to be incorrect, there's confusion about whether the correct form is "the other attendees are me and Steve" or "the other attendees are Steve and I." (I've always used the heuristic of removing the other people from the sentence, so I always thought "the other attendee is me" would be correct, instead of "the other attendee is I." Is this true, or am I using a flawed heuristic?) | What is the correct way to write 1.5 hours? I'm a bit confused in describing 1.5hrs in words. Is writing one and a half an hour correct or should it be one and half hour? E.g: I'll see you there in one and a half an hour. OR I'll see you there in one and half hour. Or is there any other correct way of writing this? | eng_Latn | 17,068 |
Is the genderless pronoun "they" appropriate and grammatical for a non-binary gender? | Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")? | Please don't refer to 2019 as 'a great year' | eng_Latn | 17,069 |
Possessive form of Mrs. (with full-stop/period) Let's assume I have a text talking about Mrs. Jones and I want to start a section talking about her childhood. Which of the following forms, if any, is valid? Mrs.'s childhood or Mrs.' childhood or Mrs'. childhood Is there a rule for the possessive of "Mrs." whose last letter is an s but not the last character? Or should this simply be avoided and Mrs. Jones's childhood has to be spelled out? | Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe? Many questions already ask about this topic ( , , etc.) and their answers vary, but they always give exceptions to the apostrophe-s rule, for example: 6.24 The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, including most names ending in sibilants." Examples they give include Kansas’s, Ross’s land, and Jones’s reputation. Exceptions include Jesus’ and Moses’. Which names does this apply to? Is the Aeneas’ form correct, or is it Aeneas’s instead? | When should "Mom" and "Dad" be capitalized? I am trying to understand capitalization rules with Mom and Dad. I believe I have it correct below, but please let me know if I do not. The one thing I learned from my dad was that it was good to earn the trust of one's children. Dad has shown me how good that a dad can be. One day when I went to his house, and Dad wasn't there, I ran outside.... The above passage is just made-up just so that you would see what I mean about capitalization. Let's put numbers by each one, like so: The one thing I learned from my dad(1) was that it was good to earn the trust of one's children. Dad(2) has shown me how good that a dad(3) can be. One day when I went to his house, and Dad(4) wasn't there, I ran outside.... This is one where I'm not certain. I believe in this sense I'm showing possession here with "my", and it just didn't seem right saying "my Dad". I don't know what the grammar rule is here, or if I even have it right. This one is obvious—it starts the sentence. In this case, I'm using Dad like a name instead of saying "Larry". Therefore, it should be capitalized. Again, just like 3. | eng_Latn | 17,070 |
"I need help uncle." So I am playing a game with my two year old niece where I fall down and she comes to help me saying "I need help uncle" as in "I need to help my uncle". The family discussion at the moment is whether "I need help uncle." is grammatically correct when used in this way. | "need to do" vs "need do" Consider: I need to do this. I need do this. My English grammar knowledge tells me that "need" doesn't have the same status as the modal verbs "may", "can", "should" and what not. Hence the second usage where two verbs appear consecutively is incorrect. But yesterday, my native English speaking friends (Americans) told me that "I need compute this." is a perfectly grammatical sentence, and one is simply omitting the "to". How can this be? Is it a colloquial usage but grammatically incorrect, or is it grammatically correct? If it is grammatically correct, is it because "need" is a semi-modal verb? EDIT: in particular, is it okay to use "need compute" in a scientific paper? EDIT2: the exact phrase that raised the question was "The advantage of this representation is that we need only compute sums and products" | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,071 |
When can one break the rule of using "does" instead of "do"? Listen, Walter, because you shot Jesse James don't make you Jesse James. — Breaking Bad Why is it don't and not doesn't? | Which is correct: "he don't" or "he doesn't"? Which one is correct in a sentence? He don't He doesn't I guess "he doesn't" should be correct because he is third person singular but I've seen some people using do with he. Which one is correct? | Less than or equal sign If I know for two numbers a and b that $${a < b }$$ Then is it correct to say that $$ a \leq b $$ I know that the second statement is true as long as the first one is. It seems OK as it is true but from the other side it seems kinda weird (to me), to say that, if you know, that a is strictly less that b.It's like you lose some extra information. | eng_Latn | 17,072 |
"who" or "whom" as a relative pronoun - not always so easy I take it for granted we all know when to use the relative pronouns "who" and "whom". And we also know that since the early nineteenth century there has been a steady decline in the use of "whom" especially in speech, and people tend to use "who" most of the times. Let's assume, however, that someone is writing a formal letter and that he prefers to use "whom" whenever possible. He got stuck on these two sentences: They chose the candidate who they thought would have the best initiative. They chose the candidate whom they thought would have the best initiative. If "whom" is the right relative, he will have no problem using "who" because it's also acceptable. But if the right relative is "who", then it would be a mistake to use whom. My question is: "In the above sentence, is the relative pronoun the object of "thought" or is it the subject of "would have". PS I'm aware that some scholars advise against asking questions about "whom" because "who" is the relative pronoun most people use. But I understand it is not obsolete and is still used by a few people, in formal speech, in documents, etc, especially in the UK. | "They interviewed several candidates who/whom he thought had the experience he required." They interviewed several candidates who he thought had the experience and qualifications he required. My test prep book says this should be "who" because of the subordinate clause's predicate: They interviewed several candidates who he thought had the experience and qualifications he required. I feel like it should be "whom" as it's the object of the main clause. The interviewed several candidates whom he thought had the experience and qualifications he required. Who's right? | Formal writing: "…for my colleagues and {I/me/myself}."? I'm currently using Cambridge English Advanced 1. It's a book that contains past examination papers, and includes numerous samples of authentic writing. This material helps, candidates and teachers, understand what the examiners are ‘testing’ and how these papers are marked. The assessment covers four categories: content, communicative achievement, organisation and language. Each category is awarded a mark between 1 and 5, so the maximum score is 20, and each mark has a brief note attached by the examiner. Any errors of punctuation, orthography, grammar, appropriacy, and vocabulary are left intact. In fact, there are no corrections because the ‘examiner’ does not specify where the errors lie. This can be frustrating, even though spelling mistakes are rare at the advanced level, and errors in style, collocation or register are still relatively easy to identify, sometimes I'll read a phrase that forces me to ponder. Dear Director, [ TEXT ] To conclude, this letter is a polite request to cover the costs of a 2 month language course for my colleagues and me. We would be very pleased if the company would do us this favour. Yours sincerely John Smith The following marks were awarded Content 5 blah, blah, … Communicative Achievement 2 blah, blah, … Organisation 3 blah, blah, … Language 3 blah, blah, … I am able to pick out six minor errors in that brief extract, maybe some users will identify more, maybe some will identify fewer, and maybe some will say that the language used is perfectly acceptable. But if I can help a candidate attain that elusive B, I would be delighted. I am interested in (what could be) the 7th error, emphasised in bold. Because the letter of proposal is formal, I feel the phrase, for my colleagues and me, is jarring. I want to change it to for my colleagues and I, but the antecedent requires an object. You would not say: “This is a request to cover the cost […] for I”. So, why use the subject pronoun I in the expression “my colleagues and…”? Could I use instead, myself? Which of the following is preferable in a formal written proposal? …for my colleagues and me …for my colleagues and I …for my colleagues and myself EDITED: I found a of the writing sample (11/11) if anyone is interested. I've looked at the following question, Some answers appear to be contradictory, the accepted answer says using I and me are both grammatical, which in my example is not true. Moreover, there's no mention of myself, as a possible solution, in the question. | eng_Latn | 17,073 |
Is this the correct way to write this sentence? Okay, so I came across a strange, yet interesting dilemma, There was an English test in my high school in which I got a challenging MCQ. Here it is: Anyone can have ________ name in the newspaper. Choices given were: 1- Their 2- His 3- Her I selected the option 1, all my friends did! But my teacher sort of challenged me to verify whether I was correct or not! I'm not sure myself, so I'm asking this question on Stack Exchange. Thanks. | Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")? Is there a pronoun I can use as a gender-neutral pronoun when referring back to a singular noun phrase? Each student should save his questions until the end. Each student should save her questions until the end. | How did Toru and Koji pass the entrance exam in My Hero Academia? I have seen some comments and speculations about the robot having an off switch or whatever. But I want to know if there is any source material or comment from the author on how they managed to pass the exam. I have only seen the actual author's comment on Mineta: But I was wondering if there are author notes for the other characters. | eng_Latn | 17,074 |
There is no singular, gender-neutral collective pronoun. (from Quora) From Quora by C Stuart Hardwick (Award-Winning Sci-fi Author) from Houston, TX Many people would say "Everyone should save their questions until the end", but this is widely regarded as wrong. The more correct, but convoluted form is "Everyone should save his or her questions until the end". I can't see what's wrong with using "their" in this sentence. As far as I know, grammar books say that you can use "their" in place of a gender-neutral collective pronoun: "I'm reminding everyone in class that they should do their homework at home" is perfectly fine to me and just can't imagine it being written using "his or her". | Usage of "they" / "them" / "their" when the person's gender is not known I know that one can use "they" / "them" / "their" in place of "he" / "him" / "his" or "she" / "her" / "hers" when the subject's / direct object's gender is not known; for instance, just looking at the default user's about me section on Stack Exchange sites: Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them My question is what happens when someone wants to reference the subject using a pronoun instead. Should the verb be conjugated accordingly to the pronoun? E.g.: Apparently, they prefer to keep an air of mystery about them Or should the conjugation be retained? E.g.: Apparently, they prefers to keep an air of mystery about them The former looks unclear because it wouldn't allow the reader / listener to understand if the writer / speaker is talking about a single person or about a group of people, however the latter sounds very weird, at least just to the non-native speaker which I am. | Is it correct to say "I write children books" (not possessive case)? Although Children's books is what everybody says, I would like to understand why the genitive case is applied in such case. If I write books for children, children is an adjective here; not the owners of my book! The word "children" just defines or characterizes the type of books I write. Therefore, it's an adjective. So, I understand that genitive/possessive case ("I write children's book") is incorrect grammar. My question is: is the genitive case here really accepted as right? If I use "I write children books" (following the grammar principle) as as I say "I write pets books" (books about pets, and not possessions of pets) - would I be incorrect? Why? | eng_Latn | 17,075 |
Not only..., but also Is there a rule for the placement of the subject to the second sentence? I mean , but subject also ... or , but also subject ... | Can "but also" be split in "not only ... but also"? I think I generally agree with the statement When using not only . . . but also in a sentence, parallelism should be the goal. It means that the words following both parts of this correlative conjunction (i.e., not only and but also) should belong to the same parts of speech. However, the Cambridge dictionary has an example that is not 100% parallel in my eyes, as "but also" is split: Not only did she forget my birthday, but she also didn’t even apologise for forgetting it. What I would expect, with maximum parallelism, is Not only did she forget my birthday, but also she didn’t even apologise for forgetting it. Is my expectation wrong? Is my formulation acceptable? | Does "It snowed hard Monday" require an "on"? I came across an English learner writing It snowed hard Monday. After saying that it didn't snow on Friday and Saturday. It didn't quite feel right to me. I'd be okay with It snowed hard. or It snowed Monday. Is it okay for there to be two things ("hard" and "Monday") modifying the snowing without an "on" breaking things up a bit? | eng_Latn | 17,076 |
I'm going to the dry cleaner's - why the apostrophe S? "Dave's car" means the "car of Dave". But why do we need the apostrophe S in: I'm going to the dry cleaner's ? Is there another way to say this phrase? For example: I'm going to the establishment of the dry cleaner? (that sounds completely off to me). | I went to the doctor's I have run across such a sentence: Yesterday I was ill, so I went to the doctor's. What is the function of possessive here, that is doctor's? | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,077 |
Subject-verb agreement when using singular they? This is NOT a question about whether they/them is acceptable as a singular pronoun. I know some of you will have to die before you give that argument a rest, but I am starting here with the presumption that them/them IS an acceptible alternative to refer to non-binary gendered people. On to the question... I was writing about a person who prefers the pronoun "they/them": Talk to Abigail when they are a resident. After I wrote it, I realized (assuming here in 2016 that "they" can serve as a singular pronoun - and more so here in 2017) that technically there is a lack of subject verb agreement. More correctly, I should write: Talk to Abigail when they is a resident. But of course that sounds terrible and wrong to my ear. As they/them becomes an acceptable singular pronoun, do we amend the subject-verb agreement rules to use a plural verb with this singular subject? | Is the genderless pronoun "they" appropriate and grammatical for a non-binary gender? I recently had somebody tell me that a mutual friend of ours who is prefers that people refer to him/her using the gender-indefinite pronoun they. In some cases, this almost seems okay: Kris left their umbrella at our house. On the other hand, if Kris is sitting right next to you, it feels very odd to say They (meaning just Kris) would like more cake. Or even odder, Kris would like some more cake, can you please pass it to they/them?" Are these usages grammatically correct? Are they in the process of becoming grammatically correct? Are there more correct alternatives? | 'I have decided to purchase a jet for getting to NYC and back more quickly.' Are the following sentences grammatical or not? If not, does substituting a to-infinite make them grammatical? (Optional: designate if the sentence expresses purpose, reason, aim, or function) 1 I have decided to purchase a jet for getting to NYC and back more quickly. 2 I have decided to buy a jet for having a quicker way to get to NYC and back. This is my only reason and aim; this will be the jet's only purpose and function. 3 I hate hairdryers, so I am buying a space heater for drying my hair more naturally, and that is my only aim & purpose & reason and that will be its only function 4 For having a lasting shine in your hair, buy ShineOn Shampoo. 5 My neighbor and I have decided to cooperate more for having a better life together. Research done: ELL (Note the here is a restatement of Cambridge Dictionary's ) ELL ELL BBC English (Currently the best site I've found.) ELU All of which have answers that I find (i) incomplete (ii) contradictory (iii) terribly confusing, if not (iv) wrong. To sort through the haze, I am focusing on one issue. Background Some sources say that you need to use a to-infinitive for expressing purpose, aim, function, reason, etc. I find these to be rather hazy distinctions, given that the ODO defines as The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists and the same work lists as : aim, reason, function, etc. It is my assertion that at least some of the following sentences demonstrate that one can use the -ing form (be it a gerund, verbal noun, participle) to express individual purpose (aim, reason, function, intention, whatever you want to call it). Do you agree, or not? Why (not)? In shorter terms, are the sentences grammatical? or do we have to substitute a to-infinitive (including in order to + infinitive) to make them grammatical? (Optional: designate if the sentence expresses purpose, reason, aim, function, etc.) | eng_Latn | 17,078 |
Use of "have/has" when you don't know if the subject will be singular or plural I have a log message in my application which depends on a list which may contain one or several elements. The string I am trying to create to show in the logs is like this: "The key(s) {listOfKeys} have an odd length" Given that the list of keys may have a minimum of 1 element, and hence I don't know if the subject will be singular or plural, should I use "have" or "has"? Or maybe something like "have/has"? Note: I know that I can rephrase the sentence to avoid this problem, maybe something like "Invalid length for the key(s) {listOfKeys}", or even introduce a condition to write the sentence one way or another depending on the length of the key list, but I'm just curious to know how this problem is solved in English if I had no other option. | When a sentence uses a parenthetical plural, should the rest of the sentence treat it as singular or plural? Consider the following sentence: We assume that the individual(s) possesses some general knowledge of the rules of football. Is "possesses" correct there? Should it be "possess"? Is the rule more complex than always using one or the other? | One of us is wrong, aren't we? I have just learned from what I consider a reliable source, that the following sentence is correct: One of us is wrong, aren't we? I would never in my life have written this, but I am assured that As I realize comments don't live forever I will quote the relevant parts: oerkelens : So you would really write One of us is wrong, aren't we? I guess by analogy you would not bat an eyelid at One of these balls is blue, aren't they? Matt Эллен : yes, "Then one of us is wrong, aren't we?" is exactly how it would be written. Same for the balls. Could someone please enlighten me how it is possible that the number in a question tag supposedly has to be in discordance with the subject of the main clause? I admit that I am not the youngest any more, and my school days are long gone, but back in the days, I was taught that 1. a verb and its subject concord in number 2. a question tag concords with the subject of the main clause I was given examples like: It is warm today, isn't it? We will be on time, won't we? Mary is pretty, isn't she? John isn't the brightest, is he? Some people may notice that the subject of the main clause seems to determine every time the subject of the question tag. When the main clause subject is singular, so are verb and subject in the question tag. I was under the impression that a) this made sense and b) this would be a general rule. I fully realize that grammar does not have to make sense, so a) is immaterial. As for b), today I learned I was wrong :) So when (and possibly why?) do we form question tags that are different in number from their main clause? To exemplify, also the other example sentence that I used and was corrected on: One of these balls is blue, isn't it? (so this is wrong) One of these balls is blue, aren't they? (and this is correct) As an afterthought, does this strange grammatical number mix-up only appear in question-tags, or should I always refer to singular subjects in the plural if certain conditions are met? And what are those conditions? Which versions are correct? One of the cars is broken, aren't they? They (the car(s?) that is(are?) broken) should be fixed. One of the cars is broken, aren't they? It (the car that is broken) should be fixed. One of us must be wrong, mustn't we? We (the one(s?) that is (are?) wrong) should make amends. One of us must be wrong, mustn't we? He (the one that is wrong) should make amends. (In the last one, they could of course be used as the singular they, but that would avoid the issue...) | eng_Latn | 17,079 |
What is the question tag for sentences whose subjects are "none...is" and "each...is"? I know that indefinite pronouns like none and each take singular verbs, but what about their question tags? None of the boys has passed the test, ________? Each of the girls was given a prize, _______? What are the question tags for these two sentences? Should the question tag’s verb be in the singular like the subject or plural because we’re talking about all of them? What about that question tag’s pronoun? Would gender come into consideration? | One of us is wrong, aren't we? I have just learned from what I consider a reliable source, that the following sentence is correct: One of us is wrong, aren't we? I would never in my life have written this, but I am assured that As I realize comments don't live forever I will quote the relevant parts: oerkelens : So you would really write One of us is wrong, aren't we? I guess by analogy you would not bat an eyelid at One of these balls is blue, aren't they? Matt Эллен : yes, "Then one of us is wrong, aren't we?" is exactly how it would be written. Same for the balls. Could someone please enlighten me how it is possible that the number in a question tag supposedly has to be in discordance with the subject of the main clause? I admit that I am not the youngest any more, and my school days are long gone, but back in the days, I was taught that 1. a verb and its subject concord in number 2. a question tag concords with the subject of the main clause I was given examples like: It is warm today, isn't it? We will be on time, won't we? Mary is pretty, isn't she? John isn't the brightest, is he? Some people may notice that the subject of the main clause seems to determine every time the subject of the question tag. When the main clause subject is singular, so are verb and subject in the question tag. I was under the impression that a) this made sense and b) this would be a general rule. I fully realize that grammar does not have to make sense, so a) is immaterial. As for b), today I learned I was wrong :) So when (and possibly why?) do we form question tags that are different in number from their main clause? To exemplify, also the other example sentence that I used and was corrected on: One of these balls is blue, isn't it? (so this is wrong) One of these balls is blue, aren't they? (and this is correct) As an afterthought, does this strange grammatical number mix-up only appear in question-tags, or should I always refer to singular subjects in the plural if certain conditions are met? And what are those conditions? Which versions are correct? One of the cars is broken, aren't they? They (the car(s?) that is(are?) broken) should be fixed. One of the cars is broken, aren't they? It (the car that is broken) should be fixed. One of us must be wrong, mustn't we? We (the one(s?) that is (are?) wrong) should make amends. One of us must be wrong, mustn't we? He (the one that is wrong) should make amends. (In the last one, they could of course be used as the singular they, but that would avoid the issue...) | Marking plural of code words In my blog (which is about programming) I often use reserved words from different programming languages. Like this: When column is nullable in both tables, this query won't return a match of two NULLs for the reasons described above: no NULLs are equal. Here, NULL is a programming language keyword. For numerous reasons, I mark them with <code> tag so they are rendered with a fixed width font, not translated into the foreign languages by Google Translate, can easily be seen on the page etc. In the example above, which would be the best way to mark the plural? NULLs NULL s NULL's NULLs NULLS Option 1 looks ugly on the page (the word and the plural marker are rendered in different colors and fonts) Option 2 adds a space between the word and the plural marker Option 3 looks nicest but is not correct Options 4 and 5 may leave the reader under impression that NULLS is a reserved word (which is not true) and this may be confusing. Also, Google Translate would leave the word as is which would be definitely wrong in other languages. What would be the least of 5 evils? | eng_Latn | 17,080 |
Triggered ability of another card when two legendary creatures with the same name enter to the battlefield at the same time If I have a and a in the battlefield then I use and put 2 into the battlefield. Do I draw one card or two cards? I know that only one would trigger the damage ability and I should sacrifice one. But what happens with ? | Can I get an enters-the-battlefield effect out of a second legendary before I must sacrifice it? If I have a legendary creature out, and I make a copy of it (such as by enchanting it with or making a ), do I get enters-the-battlefield effects from the creature before I have to sacrifice it to the legend rule? | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,081 |
How to decide whether I should use “we” in an essay? The answers to question promote a view that the personal pronoun we is acceptable in an academic paper. But I did not see an answer there, or more generally on this site, that discourages the use of we. This question is different to the one mentioned above because it queries whether the word we should be used at all, not just to ask whether I or we is more appropriate. The economics department at my university (UCT) discourages the use of personal pronouns in an essay – I was marked down in my essay for my use of the word we. At the end of my essay, I wrote In conclusion, we note that the European sovereign debt crisis created uncertainty in the global financial market, and South Africa was one of many countries that dealt with this. I decided to use we in my essay because I had grown accustomed to seeing it in mathematics textbooks, so I assumed that it was formal enough. But the economics department says that it is not formal enough. Even though it seems acceptable to use we in some circles, it seems that it is a point of debate. What guidelines should I be using in order to make my decision about whether to use we or not?* Should I continue to use we as I see fit, except for economics essays? Or, should I apply this rule to all my academic essays (I also study public policy & administration)? It would ostensibly be silly to have different writing styles emanating from the same person. The problem has not been brought up before, and I have used the word in a number of sociology essays in first year, and one public policy & administration essay in second year. In those essays, I used the word in the following ways. In this section, we discuss motivations for why provincial government should be restructured. and Applying this model to provincial government, we can graph a U-shaped function of long-run average cost. and Approaching the question from the side of the teacher, we find that inequality can be caused via culturally insensitive teaching methods. As a final clarification, I do prefer to use the word. * Edit: Although it was not initially made clear, I have not been provided with style guides. However, I doubt that I would ask this question if I were provided with style guides. Saying that I should "follow the style guide" makes perfect sense, but doesn't really help me in my situation. I asked this question on academia.SE so that I could ask others to brainstorm ideas about how I could make the decision without a style guide (e.g. how were those rules formed in the first place?). | Choice of personal pronoun in single-author papers Which personal pronoun is appropriate in single-author papers - 'I' or 'we'? Could the use of 'I' be considered egotistical? Or will the use of 'we' be considered to be grammatically incorrect? | Usage of "shall we?" What does it mean and where would I use it? | eng_Latn | 17,082 |
Will this kind of entanglement of tenses be acceptable? All dictionaries I consulted say that "nog" is not an English word. （self-made) Will this kind of entanglement of tenses be acceptable for English? At first, I used past tense, then switched to present tense immediately. But I think it fits well into the reality,my action of consulting a dictionary has become the past, whereas the dictionaries themselves still remain the same, and say the same thing about that word. | "He didn't know where New Jersey was" I know the past tense carries the past tense in every dependent clause, but referring specifically to places or to things that are eternal, like the Earth, seems a bit weird and therefore we sometimes (I believe incorrectly) say He didn't know that New Jersey was actually on the East Coast. Because it still is. Or He thought the Earth was round. So is it square now? Logically speaking, would you consider the use of past tense here a bit confusing in a day-to-day speech in these examples? Would you instinctively opt for using the present tense? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,083 |
there was an accident on dam neck road / there was an accident at dam neck road How do you determine when to use which proposition? (in on at...) Its easy to say I'm sitting on a box or in a box But sometimes its confusing Like for example, do you say -I'm in school Or -I'm at school -there was an accident on this road Or -there was an accident at this road | Should I say "She is in the park" or "She is at the park"? I am really confused. Which preposition is correct? She is in/at the park. They are in/at the park. I am in/at the park. Should I use in or at in these sentences? | I'm a teacher and I teach at/in school OR at/in a school There are a lot of posts on this topic, but I can't find any answers to my question. I came across the following two definitions of 'school': [uncountable] (used without the or a) the process of learning in a school; the time during your life when you go to a school (British English) [uncountable] (used without the or a) the time during the day when children are working in a school Source: I know there are better ways to convey the message, but which sentence would a teacher utter if he was a school teacher teaching students, adults, etc.? What about a janitor, director, and secretary? I teach at/in school OR I teach at/in a school The above definitions concern students, and not working individuals like teachers or janitors. I would appreciate if you also stated whether you're American, Canadian, British, etc. | eng_Latn | 17,084 |
BFFs or BFF's? Which one is right? Here's the sentence - We Put These BFF's to the test. Is this correct or wrong and why? | Plurals of acronyms, letters, numbers — use an apostrophe or not? When I was in high school back in the 1970s, I was taught that to make a plural of an acronym, a letter, or a number, one should add an apostrophe and "s". Like I would have written this sentence, "... back in the 1970's ..." I would write "one CD, two CD's". Etc. I followed this rule faithfully for years until a co-worker told me it was wrong. Now I can't find any source that agrees with what I was taught. Is this a rule that has changed over time? Was the convention in the 70s that one should use an apostrophe but this has changed and now we do not? Or were my high school English teachers just confused? | Changing plurality in parentheses If a set of parentheses lies between a subject and its verb, and the parentheses contain an substitutive subject whose singularity/plurality disagrees with the original subject, whose singularity/plurality should be chosen for the verb? In other words, in the following example, should "questions" (and its verb "are") be singular, or should they remain plural as shown? Many (if not every) questions on this StackExchange are answered. My intuition tells me that the two words in question should remain in plural forms, since the text in parentheses only interrupts the sentence (and the sentence would be grammatically incorrect if everything in parentheses were removed and the words were in singular form). On the other hand, when read aloud (assuming one reads the text in parentheses), this has an uncomfortable sound to it, and I've seen others write in what would be the above example's singular-form case, so I'm curious to find out which is correct. And, thinking about it, I suppose the same question would apply when commas are used in place of parentheses. | eng_Latn | 17,085 |
Is it possible to use an object pronoun (them) in the place of a subject pronoun (they)? I have seen an episode of Mindhunter S1:E9, in on the scenes there is a sentence that has driven my attention: A: "I'm not like them" B: "No?" A: "Them f*ckers are crazy." Is it possible to use an object pronoun (them) in the place of a subject pronoun (they)? | Could "them" mean "those"? Background Nowadays, I see "them" used to mean "those" a lot. I don't know if it was as common in the past. For example, take "one of ". On researching about it, I found some people say it comes from a dialect of British English. Some others say it is a "non-standard" usage. I see this usage in Canadian English also, and it seems some people use it in a sarcastic way. Moreover, I have seen a song titled "one of them days". I also read, in the book called "A Broken Promise", "" Finally, Wikipedia says that it is a usage in (a common name for the Southern Midland dialect of American English): Pronouns and demonstratives "Them" is sometimes used in place of "those" as a demonstrative in both nominative and oblique constructions. Examples are "Them are the pants I want" and "Give me some of them crackers." Question(s): What would you say about the usage of this word? Is it correct? Could we use it in daily speech? Could this usage go beyond a specific dialect and be used in other dialects, regions, etc.? Does it really originate from Appalachian English? Why did this usage become popular among other English speakers? Note: I have already seen a similar question: However, it only says, "ungrammatical," there. This question is specific to this situation only, and there is more to it. | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,086 |
Using *plural* allow(s) me to I can not figure out what the correct usage of allow/allows is in this case. Using plural allow(s) me to... Would "allow(s)" refer back to the plural and thus be "allow"? or does it refer back to the action of using the plural and thus be "allows"? An example could be something like: "Using old recordings allow(s) me to relive memories." | Making adult decisions "is" or "are" really not fun: Which is correct? Making adult decisions are/is really not fun. What is the proper answer and why? My gut says "is" but I can't explain why. | How to pronounce "Moderators's"? If I want to use the plural of "moderator" and also add the apostrophe plus S, how do I pronounce it? How do native speakers pronounce it? Moderators = moderatorz Moderators's = moderatorziz or just moderatorz? A sentence is: "I always thought that moderators's decisions seemed fairly arbitrary." I guess moderatorziz is correct but it sounds weird to me. Do native speakers pronounce it as moderatorziz? | eng_Latn | 17,087 |
"these are/it is" "too much/too many" macaroni You've got macaroni spilt all over your house. Which one would be a correct version? These are too much macaroni. These are too many macaroni. It's too much macaroni. | How do I pluralize Italian foods, like pasta noodles (spaghetti, macaroni)? Possible Duplicate: Is it proper to say spaghettis for more than one spaghetti noodle? What about macaronis as a plural for more than one macaroni noodle? | Is this a grammatically correct line in a poem: “Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?”? I want to use the following line in a poem: "Will he roll the dice, and follow it to Vegas?" A couple of things to note; firstly, obviously I'm using "roll the dice" in both a figurative/idiomatic sense (as in taking a risk), and in a somewhat more literal sense (painting the image of the person actually following the dice that have been rolled to Las Vegas). That being said, my confusion here is if I can get away with using "follow it" or if I need to say "follow them" .... As I've read online "dice" traditionally refers to more than one die (i.e., the plural of die), but in the modern usage, "dice" can also be used to refer to the singular (i.e., just one die). So, it seems like if I was referring to the image of just one die, then the way I phrased it could be correct. However, the image I'm trying to paint is the one usually associated with the phrase "roll the dice" (i.e., rolling two dice)... So could "follow it" still be considered acceptable in this sense... or would I need to use "follow them"?... And if not referring to the dice themselves, could using, could the "it" be taken to refer to the act of rolling the dice, or would that not work either? Thanks so much in advance!! | eng_Latn | 17,088 |
They vs it when talking about "your dog" I have the following example from : "Your dog gets some kind of reward when they bark. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it." Should it actually be: "Your dog gets some kind of reward when it barks. Otherwise, it wouldn't do it." If the first example is actually correct, can you please tell me why. I thought when talking about a single thing, you should always say "it" as opposed to "they". | Using singular "they" for an animal As I know, (not only "it"). Also, if a person's gender is unknown, . Is it possible to use "they" when we talk about a specific animal and in what context? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | eng_Latn | 17,089 |
Stack Exchange profile: “This user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them” When a user does not fill his "about me" section in his profile, the following sentence appears: Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about them. To my knowledge (which are restricted I admit), it should be Apparently, this user prefers to keep an air of mystery about him/himself. I'm pretty sure that I'm wrong, however I really don't understand the use of plural in "them". Could you please explain me the underlying grammar rule that justifies such a term? Also, I'd be happy to know if replacing them by him or himself would be correct. | Is there a correct gender-neutral singular pronoun ("his" vs. "her" vs. "their")? Is there a pronoun I can use as a gender-neutral pronoun when referring back to a singular noun phrase? Each student should save his questions until the end. Each student should save her questions until the end. | Could "them" mean "those"? Background Nowadays, I see "them" used to mean "those" a lot. I don't know if it was as common in the past. For example, take "one of ". On researching about it, I found some people say it comes from a dialect of British English. Some others say it is a "non-standard" usage. I see this usage in Canadian English also, and it seems some people use it in a sarcastic way. Moreover, I have seen a song titled "one of them days". I also read, in the book called "A Broken Promise", "" Finally, Wikipedia says that it is a usage in (a common name for the Southern Midland dialect of American English): Pronouns and demonstratives "Them" is sometimes used in place of "those" as a demonstrative in both nominative and oblique constructions. Examples are "Them are the pants I want" and "Give me some of them crackers." Question(s): What would you say about the usage of this word? Is it correct? Could we use it in daily speech? Could this usage go beyond a specific dialect and be used in other dialects, regions, etc.? Does it really originate from Appalachian English? Why did this usage become popular among other English speakers? Note: I have already seen a similar question: However, it only says, "ungrammatical," there. This question is specific to this situation only, and there is more to it. | eng_Latn | 17,090 |
"With pen and paper" <-- Why don't we need an article here? "I recommend trying it if you like writing with pen and paper". This is a sentence in a book. Why isn't there an "a" article before "pen" since pen is a countable noun? Is it just a style preference? | Omission of the indefinite article to eliminate ambiguity love between husband and wife What is the reason that there is no article (e.g. "love between a husband and a wife") in the above? Has some kind of a rule been identified grammatically when it comes to such a case? If I were to guess I think it's because the indefinite article 'a', the purpose of that, is taking a generic sample (or 'instance') from a 'class' (the class of husbands), but in the above sentence you want to refer to the class itself... the husband class and the wife class... and not an 'instance' of them, because it just is more to the point. Do you think this is a fair reasoning? Also, a thought came to me that with the use of the indefinite article, you get a generic husband and a generic wife, which, may not necessarily love each other (for they are not a specific pair of a specific husband and a specific wife who in fact love each other). | "put X down to" vs. "put down X to": subjects of verbs with two particles I expect I would have to put down many coats to do the job. () One factor to distinguish phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs is particle movement. Phrasal verbs can place the particle before or after direct object, whereas the preposition in prepositional verbs must precede the noun. (Biber et al. 1999) So, I'm confused when analyzing the fragment "put down many coats to" because I'm not able to distinguish whether "put ... " is a phrasal verb or a prepositional verb. The confusion arises when I read in the Oxford Dictionary of English, under 'put' → 'phrasal verb', the form "put something down to" is correct. So, the above sentence would be rewritten as follows : I expect I would have to put many coats down to do the job. Am I right? If not, how do I correctly distinguish phrasal verbs from prepositional verbs in the cases, like this one, where there are two particles (in this case 'down' and 'to')? | eng_Latn | 17,091 |
Why is Merkle-Damgård construction insecure? I've been reading about SHA-1. I read that SHA-1 is insecure as it uses the Merkle-Damgård construction and the Merkle-Damgård construction is — — susceptible to a variety of attacks. However, I have not been able to come up with a single example of how these work. Can someone give me an example of a length extension attack? | Understanding the length extension attack I have been trying to understand exactly how a length extension attack works on SHA-1. I'll detail below what I've understood so far, so that I can convey my understanding of the same and hopefully get advice on where I'm going wrong. Lets assume that for a message $m$, a secret $s$ is appended to it and the SHA-1 hash is calculated. If $\textrm{len}(m) + \textrm{len}(s)$ is not a multiple of the block size, a certain amount of padding is added to it to make it a multiple, and the hash is generated using what is essentially $s || m || \textrm{padding}$. Now SHA-1 internally uses 5 registers — it takes in an block, generates new register values, turns the crank, takes in another block, generates new register values, turns the crank ... and so on till the end. When all blocks are exhausted, the register values are concatenated and spit out. Assume that an attacker knows a certain value of $m$, for which he also knows the hashed key. In such a case, he knows the state of the 5 registers when $(s || m || \textrm{padding}$ was processed. Lets also assume that the attacker knows the length of $s$, so that he can predict how much padding was added. Here is where I get confused. From what I've read so far, the attack involves taking the known hash, adding a certain amount of padding and then the value that we want. However, isn't the padding already used up in creating the hash? Why are we using padding in our attack? | Can cited works hold grammatical positions in sentences? Though I read this style quite often, I was recently told unambiguously by a reviewer that I was NOT supposed to use citations "as if they are objects in a sentence." The following sentence is an example of what the reviewer considered unacceptable: We analyzed the data using the Wilmerding method, guided by [12]. The references section might include the following: [12] Smith, D., Marshawn, J., & Devenshaw, A. 2011. Techniques and Procedures for Applying the Wilmerding Method. Prince Publications, Inc, New York, NY. The Wilmerding method1 is not a step-by-step algorithm that can be precisely followed as if by a machine, and thus [12] does not provide a step-by-step algorithmic description but rather guidance for using the method. [12] is a relatively slim but authoritative textbook about how to use the Wilmerding method. Within this question, for the purpose of discussion, I have intentionally put [12] in grammatical positions where it's an important element of the sentence and the sentence would make less sense without the reference. Sometimes that seems to be the most efficient way to communicate the intended message. Is using a reference as a grammatical sentence element like this OK? Why might this not be considered acceptable? Should I be rewording those sentences? Is it enough of a violation to be worth passing the note on to authors of papers I review? I considered posting this on but it seems more specific to academia than general English usage, and the comment came from a content reviewer rather than a copy editor. is related but it seems to be more about when to put authors names' in vs. outside of the parentheses in an APA-like style. The numbered citation style (as opposed to following APA, for example) is required by the venue. 1: Fictionalized for the purpose of this discussion | eng_Latn | 17,092 |
Verb conjugation for singular they Ostensibly, verb conjugation is plural vs singular: "The apple is big." vs "The apples are big." But that doesn't match up with the centuries-old . "They is nice." vs "They are nice." I believe only the latter is correct, not only for plural they but even for singular they. Are there any other exceptions to the singular vs plural verb conjugation? Or is singular they a unique exception to English verb conjugation among all subjects? Is plural vs singular still the way that grammarists explain English verb conjugation? | Why isn’t singular ‘they’ used with 3Sg verb forms? There are many (duplicate) questions about the acceptance, popularity and history of singular they (and their, them and themself) around here, it even got a tag of its own. If I didn’t miss anything, however, the proper verb form hasn’t been questioned yet. As we all know, English third person singular pronouns (it, she, he and one, +body), names (Alice, Bob, …) and nouns (student, teacher, …) demand the +(e)s suffix be added to the finite verb form in simple present, where some auxiliary verbs have a “special” form (is < *bes / *ares and has < *haves). All other subjects don’t, including plural third person pronoun they. When the plural you replaced thou (with thee, thy / thine), the other marked verb form that had remained in English – i.e. suffix +(e)st or +t – vanished, too. The first and second persons only ever appear as pronouns (I, we; you), not names or nouns, so there was no strong inclination to keep the verbal inflection. The second person precedent would suggest that singular they be used with uninflected verb forms which is how it’s usually encountered in the wild. Assuming that they someday replaces he and she (and maybe it) it would lead to disagreement with the words the pronoun stands in for: Alice goes to her place by herself. Bob goes to his place by himself. Alice and Bob go to their place by themselves. – (common) Alice and Bob go to their places by themselves. – (separate) She goes to her place by herself. He goes to his place by himself. They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?goes to their place by themself. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. They ?go to their place by ?themselves. ditto They go to their place by themselves. They go to their places by themselves. So why doesn’t singular they afford s on present-tense verbs like all other third person singular subjects do? I learned about singular they only long after I had been taught English as a second language in school. That’s why it’s still a conscious decision to use it and hence I could easily adapt to use s forms with it, but would that sound and look funny / strange / wrong to native speakers? | How do you pluralize the acronym "POC" ("proof of concept")? Possible Duplicate: What's the plural form of the acronym , short for proof of concept? ...for his contributions to many POCs or ...for his contributions to many POC is not a duplicate as it is focused on cases like "ATMs" where the expanded form "automated teller machines" ends in a noun with a regular plural form ending in "s." In "proof of concept," the noun is in the middle of the abbreviated phrase. If we pluralize the uncontracted phrase, we get "proofs of concept," which has an "s" in the middle rather than at the end. It's unclear from the linked answers how abbreviations with this structure should be pluralized. (POC, POCs, PsOC?) | eng_Latn | 17,093 |
Point of contacts? An exact Google search for "point of contacts" yields 2 million results, including sites like UNESCO and multiple universities and other academic sites. Is this a legitimate plural form of "point of contact"? | Why does pluralization of compound words typically occur in the middle as opposed to the end of the word? As I understand, correct plural versions of passerby and attorney general become passersby and attorneys general. But why? With passerby, the the preposition "by" has been combined with the noun "passer" to become a one word noun "passerby". So why shouldn't this be passerbys? If I am an attorney general, and you are an attorney general, why are we not attorney generals? As an American I have always heard it as attorneys general, however suggests British English does use "attorney-generals" (as well as an interesting 2nd paragraph that further probes my question). Are there hard rules to this topic? Or merely generally accepted practices based on locale? | Which form should be used for attributive nouns like “student union”: singular or plural, or possessive singular or possessive plural? When should a noun that’s used attributively to describe another noun be plural, and when should it be singular? And when should it be possessive, like baker’s dozen and when should it be plural possessive, like farmers’ market? In other words, why do we say teachers union rather than teacher union? And why do we say wedding planner rather than weddings planner? Which of these variants is or are correct? student union students union student’s union students’ union What about community values versus community’s values? Please note I am looking for a general rule or at least some tips. These are only examples. Update: It seems even native speakers follow their personal style to write such compound words. I wonder why in the IELTS listening section, the language learner has to write a specific form and there is no rule for this. | eng_Latn | 17,094 |
Me and X or X and me? When should I say, for instance, "Mary and me," and when should I say "Me and Mary?" Example: Which option should I use in the following sentence? After drinking our tea and saying goodbye to Hank, [...] made out way back to the hotel. | Should I put myself last? "me and my friends" vs. "my friends and me" or "my friends and I" I've always been taught to put myself last when referring to myself in the same sentence as others but the usage of "me and..." seems to be everywhere these days. The misuse of the word "me" instead of "I" aside, is there some new rule I haven't heard of? Shouldn't we put ourselves last regardless of the "me"/"I" usage? Examples of "correct" usage: My friends and I went for some ice cream. Did you see my friends and me at the ice cream stand? Examples of "incorrect" usage: Me and my friends went for some ice cream. Did you see me and my friends at the ice cream stand? Note: I was also taught that the only person who could put themselves first was the queen. | What is the correct way to write 1.5 hours? I'm a bit confused in describing 1.5hrs in words. Is writing one and a half an hour correct or should it be one and half hour? E.g: I'll see you there in one and a half an hour. OR I'll see you there in one and half hour. Or is there any other correct way of writing this? | eng_Latn | 17,095 |
Have or has in this sentence when talking about "one or the other" Which of these two sentences is correct english? If you or a loved one has suffered from an injury or: If you or a loved one have suffered from an injury Considering that it is regarding "you or a loved one". | When should we use proximity rule in "either/or", and "neither/nor"? According to this , if at least one of the nouns involved is plural then it should take the plural form of the verb. Otherwise, it should take the singular form of the verb. But in the last part it says not all grammars agree to those rules thus proximity rule applies. However, it doesn't explain when to apply the proximity rule and when not to use the former rules. | Does "It snowed hard Monday" require an "on"? I came across an English learner writing It snowed hard Monday. After saying that it didn't snow on Friday and Saturday. It didn't quite feel right to me. I'd be okay with It snowed hard. or It snowed Monday. Is it okay for there to be two things ("hard" and "Monday") modifying the snowing without an "on" breaking things up a bit? | eng_Latn | 17,096 |
When refering to 2 people, do you use "have" or "has"? Example - If you or Theresa has time, let me know. If you or Theresa have time, let me know. Which one is correct? | Singular or plural following a list Can anyone tell me if I should use inspire or inspires in this phrase? An extraordinary leader whose vision, values, integrity and boundless curiosity inspires all who follow in his footsteps. | Help + Noun + Gerund or Infinitive Help my sister peel oranges. Help my sister to peel oranges. Help my sister peeling oranges. Help my sister with peeling oranges. Which of the above is/are correct, and why are the others incorrect? | eng_Latn | 17,097 |
"Who has" or "Who have" when referring to a collection of people in a department I have spoken with Education Unit who has requested a contract. I have spoken with Education Unit who have requested a contract. Which of the above is most acceptable in British English? | Are collective nouns always plural, or are certain ones singular? I'd say Microsoft have a way of bending the rules and I know that McLaren have won the championship. While this sounds strange, I believe it is correct English (sorry, I'm not native). But when it's a small company, would you still use it this way? Is a company always plural, or are small companies singular? I.e., would you say Bakery Johnson makes fine bread or Bakery Johnson make fine bread? Is it My book seller, Woody's, have moved or is it has moved? | Usage of 'shall' in questions Let's say I want to arrange a lesson with my coach and I say: Shall we have a lesson on Monday? I understand the use of 'shall' in American English is considered to be formal, whereas this is not the case in British English. I would like to understand the different connotations (is it formal? is it a request for confirmation? is it a suggestion?) that the following questions have: A. Shall we have a lesson on Monday? B. Can we have a lesson on Monday? C. Should we have a lesson on Monday? D. Could we have a lesson on Monday? E. Are we having a lesson on Monday? F. Will we have a lesson on Monday? G. Are we going to have a lesson on Monday? | eng_Latn | 17,098 |
What comes first—verb or adverb? Do you say, to effectively communicate or would you say to communicate effectively. As ENL learner I get this confused quite often. Thanks. | Are split infinitives grammatically incorrect, or are they valid constructs? Mark's generosity in this crisis seems to more than make up for his earlier stinginess. Should those sentences always be avoided, or are there cases where they are valid? | Should I put myself last? "me and my friends" vs. "my friends and me" or "my friends and I" I've always been taught to put myself last when referring to myself in the same sentence as others but the usage of "me and..." seems to be everywhere these days. The misuse of the word "me" instead of "I" aside, is there some new rule I haven't heard of? Shouldn't we put ourselves last regardless of the "me"/"I" usage? Examples of "correct" usage: My friends and I went for some ice cream. Did you see my friends and me at the ice cream stand? Examples of "incorrect" usage: Me and my friends went for some ice cream. Did you see me and my friends at the ice cream stand? Note: I was also taught that the only person who could put themselves first was the queen. | eng_Latn | 17,099 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.