Category Archives: Grammar

Modifier Placement – Infinitive Phrase

Dear A K:

You wrote:

Can one say:

a. I have a plan for you to get rich.

b. I have a plan to get rich for you.

I have a plan for you. You can use it to get rich.

You may hear English speakers say such a sentence either way, and it does mean the same thing. However, sentence a is more easily understood. Because the phrase “to get rich” immediately follows “plan” in sentence b, the listener is going to first think that the speaker has his own plan to get rich. That confusion is eliminated in sentence a because the listener understands immediately that the plan is for him, not for the speaker.

Using Clauses to Modify

Dear N;

You wrote:

1-The writer the number of whose books we did not know started speaking.

2-The writer the number of books written by whom we did not know started speaking.

3-The writer the number of whose books was not known to us started speaking.

4-The writer the number of books written by whom was unknown to us started speaking. We did not know how many books this one particular writer had written, He started speaking.

All of these sound terrible. At the very least they need commas. 2 and 4 without any punctuation make no sense at all. These are all very awkward, and no one would speak or write this way. The last unnumbered sentence is fine except for the comma splice—you need a semicolon or a period.

These are the kind of sentences that people joke about because sentences like them are sometimes found in government documents. Do  not make yourself a laughingstock, avoid such language!

 

 

Periods after Abbreviations?

Dear Mr. S:

You wrote:

 You recommend use of periods after the abbreviations, but that is completely opposite of Chicago Manual of Style, Microsoft Manual of style, and many other manuals.

Thank you for the note. This is something that is changing. We put this together nearly 20 years ago, and most sources in North America still recommended periods except for metric measurements and obvious acronyms.

It may be necessary for us to qualify our recommendations. As with other issues where not all authorities agree, whichever way you choose, be consistent.

Comma vs. Dash

Dear A:

You wrote:

a. He talked to Jeff, angrily.

b. He threw the ball, with all his force.

Normally, the commas in these sentences would be considered superfluous. However, I think they might fulfill two functions: 1. They might indicate that what follows them is an afterthought. In this case they would be reflecting a pause in speech. 2. They might make the second part becomes parenthetical and increase the weight of the first part. The second part becomes parenthetical/ What did he do? He talked to Jeff, and (what’s more) he did it angrily. He threw the ball, and (what’s more) he did it with all his force.

Would you say that analysis is correct?

I understand what you are saying, and some people do use commas that way. However, it tends to be confusing because commas usually mean something else. If you want to show the afterthought, use a dash. That is the main reason we use dashes—as an afterthought or for emphasis. That way, too, there is no ambiguity about what you are trying to say.

Beginning with an Emphatic Contraction

Dear Mr. T:

You wrote:

Can one use:

 1-Hadn’t he opened the door, I wouldn’t have seen him.

instead of:

2-Had he not opened the door, I wouldn’t have seen him.

Can one use:

3-Weren’t he such a fool, he would have accepted your offer.

instead of:

4-Were he not such a fool, he would have accepted your offer.

All four are technically OK, but in normal speech only #2 or #4 would be used. In most cases when the contraction is used, the listener is assuming the speaker is asking a question. We would probably hear: “Hadn’t he opened the door? I wouldn’t have seen him.”

#3 might be a bit more clear because it is using the subjunctive which is rarely, if ever, interrogative, but it could still cause some confusion.

Just with Participles

Dear Navi:

You wrote:

 Are these sentences correct:

1-He is as hard-working as ever, just changing his job. (Meaning: He is as hard-working as ever. He is just changing my job.)

I think you mean “his job.” Yes, that would be what it means.

2-John was really happy, just standing there listening to the waves.

This is fine.

3-John had a smile on his face, just standing there listening to the waves.

This is fine.

4-John was not doing anything, just standing there listening to the waves.

This is fine.

I do not like ‘1’. I think the “meaning” sentence is better. ‘1’ makes it sound that he is hard-working AS he is changing his job.  

No, remember that in English participial phrases are usually very literal. He is merely changing his job, not his work ethic.

I believe in spoken English, a full stop instead of a comma would solve the problem.

I am as creative as ever. (I am) Just changing my job. In written English, the second ‘I am’ has to be there.

Either way is fine.

I think ‘4’ also could use a full stop instead of the comma. It would then be equivalent to:

4a-John was not doing anything. He was just standing there listening to the waves.

Either one is fine and says the same thing.

I might sound as if I think I know what I am talking about. If I did not have strong doubts about what I was saying, I would not ask the question!!

I hope this helps.

 

 

More on Only

Dear N T:

You wrote:

 1-We only did not open the front door.

Is this sentence correct and does it mean:

We did everything else, but we did not open the front door.

Or:

We opened all the doors except the front door.

This totally depends on context. Either makes sense. You are saying that the one action you did not do was open the front door. If the context is talking about opening doors, then the second one would fit. If the context is speaking of a number of activities then the first one could make sense. What this says is “The one thing we did not do was open the front door.”

If you think about it, “only” as an adverb is the adverb form of  ‘one.”

2-We did not open the front door only.

Is this sentence correct and does it mean:

We opened doors other than the front door as well.

Since this follows “front door,” that is what “only modifies.” This would mean that other doors were opened, too.

Usually when a sentence ends with “only,” that add emphasis. You could also say “We did not open only the front door.”

 

Using Just and Only

Dear N T:

You asked:

1-You do not have to go to only one of these cities.

2-You do not have to only go to one of these cities.

3-You do not have to go to one of these cities only.

4-You do not only have to go to one of these cities.

Which of the above mean:

a-You can go to more than one of these cities.

and which mean:

b-You have to go to more than one city. Or maybe, you have to do something other than going to one of these cities?

The words “just” and “only” are notorious for being difficult to manage without context. However, what is important is that the “only” normally modifies the word that follows it. (Obviously, #3 is different.)

Therefore, #1 means that you must go to more than one city (i.e., not only one).

#2 means that you must do more than just go to one of the cities (i.e., not only go, but do something else).

#3 means that your choice of cities is not limited to these cities (i.e., not only these cities but others, too).

#4 means that you must go to one of the cities and do something else (i.e., you not only have to go, but do something else). Because “have to” is modified by the “only,” this means the only is modifying something that is imperative.

Having said all that, occasionally in everyday speech people will put an “only” where it technically does not belong, but it is understood because of the context.

Each vs. All

Dear N:

You wrote:

1-How much will it cost to go to each of these museums?

Can’t this sentence mean two things:

a-How much will it cost to go to ALL of these museums?

No. It could be asking for an itemized list, but the question is about EACH museum. This question is asking for a TOTAL only.

b-How much will each of them cost? (In this case we would be asking for a list of prices.)

Yes, this is what it is asking.

If the sentence cannot mean ‘b’, how can one formulate ‘b’?

2-How much will each of these museums cost to go to?

This is asking the same thing. #1 is a bit more direct and clear.

Need Gone

Dear Mr. J:

You wrote:

I keep seeing “Need Gone” on Facebook and other selling pages. When did this horrid expression become so popular? I am not that smart can you tell me why need gone is bad?

 I need gone

We Need Gone

Furniture Need gone

Dog Gone, all above are very poor English.  The furniture is sold (not gone). How about I would like to sell quickly? 

I guess I do not use Facebook enough to see that expression. I think the problem is that it is ambiguous even when grammatically OK. For example, does “We need gone furniture” mean “We need furniture that is gone” or “We need our furniture to be gone”?

Your web page says:

Gone or Went?

Gone is the past participle of to go. Used as the verb of a sentence, it must always be preceded by an auxiliary verb such as has, have, had, is, am, are, was, were, be, or one of their contractions. Went is the past tense of to go. It never takes an auxiliary verb.

Incorrect: They gone to the movies. (Gone needs an auxiliary verb.)

Correct: They have gone to the movies.

Correct: They are gone to the movies.

Correct: They went to the movies.

Incorrect: You could have went with them. (Went takes no auxiliary verb.)

Correct: You could have gone with them.
Technically, any past participle can be used as an adjective, but since “go” is always intransitive, the meaning would often be ambiguous in English. We tend to put it in clauses or phrases as I did in the two examples above: “that is gone” (clause) and “to be gone” (phrase). Other languages use participles where English would use a clause or an infinitive phrase.

I would not be surprised to find that “need gone” may sometimes simply be the result of an online “translator” like Babelfish, translating a language with different grammar into English. For example, many Eastern European languages use participles that way, and many Asian languages do not distinguish among parts of speech the same way English does. It might come from something originally written in some such language.

Back in the fifties and early sixties, “gone” was used as a slang adjective to mean “good,” especially among beatniks, e.g. “He was a really gone drummer.” The hippies changed that to “far out” later in the sixties. But that does not appear to be such a throwback in the examples you gave.

Where we are located near New York City, so the common misuse is not with “gone” as much as “went.” In this area you can hear a lot of “have went.”