Category Archives: Uncategorized

A Double Virgule on Legal Documents?

Dear JR, Paralegal:

You wrote:
> I was taught, but cannot remember by whom, that at the end of a pleading page in a legal document, if there was a large blank space, and the document then continued on the following page, you placed two diagonals // to indicate that the document continued. I can find no reference to confirm this. Can you help? Thank you.
>
>
I am not familiar with this. This may be an “in-house” practice at some place where you worked, or it could be a specific use in legal documents I am not familiar with. Are you thinking of the parallel, a reference mark made of two horizontal lines? This traditionally was used along with the asterisk, daggers, and section mark to show a reference of some kind. It is possible that the parallel has or had a special meaning in legal documents just as the section mark does. It also might be a proofreading mark used for the purpose you stated. Perhaps someone reading this can help?

Family Names with Particles

Dear Mr. B:

You wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I’d like to note that there’s a slight error on your capitalisation page on
> englishplus.com (https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000045.htm). You cite this
> as an example:
>
> Correct: Ludwig van Beethoven
>
> Correct: Cornelia ten Boom (First name being used)
>
> Correct: Miss Ten Boom (First name not used)
>
> Beethoven was German, and as such the particle in his name is ‘von’ (‘van’
> is Dutch). Additionally, the second and third examples are somewhat
> confusing, as it’s obviously a Dutch name. This means it can either be Dutch
> or Belgian, and the language rules differ between those countries.
>
> In the Netherlands, particles are not capitalised when the first name is
> used (like you mention), but this is also the case when a title is used,
> such as in the second example.
>
> In Belgian Dutch (Flemish), any particle is capitalised in every case.
> Often, the particle is attached to the surname itself or even part of the
> surname proper with the actual surname losing its capitalisation Because of
> this, the Flemish collate names including the particle, so Van der Ven ends
> up near Vanderbroucke, whereas in Dutch we only collate on (I suppose) the
> first capitalised (non-particle) word in the name, and Van der Ven would end
> up near Van der Vaart.
>
> So, in Flemish it’d be “Cornelia Ten Boom” and “Miss Ten Boom”, but in Dutch
> it would be “Cornelia ten Boom” and “Miss ten Boom”. It’d be “There’s a
> phone call for Ten Boom” in both languages, because of the lack of
> title/first name (and because Flemish capitalises it in any case).
>

Thanks for your input. Perhaps we do need to emphasize that the patterns are general and may vary. It is always best to check with the individual. You might want to double check Beethoven’s preposition. Originally we had “von,” but when we looked up his name, we saw that it was written “van.” We checked it with Funk & Wagnalls, so it may be a reflection of his dialect or the spelling at the time he was alive. Perhaps others spell it differently. Shakespeare’s name was spelled six different ways in documents that he signed. We also note that the German Wikipedia spells his name with a “van.”

No Comma after a Name before a Number

Dear Sir:

You wrote:
> Thanks for helping me justify my non-use of a comma in my name. My wife was ribbing me earlier about how I don’t like to see my name printed “G___ J. O___, II” even though I’m supposedly old school when it comes to
grammar. Now she’ll see! I was right! I was right!
>
> I’ll eat out on this one for a day until I’m wrong about some other thing. Then it’ll be back to business as usual.
>
> I love your web site, but I feel a funny sense of performance anxiety writing you email. You’re not going to correct this and send it back, are you?
>
Thanks for the encouraging word–glad to be of help. We do not normally correct e-mail unless you ask us to. I am a teacher, so I do enough correcting as it is.

Contraction or Abbreviation?

Dear MB:

You wrote:
> Mr is a contraction of Mister.
> Rev. is an abbreviation of Reverend whereas Revd is a contraction.
>
Perhaps it is taught differently in Commonwealth countries. The American understanding is that in contractions the pronunciation as well as the spelling is contracted (e.g., doesn’t) and in abbreviations the spelling but not the pronunciation is abbreviated (as in Mr.).

Thank you for your input.

US vs. Aussie?

Dear RLW:

You wrote:
>
> US: Are you done?
> Australian: Are you finished?
>
> US: I changed my socks because they had gotten wet in the snow.
> Australian: I changed my socks because they got wet in the snow.
>
There are many interesting regional vocabularies, but those are beyond the scope of Grammar Slammer. The grammar is the same. It is simply a matter of which past tense one uses. Actually, a lot of Americans would say “they got wet.” We have noted that “got” as a past participle is more typical of the Commonwealth (“they had got wet”) but the grammar is the same, and there is mutual comprehension. We have tried to avoid vocabulary issues in Grammar Slammer. That truly requires another work.

One of my personal regional favorites is the expression “redd up.” This is a Yorkshire colloquialism which is used in the novel Jane Eyre. (Charlotte Bronte was from Yorkshire). It is also used in western Pennsylvania in the
United States, but nowhere else in the US. I do not believe it is used elsewhere in the UK. I means to “make ready by cleaning.” Perhaps is it a contraction of “ready” plus “clean up.” At any rate, it is not a grammatical issue but just a curious distinction in vocabulary.

Use of Conditional

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Which of these sentences implies that the crime was necessarily committed by one person?
> Do 2 or 3 imply that the crime wasn’t committed by one person?
>
> 1-Anyone of us could have committed the crime.
> 2-Everyone of us could have committed the crime.
> 3-All of us could have committed the crime.
>
None really imply how many perpetrators there were. All are simply a reflection of the possibility that one or more of “us” had the motive and opportunity to do it.

Often in such a context #1 and #2 would be written “Any one” or “Every one” since “One of us” in most cases is the subject. Some authorities insist on writing it this way. Others make a distinction with #2 saying that “everyone
of us” is the same as “all of us” while “every one of us” is the same as “each one of us.”

The meaning of the subjects would change if the verb were not conditional. If the verb were not conditional, #1 would probably not make any sense unless you made “anyone” into “any one.” #2 and #3 would mean the same
thing, whether or not “everyone” were divided.

#1 Any one of us committed the crime. (The suspect or perpetrator is in our group. A common situation in mystery dramas. Though more commonly the “any “would be dropped.)

#2 Everyone of us (or “every one of us”) committed the crime. (We all did it.)

#3 All of us committed the crime. (We all did it.)

Ambiguous Style

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Which of these sentences is correct (with the given meaning):
> 1-Unlike John, you’ll like Harry.

This is ambiguous or misplaced at best. It literally means that you will like Harry, unlike John who does not like Harry.

> 2-You will like Harry, unlike John.

This does mean what you intend but is awkward at best. Why not say it as you have written it below?

> Meaning: You didn’t/don’t/won’t like John, but you’ll like Harry.

Using “The”

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Is this sentence correct:
>
> 1-She was waiting for the man to repair the heating system to arrive.
> (The man’s job is repairing heating systems.)

No. You have misplaced modifier. It needs to read, “She was waiting for the man to arrive to repair the heating system.” The second infinitive phrase is adverbial and is more or less equivalent to “in order to repair.” If you
want to emphasize the work that the man does, you would refer him as a “repairman” or “heating system repair man.”
>
> 2-He is the man to drive us there tomorrow.
> Does this sentence mean:
> A-that he is the man who CAN drive us there tomorrow
> or:
> B-He is the man who has been given the job of driving us there tomorrow
> or:
> C-He is the man who WILL drive us there tomorrow
>

When we say someone is THE person TO do something, it is really idiomatic and means, “he is meant to” or “he is the best person to.” So you would be saying. “He is the best person (or the only person meant) to drive us there
tomorrow.”

> 3-He is the man to save the company.
> Does this sentence mean:
> A-He can save the company
> or
> B-He will save the company
> or
> C-He has been assigned to the task of saving the company
>
Again, see above. It closest to A but with emphasis–“He is the only one who can save the company” or “He is meant to save the company” or “He is the best person to save the company.” As you can see, this is a very emphatic
idiom.

[We note that questions concerning the use of articles in English come from people whose native language does not have articles or does not distinguish between definite and indefinite articles. This can be tricky for such people to grasp how articles are used in English. We hope this posting and others like it can help clarify this difficulty.]

A or An before Historic or Hispanic?

Dear Ann:

You wrote:
>
> Hi again,
>
> It’s me with another dilemma in our office. I say use ‘a’ before the word
> Hispanic and history. Other staff members say ‘an’ before history or
> Hispanic. My rule is ‘a’ before a consonant or consonant sound with ‘an’
> before vowels or vowel sounds. What do you guys say? Thanks.
>
> Ann
>
I hate to sound like a weasel on this one, but either one is OK. In writing, whichever you use, be consistent. Usually “history” takes an “a.” But many people say, for example, “an historic occasion.” It is more a matter of
local dialect and how much you emphasize the “h.” Both words come from languages in which the “h” is silent, so in many places the words are pronounced with little or no emphasis on the “h.”

Ending Sentences – Parenthesis? Two Spaces?

Dear A:

You wrote:

>
> How should one end a sentence that ends with a paren which is immediately
> preceded by something that requires a period, such as an abbreviation?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> How should the following be typed:
>
> …….of instructional development (Standard I.C.I.). The remainder of
> the…..
>
> OR
>
> ……of instructional development (Standard I.C.I.) The remainder of
> the…..
>
The first is correct. The second is confusing. Note that today many abbreviations are spelled without periods today. I use the example of person with an abbreviation after his name (John Smith, Jr.).

> Which would be the correct format for ending the sentence with parentheses
> and starting the next line? We were taught that the beginning of the next
> sentence always has 2 typed spaces at the beginning of each sentence
> (usually after punctuation).

The standard typewriter textbooks taught that there should be two spaces after a sentence-ending period. Most businesses followed this practice when letters were typed on typewriters. This helped the sentence stand out better.

Today with various fonts and word processors, this standard is hard to follow. One word processor I use flags two spaces together as an error. Two spaces after a period is strictly a style standard, not a rule. Because of what that word processor did to me, I no longer follow it. A friend who works in office applications training (Word, Word Perfect, etc.) says that not too many businesses follow the standard today. With HTML, for example, you can’t, unless you write in a special code for the extra space. Such is progress.