Dear Mr GW:

You wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When ending a sentence with a web or email address, is it okay to
> leave off the full stop?
>
> Best Regards,
> Graeme Walshe
>
Good question. It might be confusing to the reader, especially in e-mails and online postings because the reader might think something has been left out or dropped.

We recommend skipping a space before entering the period. That way, the period will not be read as part of the URL or e-mail address. However, we understand that in formal writing one should place the period in its normal position.

For example:
Find helpful online English grammar information at https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/ . (Informal)

Dear BB:

You wrote:
> Soap opera is two words – when one says soap opera-like does it use two
> hyphens, or one – or is it never appropriate? soap-opera-like??? soap
> opera-like??? Help!
>
Good question. Hyphenated words in English are not as common as they used to be. Normally, “soap opera” is two words. You were probably correct, though strictly colloquial, by adding a hyphen with “like” (your last choice above).

If you are using formal English–e.g., this is a business letter and not a personal memo–then avoid any construction with “-like” unless you find it in the dictionary. It is theoretically possible to add “-like” to just about any noun to make it an adjective, but that is not a standard construction. If this is formal writing, then say something like “the plot was like a soap opera” or “the situation reminded us of a soap opera” to avoid the awkward expression altogether.

Dear CN:

You wrote:
> How would I address a Judge and her husband. Should it be Mr. Adam & The Honorable Anna Mae Smith or Mr. & The Honorable Anna Mae Smith or The Honorable Anna Mae Smith and Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
>
Good question. This really more of an etiquette question than a grammar question, but it is still standard for the husband’s name to come first, so “Mr. Adam and the Honorable Anna Mae Smith” is the most standard in a formal
presentation. Occasionally there may be office practice or specific situations which call for something different.

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?

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.)