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.

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.]

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.”

My question is rather long but I would be really grateful if you could answer it because to me it is really important
I have been wondering if it is possible to say the sentences that I am going to write because I have never seen them written or even said maybe there is a nuance to note or maybe not, maybe they are right in formal speech but not in informal…if there is any of these nuances or other comment I will be grateful to read them:

The sentences are these:
1)It is impossible that he is there
2) It is impossible that he be there
3) It is impossible that he has gone there
4 ) It is impossible that he may be there
5) It is impossible that he may have gone there
6) It is impossible that he might have gone there
7 )It is impossible that he would do it
8) It is impossible that he would have done it
9 )It is impossible that he will do it
10 )It is impossible that he might do it
11( It is impossible that he had done it
12 ) It is impossible that he should be there
13) It is impossible that he should have gone to the party

Most of these make a little sense but they do not sound like typical English. I speak French, and I believe Spanish grammar is similar to French grammar. All of these sound like they could be direct translations of what a French speaker might say, for example.

#2 is wrong–no reason for subjunctive here. Most of the others just do not make much sense. “Impossible” is a very strong word; to say it with words of uncertainty like “might” or “may” does not make sense in English.

1)It is improbable that he is there
2) It is improbable that he be there
3) It is improbable that he has gone there
4 ) It is improbable that he may be there
5) It is improbable that he may have gone there
6) It is improbable that he might have gone there
7 )It is improbable that he would do it
8) It is improbable that he would have done it
9 )It is improbable that he will do it
10 )It is improbable that he might do it
11( It is improbable that he had done it
12 ) It is improbable that he should be there
13) It is improbable that he should have gone to the party

Most of these are awkward. “Improbable” is not usually used this way. Use “unlikely,” then some of these would sound OK. For example, #7 “It is unlikely that he would do it.” The conditional makes sense here precisely because the sense is conditional. None of the other verbs have that conditional sense. (“Should” is conditional but has the sense of duty, so it does not normally make sense with the word improbably or unlikely.)

And what about these??

1) I did it in order that he didn’t go to Spain
2) I did it in order that he might not go to Spain
3) I did it in order that he would not go to Spain
3 ) I did it in other that he could not go to Spain
4) I did it in order that he couldn’t go to Spain
5 ) I did it in order that he should not go to Spain

#3 are the only ones that works in English. This is also conditional.

Could I use the same way those sentences with ” so that ” instead of ” in order that ”

Only the #3 examples. Again conditional make the most sense.

Is ” would rather ” correct in indirect speech without changing the tense as in ” He said that he would rather not go to the party ”

This is good English and makes perfect sense. A Spanish speaker might say “He said that he would prefer not to go.” This means the same thing, but “he would rather not go” is more typical English.

I hope this helps.

Dear Ms. W:

You wrote:

> Please tell me how I would address the former Vice President of the United
> States in a formal business letter?
>
>
The address normally would either be Mr. or The Honorable. For the salutation either Mr. or Vice-President. Generally, people who attain a significant office (Bishop, Mayor, Governor, Senator, etc.) are addressed by
their title out of respect even after they are no longer in that office. That is also true of retired military. “Mr.” is OK in America, though in some other countries with more aristocratic tradition, a recipient might be less receptive to a “mere” Mister.

Dear T:

You wrote:

> Is there some way one could obtain a list of all the allowable English
> syllables?
> Thank you,
>

Some linguistic texts list different phonemes (distinct sounds) but I am not familiar with the number of syllables. English, unlike some Asian languages for example, is not really syllabic in the sense that syllables provide meaning. Like Samuel Johnson’s attempt to record all the words, I doubt if the distinct syllables could be proscribed.

Having said that, I would take a look at a Rhyming Dictionary (there are several on the market). That would certainly give you an idea of many of the syllables that end words in English.

Now, if you are referring to roots, prefixes, and suffixes, regardless of how many syllables there are in them, then take a look at Word-Part Dictionary from Edicom Systems. This is fairly exhaustive without including specialized roots for science, medicine, and other fields. This is available through English Plus.

I hope this helps a little.

Dear A:

You wrote:

I was wondering how many abbreviations are there in the English language and in what types are they divided into.

Thank you,
A (Brazil)

There are hundreds of commonly used abbreviations in English. Thousands, of course, if you start considering geographic abbreviations. You can buy several different Dictionaries of Abbreviations.

In English, there are two kinds of abbreviations commonly recognized. The first kind are “true” abbreviations, a shorter way of writing a word or phrase. These include some abbreviations that have entered English from other langauges, especially Latin. They would include such shortened words as “Rd.” for “Road” or “etc.” from the Latin “et cetera.”

The second kind of abbreviations are those that are pronounced as though they were a new word. These are called acronyms. They include such words as “scuba,” which is short for “self-contained underwater breathing apparatus” or “NATO” (in English pronounced to rhyme with the name “Plato”) which is short for “North Atlantic Treaty Organization.”

I hope this helps. Our web site and our English reference program Grammar Slammer contains many of the commonly used English abbreviations including abbreviations used in geographical addresses and abbreviations used in measurements.

I hope this helps.

Dear RL:

You wrote:

Dear Sir

I believe the use of present participles as premodifiers and post modifiers is hard to codify. For instance, we can use ‘an escaping prisoner’, or ‘a drowning man’ but not ‘a walking man’. However, one can say: The man walking etc. Would you please share your idea about this particular phenomenon of English language?

RL

You can say “the walking man,” but it would be unusual. Present participles follow the noun they modify when they are in phrases. “Walking” is almost always used in a phrase. In English people seldom just “walk.” They walk somewhere or in a certain manner. Therefore, we would be more likely to say something like the following:
The man walking with a limp is a beggar. (his manner of walking)
He said he saw the woman walking down the street. (where she was walking)
Sometimes the participle follows the noun for emphasis. For example there was a recent film entitled “Dead Man Walking.” “Walking Dead Man” would have meant the same thing and would have sounded just as “correct” to an English ear, but the first is more rhythmic and emphatic. (The rhetorical term for this rhythm is “cursus.”)

There is also a subtle sense that a participle before a noun is more descriptive of the noun–it is more consciously adjectival–while the participle following the noun emphasizes the action more. Since most people walk, a “walking woman,” could describe nearly anyone, while a “woman walking” emphasizes the action more at that particular time (the idea being she could have been doing something else). This is fairly subtle, and more an issue of style than grammar.

I hope this helps.

Dear Mr. B:

You wrote:
> Hello,
> Please help with this grammar issue: What is the rule for using
> apostrophes with acronyms? I see apostrophes commonly used with an acronym
> to indicate a plural usage but doesn’t it really mean that it’s possessive?!?
>
> RMM’s
> RMMs
>
This is a good question. There is a little confusion because we DO use ‘s for plurals of words, letters, and numbers that name themselves: don’t forget to dot your i’s and cross your t’s. However, plural acronyms which have no periods are treated like words. They would only have apostrophe plus s for possession.

Example:
Possessive: He was appointed NATO’s presiding secretary.
Plural: He studied the REMs of 200 sleeping subjects.

I hope this helps.