> Hi,
>
> Is “White” male correct? Or “white” male?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Linda
Normally “white” is merely a color, so it would not be capitalized. This is the same with “black,” “brown,” “yellow,” or “red.” Occasionally, you may see any of these used as a racial name and it would be capitalized, but the writer is usually trying to make a point. In virtually all cases it is unnecessary.
Clearly, if the modifier were based on a country, language group, or geographical location, then it would be capitalized: e.g., Caucasian male, African-American male, Hispanic male, etc.
You wrote:
> Please help defuse an ongoing grammar war.
> ——————————————-
> “Did she know where the Concierge desk was located?”
> Shouldn’t it be:
> “Did she know where the Concierge desk is located?”
> ==============================
> It is past tense when referring to the person ‘she’ granted, but
> the concierge desk IS located somewhere. I think if you say
> WAS located it would mean that the concierge desk was located in a place
> that it is NO longer located.
>
> PLEASE HELP. THANX.
>
This is one war that honestly is not worth fighting. Both sides are fine.
Sentence #1 is typical whenever a person is telling a story. Standard style is to keep things in the same tense unless there is a good reason not to.
Sentence #2 is OK, especially in a context where the concierge desk is a current topic of discussion.
If you wanted to indicate that the concierge desk had been moved and is longer in the place where it once was, you would say, “Did she know where the concierge desk had been located?” The past perfect tense indicates something that has been done or completed prior to the past action being described (“did know”).
You wrote:
> A-Is this sentence grammatically correct:
>
> 1-The work WOULD take three weeks if we START on Monday.
>
> Some people tell me it is, and some tell me it isn’t. If it is not
> grammatically correct, is it a commonly used ungrammatical structure?
This is fine. “If” clauses are one of the most common reasons for using conditional verbs in English.
>
> B-What is the difference between:
> 2-He would help you if you asked him.
> and:
> 3-He WOULD help you if you WOULD ask him.
#2 is a simple statement of fact–when you ask him, he helps. #3 is a problem of will–he helps when people ask, but you are so far unwilling to ask.
“Would” originally was the past tense of “will” in the sense of “desire.” It still suggests that in uses like this.
>
> Does 3 mean that your asking him is unlikely because you are unwilling to
> ask him?
>
Exactly.
You wrote:
> I know that quotation marks for a quote within a quote are to be single
> (in the USA). But what if you quote printed material that includes a
> quotation?
>
> A student asked me recently about taking a quote from a text in which
> there was already a quote. In the original text, the quote was printed
> with double quotation marks. In placing this as a quote into her own
> paper, should she change the quote within her quote to single marks? She
> objected as she did not want to change anything within the original quote
> without indicating the change.
>
Yes, you would have to change the quotations marks from single to double as you describe. Technically, since they are still quotation marks, she is not tampering with the quotation, simply making her own work more precise.
Having said that, occasionally some employers or some policies will insist on doing it differently. I once did some proofreading for a writer who had some customers who were strict Christian fundamentalists. He said that some
of his readers would claim he was tampering with Holy Scriptures when he changed the punctuation or capitalization in a quotation form the Bible to make it easier to read in context. Perhaps if she were writing for an audience with strong feelings like that, it might be prudent to keep the original quotation marks and put the larger quotation in single quotation marks surrounded by another set of double quotation marks. Keep in mind that in formal research any quotations four or more lines long usually are indented and the introductory and final quotation marks are eliminated. So any such quotation of four or more lines would have the original punctuation anyhow.
As you noted, in the British Isles, the doubling and singling is reversed.
You wrote:
> I am the director of public information at College X.
> We are currently working on a new mission statement and I
> would like for you to look at it and make sure it is grammatically
> correct. Here is the most current version:
>
> “College X enriches the academic, technical and
> cultural life of our diverse communities. We are committed to offering
> traditional and alternative approaches to education, providing quality
> instruction, and promoting lifelong learning.”
>
> Thank you for your help.
> respectfully,
> L
>
It sounds fine. The only problem is that you are not consistent in the use of the comma. In the first series, there is no comma before the and (“technical and cultural”), while in the second series there is a comma (“instruction, and promoting”). More authorities prefer the less ambiguous way you did it in the second series. To be consistent, add a comma after “technical.”
You wrote:
> Can you tell me if ‘Once upon a time there was a little bird called
> Tweetie’ is a simple/complex sentence please??
>
This is a simple sentence. The subject is “bird” and the verb is “was.” There are no other subjects or verbs. “Once upon a time” is an adverb followed by a prepositional phrase. “Called Tweetie” is a participial phrase modifying “bird.”
You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-We have seen people belonging to all age groups.
> 2-We have seen people, belonging to all age groups.
> 3-We have seen some people belonging to all age groups.
> 4-We have seen some people, belonging to all age groups.
>
1 and 3 sound fine. 2 and 4 are incomplete. The comma indicates that the participial phrase is nonrestrictive, but there is no apparent reason indicated in the sentence. They both leave the impression that there is more to be said. That is especially true because of the general nature of the word “people.”
You wrote:
> Is there a difference as regards their meanings between:
> a.”He had talked to her after I saw her.”
> and:
> b.”He had talked to her after I had seen her.”
>
In many cases they would mean the same thing. The tense difference can be significant, though. You probably would say “a” if you had been talking about seeing her and the next event was his talking to her. You would use “b” if you needed to establish that his talking to her took place separately and afterwards and the narrative was not seamless. Perfect tenses emphasize that the action has been completed.
You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-These are the tools to repair the car.
>
This makes sense and would work. You would be more precise to say “to repair the car with” or “with which to repair the car.”
> 2-I lost the tools to repair the car.
> meaning: the tools which were to be used to repair the car.
>
This makes sense colloquially, but the way you wrote your “translation” (“the tools used to repair the car”) is clearer.
> 3-Somebody stole the tools to repair the car.
> meaning: the tools which were to be used to repair the car.
> This sentence, I think, would primarily mean that he stole the tools IN
> ORDER TO repair the car. I wanted to see if it could work for the other
> meaning, ie. “He stole the tools with which we could repair the car.”
> In this case the “to clause” would postmodify the noun “tools” and won’t
> be a purpose clause.
>
You are correct. This would normally be understood to mean, “in order to repair the car.” For the other meaning we would probably simply say, “Somebody stole the car repair tools.”
Dear SJ.:
>
> You wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am 15 years old and consider myself to be an amateur grammarian. Ever
> since I learned the rule, ‘Don’t end a sentence with a preposition,’ I
> have found it rather puzzling. If the diagram works out, and there is no
> true grammatical fallacy in writing this sentence, what is the big deal?
>
> I believe I have discovered a grammatical proof that shows that there is
> at least one case where the rules of grammar not only allow, but DICTATE,
> that the sentence end in a preposition. In short, if an interrogative
> sentence has the questioning portion as the object of a prepositional
> phrase, then when the sentence is transferred to the interrogative mood it
> must end in a preposition. For example, “Who are you speaking to?”
>
> Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, I would appreciate
> any feedback you might have, and would you please give me the name and/or
> email address of a grammatical institute or association with which I could
> pose the same question?
>
> Thank you to an excruciating degree,
>
> S
>
> (Oh, and, in case you’re wondering, my peers do think that I’m at least a
> little bit weird)
>
We agree (not on your weirdness, but on prepositions). The example you use is common in English. The “rule” came about because all European grammatical terms are based on the terms used in Latin. In Latin the “pre-position” does always come before an object. Some grammarians, especially Englishmen in the 18th and 19th centuries, taught that by definition the preposition always had to come before its object. That may be true in Latin, but that does not mean it has to be true in English. We note that even the King James Bible and Shakespeare end sentences with prepositions.