Dear NT:

You wrote:
> Consider these two sentences:
> 1-Conversation as Wilde understood it from the Platonic dialogues was
> inhabited by conflict.
> 2-Conversation as Wilde understood it, from the Platonic dialogues, was
> inhabited by conflict.
>
> Which of these sentences implies necessarily that Wilde had only one
> vision of “conversation”, one “understanding” of what conversation was?
> Which implies that he could have more than one way of looking at it? Are
> either of the sentences ambiguous in this regard?
>
Your question seems irrelevant because the second one does not really make any sense the way it is punctuated. The first comma, if there is one, should go after “conversation.” I would probably always punctuate it that way because
“as…dialogues” appears to be an appositive.

The fact that the sentence includes “from the Platonic dialogues” after the modifying clause means that Wilde got this understanding from the Platonic dialogues. Whether or not he had another idea from another source is irrelevant in this sentence. If he did, then say so. There would be no reason to punctuate without commas as this is a clause in apposition. It would probably be clearer to say, “As Wilde understood it from the Platonic dialogues, conversation was inhabited by conflict.” With that, there is little ambiguity.

Dear N:
>
> You wrote:
> I have stopped eating meat for two weeks.
> I am not eating meat for two weeks.
>
> Can I use these sentences when the time is within the two-week period of not eating meat?
>
The first is present perfect. The action is complete with respect to the present. You have already been on your diet for two weeks. The answer to your question is no for #1.

The second could be spoken in the middle of the diet, though more commonly understood that the two weeks were yet to come. Progressive does suggest a continuing action, the adverbial qualifier throws it off a little. Context matters. The answer to your question is maybe for #2, but only in the right context.

Dear Tommy:

You wrote:

Dear Sir:

This is from Dragon Seed by Pearl S. Buck (page 18).

“Sell it,” she had said. “It will buy me a pair of earrings.”
“Do you want earrings?” he had asked her in surprise. “But your ears are not pierced.”
“I can pierce them,” she had said.
“I will buy you the earrings,” he had answered her, “but not with your own hair.”

Question 1: Why did the author use the past perfect form (she had said or he had asked)?

Question 2: How would the meaning change if the author used the simple past form (she said or he asked)?

Sincerely,
T

I am sorry that I cannot answer your question completely. I do not currently have a copy of Dragon Seed at my disposal (my family donated its copy to the local library).

The use of the past perfect depends on the context. The past perfect is used to indicate an action that took place or a condition that existed before the time used by the past tense. Probably the novel is describing an action in the past (most novels do), but this conversation took place before the main action being described. It could be part of a flashback, for example, or a reminiscence.

If the writer used the simple past tense, that would indicate that the conversation took place at or around the same time as the rest of the action being described.

Although I do not have the context available, I suspect a character is reminiscing–recalling how she got the earrings which she is now wearing or using. Her use of the earrings would be in the past tense, but her remembering about how she first got them would be in the past perfect since that action took place some time before the time being described in the story.

For a bit more on this, see the Grammar Slammer glossary on Perfect Tenses (also https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000361.htm) and Tense of Verbs (https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000378.htm).

You wrote:

I was trying to explain a “compound sentence” to my son, which referrs to two clauses.

Here’s your definition of a clause:

Clause
A clause is a group of words containing a subject and verb which forms part of a sentence. The first sentence on this page is made up of two clauses: the first clause from “A clause” to “verb,” the second from “which” to the end.

Perhaps the “which” is serving as a noun to form the second clause in this case? Otherwise, isn’t “clause” the subject of both of the parts, and thus the sentence is actually one clause and one phrase???
Thanks!
J & A
_____________________________________________________
“It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years.” -Thomas Andrew Lehrer

(I love Tom Lehrer!)

Actually “which” is the subject of the second clause. The pronoun “which” replaces “clause” while also doing the job of a relative pronoun. The second clause is part of the participial phrase beginning with “containing,” but the sentence does have two distinct clauses.

Dear MT:

You wrote:
> I work for a nonprofit that publishes scientific journals on cancer research. We require spelling and grammar tests of all employment applicants. One test item in grammar is on subject-verb agreement, which goes this way:
>
> “She is one of those songwriters who (like, likes) to compose on the piano.”
>
> Our answer sheet indicates the verb “like” to be the correct answer. Is this accurate, and if not, why isn’t it?
>
> I would appreciate your help on this. Thank you.
>
This is one that can go either way. The pronoun “who” can be singular or plural, and in this case the antecedent is ambiguous. If the “who” stands for “one,” then the verb would be “likes.” If the who stands for “songwriters,” the verb would be “like.” Because the word “songwriters” is closest to the pronoun, generally English speakers would understand that the “who” is taking the place of “songwriters” so that the verb would be “like.” If you were to use the verb “likes,” you would be emphasizing the individual person (she) more than the type of songwriter she is.

Either could be correct; they just have slightly different meanings. If you were to ask for the “best” answer, then it would be “like” for the reason above. If you were to ask for the “correct” answer, either might work. I mention this because most standardized mutiple-choice tests like the SAT always say “best” answer. That gives a little wiggle room in case another answer might work in some instances.

Dear PC:

You wrote:
> what is the rule for using parantheses within parantheses? is it proper to do: His department (Department of Mental Health (DMH)) likes to…
>
> or should it be: His department [Department of Mental Health (DMH)] likes to…
>
Actually, the brackets go inside the parentheses. You should write:
His department (Department of Mental Health [DMH]) likes to…

The best rule of thumb is to avoid this because it does look awkward. Perhaps you can simply use commas with the appositive?
His department, the Department of Mental Health (DMH), likes to…

But if you do have to use parentheses within parentheses, use brackets for the expression inside.

For more see “Brackets” in Grammar Slammer or
https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000139.htm .

Dear Mr. G:

You wrote:

> Please clear up for me the following question raised from my letter to the Editor of a local weekly newspaper. See the question below… The title the editor had created and placed above my letter to the editor was:
“Intellectual growth is contrary to centering your life in Christ”
>
> In a later letter to the editor I had written that I thought his title (in quotes above) had biased the supposition of my previous letter. He responded as follows below at the bottom of my second letter.
>
> “Editor’s note: The headline on Mr. Granger’s July 21 letter, “Intellectual growth is contrary to centering your life in Christ,” was lifted from the text of the letter, “The push for intellectual growth through expatiation in all areas, thought a virtue by relativists, can work against the process of spiritual growth and the centering of one’s life in Christ.”
>
> My question is: Am I in error with my grammar/meaning/use? I had thought there was a difference between “can” and the linking verb “is,” and had meant “can” in the sense of examining, over time, all areas of belief. Is the newspaper editor correct in his response to me based on what I had written? What is the grammar rule that are involved in your response to me?

>Thank you for your help and candid reply in clearing up this question for me. May I quote your reply to me if I should write again to the editor?
>
Technically, you are correct. There is a difference between “can” and “is.” What you said was, in effect, that intellectual growth can, that is, is able to, interfere with spiritual growth. The editor interpreted this to mean that the intellectual growth does interfere with spiritual growth. I would say that he missed the subtlety. It also may reflect a typical journalistic bias that Christians are anti-intellectual–I recall that notorious line from the Washington Post calling Christians “poor, undereducated, and easily led” (or words to that effect).

Any dictionary should be able to point out the difference.

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Consider the following conversation:
> -You haven’t really tried to go in. What have you done to go in?
>
> 1-I have knocked on this door and I still am.
> 2-I have knocked on this door for ten minutes and still am.
> 3-I have knocked on this door for ten minutes and still am knocking on it.
> 4-I have been knocking on this door and still am.
>
> Which of the sentences 1 to 4 is acceptable?
>
In terms of style only #4 would be considered standard because only #4 has a parallel verb construction. There does not appear to be any reason to change the tense.

#1-3 might occasionally be heard in colloquial conversation but really do not make much sense. “Have knocked” implies a single action in the past, so if you have already knocked, the implication is that you were done. The progressive tense more precisely shows that your action of knocking was continuous even up to the present.

Dear Janelle:

You wrote:
> Hi I’m trying to figure out how I should word my selection for children on my response card for my wedding. Should it be: childrens’ selections, children selections, children selection, child selections or child’s selection. I have no idea and need help plaese. Thank you
>
It is not really clear what you are trying to communicate. Do you want “child” singular or plural? (I would guess probably plural if there are more than one child involved). If that is the case, your modifier should be “children’s.” (Plural of “child” plus the possessive.)

If you think about it, there is no such word as “childrens'” or “childrens” because “children” is already a plural, so adding an “s” to make it plural serves no purpose.

Similarly, do you want “selection” singular or plural? If you only have one choice, then it would be “selection.” If there are more than one, then it would be “selections.”