Dear M C.:

You wrote:
> Hello! I’ve just completed a research study for my dissertation. In my paper (which may eventually be published in a scientific journal), I’m including quotations. However, I need to figure out how to punctuate a LIST of quotations within my text. For example…
>
> This category pertains to when they said ___ (e.g., “So the 200 and the
100 make it cut in half!” “What do you think will happen this time?” “Why is
it not going as high anymore?”)
>
> Do I need commas or something in there or does the internal punctuation take care of that? What if the internal punctuation would be a period rather than an exclamation point or question mark?
>
You need no additional punctuation. They look fine as they are. When possible, you should have each quotation on a new line, but the example you give (inside parentheses) is OK.

> Also, when I’m providing examples of two possible quotations, how do I punctuate that? For example….
>
> When asked, “Do you remember the train ride?” these children might have said, “Yeah” or “Yeah, it was fun.”
>
> Should the first “yeah” have a period as well? or a comma? or a period and a comma? Hmmmm. Are the commas before the quotes correct?
>
The punctuation in this example is fine. You do not need a comma after the first “Yeah” since it is not in a series (There are only two quotations). Yes, the commas after the “he said/she said” statement before the opening quotation marks are placed correctly.

> Thanks for any input you have!
>
It looks pretty good.

Dear GP:

You wrote:
> What is the exact tense of the following sentences:
>
> I will have to go.
This is the future tense “will have” followed by the present infinitive “to go.”
>
> My father says I will have to give the exam.

This is the present tense “says” in the main clause. In the noun clause you have the future tense “will have” followed by the present infinitive “to give.”

Dear C:

You wrote:

> In your grammar slammer, you use which when you mean that in the following
> sentence. I expect grammar slammer to have all the right answers! Thanks for
> fixing.
>
> A dangling modifier is a phrase or clause which says something different
> from what is meant because words are left out. The meaning of the sentence,
> therefore, is left “dangling.”
>
I believe you are referring to a spurious “rule” which is not widely recognized on either side of the Atlantic. However, some editors and authorities use it. See the page “That/Which/Who” or https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000255.htm for more on this.

Dear JA:

You wrote:

Which is correct: square-foot or square foot ?

In normal usage, both are correct. The hyphenated form is used for adjectives; the two words are used for nouns (technically, “foot” is the noun modified by the adjective “square.”

Examples:
They marked out in the pattern in square-foot increments. (adjective modifying “increments”)
We had one square foot of fabric left over. (noun, direct object of “had”)

Dear Mr. A:

You wrote:
>
> I read this sentsnce in the educational ministry book in Egypt and I
> feel it has a mistake; am i right?
> The sentence:
> Which deveolpment made tourism the massive industry it is today?

This is a question and it makes good sense in English. Another way of asking the same question would be “What development made tourism the massive industry it is today?” However, the word “Which” implies that there are more
than one development, but the question is looking for the best answer.

In this sentence “Which” is an interrogative pronoun, not a relative pronoun.

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Which is correct:
> 1-I don’t trust doctors, specially not me.
> 2-I don’t trust doctors, specially not myself.
>
> The speaker is, of course, a doctor himself.
>
#1 is considered standard. #2 would be used in conversation for emphasis and would be clearly understood, but technically there could be some ambiguity when written (Is he saying “I myself don’t trust them” or is he saying “I
don’t trust them and I am one myself”?). There is no such ambiguity in #1 because of the case of “me.”

By the way, as in this sentence you would probably want to use “especially” rather than “specially.” In modern usage, “especially” tends to mean “with emphasis” while “specially” means something more like “uniquely.”

Dear JS:

You wrote:
> On your website page
>
> https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000370.htm
>
> there’s a mistake: In the sentence
>
> I cannot believe that he said it.
>
> the word “that” is asserted to be a relative pronoun. In this sentence it’s not a relative pronoun, it’s a conjunction. To be a relative pronoun, “that” has to be the subject of the subordinate clause, whereas in this sentence, “he” is the subject of the subordinate clause.
>
Thanks for the input. Some dictionaries do explain it that way. The sources we used must have emphasized more the “relating” part, i.e., “that” relates the second clause to “believe” since the whole clause is a noun clause. Like some uses of participles, authorities do disagree on this. However, your point might be worth mentioning since it is recognized by some authorities.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> 1-Great novels such as “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House” can be fun to read.
> 2-Great novels, such as “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House”, can be fun to read.
>
> What is the difference between the two above sentences?

There is really no difference in meaning except that the second one means that the modifier is nonrestrictive. So the first would be saying something like “Great novels similar to DQ and BH”; in other words, picaresque novels like “Quixote” or romantic novels with social commentary like “Bleak House” are fun to read. (Personally, “Bleak House” is a wonderful book, but I am not sure I would call it “fun.”) The second one is saying “Greal novels are fun to read; DQ and BH are two examples of great novels.” The commas mean that the phrase can be omitted without changing the overall meaning. Without the commas, the phrase modifies the subject to alter the meaning.

>
> Same question as regards:
> 3-Great novels like “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House” can be fun to read.
> 4-Great novels, like “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House”, can be fun to read.
>
> In which cases are the novels mentioned merely examples of great novels and in which cases do they define a type of great novel?
>
Same as above. The commas mean the modifier is nonrestrictive, so that would fall into the “example” category. Without the commas, the phrase is describing two types of great novels.

You wrote:
> Hi
> I would appreciate some information regarding the appropriate uses for either age or aged. Could you please clarify the contexts below.
> a) Her father died at age/aged 60.
> b) Her father died when he was age/aged 60.
> c) He has one daughter age/aged 16.
> d) He has one daughter who is age/aged 16.
> e) He has three siblings age/aged 30,35,37.
> Any advice would be very helpful.
>
In the context you are using here, “age” is a noun, and “aged” is an adjective (participle). It is mostly a matter of which fits the grammar and syntax.

a) could be “at age 60” (noun, object of preposition) or “aged 60” (adjective), the first is more typical.
b) “aged 60” — predicate adjective
c) “aged 16”–adjective. One could argue that “age 16” would be an appositive, but this is not typical.
d) “age 16” predicate adjective. In both b & d one could make a case for “age” as a predicate nominative, but that really does not apply well since the predicate is clearly describing, not renaming.
e) Same as c.

“Aged” is preferable because “age” can be used an adjective when speaking of historical eras. The guideline I would recommend is whether or not you are describing how old some one is or what era. The best example is “middle aged” (an adjective meaning loosely between 40 and 65 years old) vs. “Middle Age” from the historical period roughly 500-1500 A.D. He was a middle aged man. He lived in a Middle Age castle.

Dear GB:

You wrote:
> If referring to multiplication tables i.e.: fives times tables etc., do you use an apostrophe if you contract it to – 5s 6s 7s etc or write it as 5’s, 6’s 7’s etc.?
>
> Also, a family name as in my case Blank, [not the real name] is an apostrophe used when
talking collectively about the Blank family (the Blanks or the Blank’s) and so on?
>
These are good questions. In the first case, you do see authorities do it both ways. The first way is considered standard; it is simply the plural of the number. However, especially in mathematical situations, you do sometimes see 5’s (“fives”) to distinguish the plural of five from the algebraic expression 5s (i.e., five times s). Neither is really appropriate in any
formal writing. In any formal writing, write out the word so there is no ambiguity: “fives, sixes, sevens, etc.”

In the second case, the apostrophe is only used with the possessive. So you would normally say “the Blanks,” i.e., the Blank family. The only time you would use the apostrophe would be if you were using it with the possessive:
“George Blank’s brother” or “the Blanks’ house.”

I hope this helps.