Dear NT:

You wrote:
> My problem is with negative sentences followed by a clause of purpose:
>
> 1-I didn’t go out tonight (,) to study for my exam.
> 2-I didn’t turn off the light (,) for you to be able to read.
> 3-I didn’t make a noise (,) so that he wouldn’t notice me.
>
> A-Are the commas necesary?
> Can’t there be cases where the absence of a comma might cause ambiguity? (I didn’t go out to study. I went out to have fun.)
> B-Can one use a comma in all of the above sentences?

First of all, the first two sentences really are not good English at all–they are awkward, ambiguous, and hard to understand.

This is what I think you want to say:
1. I didn’t go out tonight in order to study for my exam (weak but understandable).
I didn’t go out tonight so I could study for my exam. (typical and understandable but informal)
I didn’t go out tonight so that I could study for my exam. (standard English) No comma is necessary because the subordinate adverb clause follows the main clause.

2 I didn’t turn off the light in order that you could (or “would be able to”) read. (OK)
I didn’t turn off the light in order for you to read. (informal)
I didn’t turn off the light so that you could (or “would be able to”) read. (Best, standard Engllish)
Again, no commas are necessary, and, indeed, would possibly confuse the reader.

3. Actually #3 is OK except that you would say “any noise” or “a sound.”
That’s the way we speak. #3 is understandable, but “a noise” refers to a single outburst, while “not a sound” would suggest a continuum of silence. Apart from that, #3 is OK without the comma. No comma is necessary, and indeed would be confusing. In all three instances you would use a comma if the subordinate clause came first.

I didn’t make a sound so that he would not notice me.
So that he would not noice me, I did not make a sound.
Acutally, “In order that” is more natural in this sentence, but “so that” works.

In all three cases, there might be a better way to say them. The negative can be hard to follow. For example, “I was perfectly silent so that he would not notice me.” Even better in most cases would be direct cause-effect statement such as “I was perfectly silent, so he did not notice me.” That, of course, expresses effect rather than purpose, but in most contexts this is clearer. Also, in this case, “so” is a coordinating conjunction, the clauses are independent, so you use a comma.

I hope this helps.

[Note to our readers. I learned that this question and a number of others from “N” or “NT” are from a non-native English speaker whose native language uses phrase in most cases where English uses clauses. But these clause questions can be helpful to anyone who wants to learn to be more precise.]

Dear JJ:
>
> You wrote:
> Is it correct to say wrecks claim four lives or wrecks claims four lives? Thanks!!
>
“Wrecks” as a subject is plural. Therefore, it take the plural form of the verb which is “claim.” “Wrecks claim four lives” is correct. If there were only one wreck, then you would write or say, “Wreck claims four lives.”

I hope this helps.

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Which of these sentences is correct:
>
> 1-I talked to a man at John’s party who works for the phone company.

This is normal spoken English. The modifier is misplaced but understandable. It would be more precise to say “I talked to a man who works for the phone company at John’s party.” That would be the way you would want to write it.

> 2-I talked to a man at John’s party working for the phone company.

The modifier is misplaced here also but is completely ambiguous. Does “working for the phone company” modify “I” or “man”? (With the first one since the verb is “works,” we know you cannot be talking about “I.”)
>
> 3-I took a girl to the cinema yesterday who looks like Mary.

This is occasionally spoken by English speakers but it is awkward at best. Again, the modifier is misplaced. It sounds like the cinema looks like Mary–say instead, “I took a girl who looks like Mary…”

> 4-I took John’s sister to the cinema yesterday, who looks like Mary.

The comma does not help. The modifier is still misplaced. If you were to place it properly, you would use a comma in this case because the modifier is probably nonrestrictive. “I took John’s sister, who looks like Mary, to the cinema…”

I hope this helps. Be sure to check the Grammar Slammer material on Misplaced Modifiers.

Dear BB:

You wrote:
> I know that it is “Dave and Alex’s project” not “Dave’s and Alex’s project” (if they are working together on one project), but if it were Alex and I working on the project is it “Alex and my project” or “Alex’s and my project”? The first seems to follow the rule, but the second sounds more correct to me.
>
Sometimes the sound is not technically correct. The first follows the rule and is the form to use in standard writing. A lot of time you may hear the second in speech. Interestingly, people seem to have less of a problem with “Alex and his project” or “Alex and her project.”

A lot of times in both writing and speaking we say “the project of Alex and mine” to avoid any ambiguity.

Dear Mr. K:

You asked:

Greetings!

I am given to understand from your credentials, that you are a master grammarian, particularly where the topic intersects with the practice of law.

Recently, I ran across a phrase in one of my legal books that presented me with a problem. The phrase was:

“Any person or any officer or employee of any bank or corporation who…..”

The sentence finishes with “…does a certain thing..etc.”

My question to you, is:

Are all the three entities (person, officer, employee) identified, associated with either a bank or a corporation in this sentence fragment, or is the person separate and apart and not part of a bank or corporation?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thank you

The answer to your question is in the use of the word “Any.”

The first “any” modifies person. It does not modify any other word because the second “any” immediately follows the first conjunction (“or”). So the first part of the compound subject is “any person.” However, the second “any” modifies both “officer” and “employee”; therefore, both officer and employee refer to the bank.

Here is the way to parse the meaning:
If you want all three entities to be associated with the bank or corporation, you would have written: “Any person, officer, or employee associated with any bank or corporation…” You would not be able to say “Any person, officer, or employee of any bank…” because “person of any bank” does not have meaning in standard English.

The meaning in standard English of the example you sent would be that “any person” does not have to be associated with the bank or corporation. It sounds like the sentence is trying to cover both personal and corporate liability.

I hope this helps.

Dear Mr. K:

You wrote:

Would it be safe to say that the meaning of the sentance fragment is at best, ambiguous?

I am not sure that I would say it was ambiguous. There appears to be only one way to parse it correctly. However, there are probably several ways to rewrite it to make it clearer.

Dear KR, proofreader:

You wrote:
> Please indicate the correct answer (and explanation)
> for each of the two sentences below. I appreciate your
> help.
>
> (1) Twelve cylinders in a car are no better than four if
> there _is_/_are_ no spark from the battery and no gas
> in the tank.
>
> (2) These were strange people in the sense they just
> sort of adapted and became friends with
> _whoever_/_whomever_ was in control.
>
You picked good ones. I have seen both go either way.

1. I believe “there is” is preferred for #1 since both parts of the subject are singular and because of the modifier “no” it is not a regular compound subject. We would still use “is” if they were written in the normal
subject-verb order: “No spark from the battery and no gas in the tank is useless for any size engine” or “No spark and no gas means no power.”

2. I believe “whoever” is preferred for #2. The case of the word in the clause trumps the case of the word in the whole sentence. In the clause, “whoever/whomever” is the subject, so go with “whoever.” See our page on Pronoun Case for some examples.

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-Yesterday there was a chance of our team losing.
> 2-Yesterday we could lose.
> 3-Yesterday we might lose.
>
> They are all supposed to mean the same thing. I want to avoid “could have” and “might have”, because by using them one implies that we did not lose yesterday. I don’t want the sentence to show whether we lost or not.
> Why did you play defensively yesterday (and why aren’t you doing it today)?
>
> “We played defensively yesterday, because we could lose.”
>
> I think it would be correct to say: “We played defensively yesterday, because we could have lost.” but then that would imply we did not lose. To make things simpler, one could imagine that we did lose.
>
It sounds like you are trying to split a hair that is too fine to split.

#1 makes sense and is standard English. #2 could make sense in an unusual context–if you were talking about your team’s attitude or something abstract–something that was unchanging. That is stretching it, though. I
would avoid it. #3 makes no sense at all. The problem is the use of the present tense.

In the case of both #2 and #3, you probably want to say “we could have lost” or “we might have lost.” In both cases, the implication is that you did not lose. In virtually every case where you use the word “yesterday” you want
some kind of past tense. If you somehow wanted to say it so that it was not clear whether you won or lost, you could say something like “We did not want to lose.” But note that it is still a past tense.

I hope this helps.

Dear TM:

You wrote:
> Hello, I have been reading your sight and love it. I am still a little unsure of how to correctly use the following:
>
> “Since the early 1970s, the overall stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 has risen every Presidential election year except the year 2000, during which we were in the midst of a recession.”
>
> Is it 1970s or 1970’s – which is correct and why?
>
> Also, the below is even more confusing to me:
>
> “The original 1960s Medicare plan only cost a few million dollars initially, but has grown into a behemoth program, severely challenging the flexibility of spending restraint.”
>
> This was originally, “1960s'” which is correct and why?
>
> In reading the sight, I believe the rules about “Nouns Expressing Measurement” apply, meaning they should both be “1970s & 1960s”, am I correct?
>
> This is for a publication going out this week, so if possible need an answer a.s.a.p. We are all debating over this and you are the final say-so.
>
This is a question that authorities differ on. A hundred years ago, nearly anyone writing this would have written out the date in letters: “nineteen sixties.” The basic rule about using apostrophe s for plural limits you to acronyms (and not all authorities agree on that) and words and numbers naming themselves. Because these dates resemble numbers naming themselves, people have started using an apostrophe s for the plural. I will give you two answers.

1. Either way is accepted today. Whichever you choose, be consistent.

2. Having said that, “1960s” without the apostrophe is historically more correct and technically more accurate. The reason is simply that “1960’s” could be a possessive for the year, e.g. “Do you recall who won 1960’s World Series?” If you use “1960s” for the plural and “1960’s” for the possessive, this helps your readers. I might even suggest that the “1960s Medicare plan” should read “1960s’ Medicare plan,” since it really is plural AND possessive.

P.S. I’ll never forget who won 1960’s World Series. I was there at the seventh game. 🙂

Dear M:

You wrote:
> Which is the more correct way in which to express this sports text, either
using the hyphen or the virgule?
>
> Harvard vs. Yale/Brown/Princeton
>
> or
>
> Harvard vs. Yale-Brown-Princeton
>
In informal usage, the virgule means “or.” The hyphen joins and would suggest a joint team from the three schools. So the first would mean “Harvard versus Yale, Brown, or Princeton.” The second would mean “Harvard versus Yale,
Brown, and Princeton combined.” It would depend on what you meant. In most instances, for example, seeding in a tournament, the first would be used–i.e., “Harvard will play either Yale, Brown, or Princeton.”

Dear J:

You wrote:

On the recent married page our local newspaper reports: “The couple now lives in New York City.” Should not the verb be “live” since the subject is plural? Am I correct?

This reflects a difference of usage between British and American English. The British would normally write it the way that you suggest for the reason that you give. Americans would consider the subject singular because it is a collective noun and there is only one couple. If there were more than one couple, then the verb would be “live,” e.g. “At the end of ‘As You Like It,’ four couples are married.”

We note this difference in news reports. When someone from the U.K. is speaking, we hear, “The legislature are”; but if someone from the U.S. is being quoted, we hear, “The legislature is.”

For what it is worth, this is the only significant difference between American and British grammar in the strictest sense of the word.