Dear Miss W____:

You wrote:

>>Hello
>>I have always believed that the following sentence should be written like this:

>>Lt. Worf, although large, has not got a head like Rikers.

>>However my word processor is telling me it should be as so:

>>Lt. Worf, although large, has not got a head like Riker’s.

>>Could you verify for me which is the correct way of writing this sentence?

>>Thank you!

The second sentence is correct. Adding an -s to most words make them plural. Adding an -‘s to most words makes them possessive. The second sentence tells us that the head belongs to Riker. The first sentence means the head does not look like the head that most Rikers have. That would work, for example, if Rikers were a group instead of an individual. “Seven of Nine does not have head markings like Klingons.” In your example, though, you are speaking of the head that belongs to someone named Riker and there is only one Riker, so this is clearly possessive and not plural.

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>>Are these sentences correct:

>>1-We were dancing as in the Fifties. (restrictive: in the same way they danced in the Fifties)
>>2-We were dancing, as in the Fifties.(non-restrictive: They danced in the Fifties and now we were dancing)

>>Can 2 be used to mean that we were dancing in the same way they danced in the Fifties?
>
>
In most speech, the meaning #1 you give would be understood by most people here, with or without the comma. Technically, your parenthetical interpretations are correct, but we do not speak with commas, so most people would understand either sentence to be what the first says. If you wanted to communicate meaning #2, the best solution is to say it differently such as the way you put it in the parentheses.

Dear J___ C___:

You wrote:

>>Is it ever correct to use a comma preceding a list (series) or must it always be a colon?

>>John and Mary had three children, Ronnie, Jackie, and Joy. OR

>>John and Mary had three children: Ronnie, Jackie, and Joy

If you want to be technical about it, in this case people sometimes use a comma because the list is actually an appositive. That is true in most cases with lists like this–they really are appositives at the end of a sentence.

The problem with such lists is that because there are more than two items in the list, the list itself has commas. Since the list itself uses commas, it can be confusing to the reader to use another comma to set off the list. Using a colon makes it cleaner looking and easier to understand. The purpose of punctuation, after all, is to help us understand what we read. Stick with the colon.

If there were just two items in the list so that you did not need to use any commas, then a comma separating the appositive would work and be clear enough, though a colon is still OK because it is setting off an appositive at the end of a sentence.

John and Mary had two children, Ronnie and Joy. OR
John and Mary had two children: Ronnie and Joy.

I hope this helps.

Dear N__:

You wrote:

>>Which sentence is correct:
>>1-The silver crown, of great sentimental value to our family, has been stolen.
>>2-The silver crown of great sentimental value to our family has been stolen.

Technically, either could be correct. A nonessential modifier is set off by commas; an essential modifier is not.

#1 means the crown has been stolen. The family has only one silver crown. The speaker also mentions in passing that the crown has sentimental value.

#2 means that a silver crown has been stolen, and that among the silver crowns that the family owns, this is the crown that is known for its sentimental value.

In everyday speech, unless you were talking about a royal family that had a collection of crowns, #1 would be the more likely scenario. How many silver crowns do most people own? 🙂

See “Commas with Nonrestrictive Modifiers” in Grammar Slammer or https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000081.htm for more on this.

Dear Mr. B___:

You wrote:

>>I’ve read the rule about capitalizing adjectives based upon proper nouns, but what about verbs so constructed?

>>My dictionary has “Anglicizing” capitalized, same for the grotesque “to French-fry”. Are these proper? I am especially concerned with “French kissing”, most notably whether the slang shorthand “Frenching” has any proper form. (Sorry, but that one pays the bills, sad to say.)
>
>
The standard in most cases is to keep the capital. I certainly would with “French kissing” and probably “Frenching” as well, though it might be advisable to put that in quotation marks to indicate slang unless you were using it in a quotation.

Having said that, some words which began as proper adjectives or proper nouns sometimes have taken on a special meaning that has so little to do with the origin that they are often no longer capitalized. The best example today is probably “bourbon,” which comes from the name of the French royal family. Occasionally you do see “teddy bear” and “french fries” because some no longer consider these proper names any more; however, most authorities still capitalize them.

I do agree that “French frying” is somewhat grotesque. I would encourage you to come up with a different expression for that one, e.g. “making French fries.” Still, in most places not capitalizing “French” would stand out. Unless you wanted to call attention to your grammar, I would advise sticking with the capital letter.

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>Can’t sentences 1 and 2 each have two meanings:

>1-I made the table in the kitchen.

>First meaning: I made the table that is in the kitchen.

>Second meaning: In the kitchen, I made the table (that we are talking about).

Yes, you are correct. This could have two different meanings. It all depends on context. In virtually any case we would understand that the table located in the kitchen was made by you because normally people do not do woodworking in a kitchen! However, it could possibly mean that the kitchen was the place where you constructed it.

>2-They’ll kill your friend in Germany.

>First meaning: They’ll kill your friend who is now in Germany (but maybe they’ll kill him in France).

>Second meaning: In Germany, they’ll kill your friend (who might now be in Italy).

Again, you are correct. This is completely context-driven.

First meaning: “Do you know about my friend in Germany?”
“Yes, they’ll kill your friend in Germany.”

Second meaning: “My friend is going to Germany.”
“Germany? They’ll kill your friend in Germany.”

In English, adverbial prepositional phrases can go at the beginning or end of a sentence. In these cases, one meaning is adverbial (modifies the verb), the other is adjectival (modifies the direct object). To make it clearer, put the adverbial phrase at the beginning. You did that with sentence number one, meaning two. You could do the same in sentence two, meaning two–“In Germany, they’ll kill your friend.” If the phrase is adverbial, putting it at the beginning resolves the ambiguity.

Dear Mrs. H___:

You wrote:

>Sentence: “Generally, policies and procedures support staff’s good practice.”
>
>Question: Is it all right to use a comma after Generally?

Yes, you should use a comma. The adverb actually modifies the verb. When we have an introductory adverb that is modifying a non-adjacent word or phrase, we set off that adverb with a comma. For more on this see “Commas and Introductory Words or Phrases” in Grammar Slammer or https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000073.htm online.

Dear Srinivas:

You wrote:

>i have got one query , could u plz help in this regared.
>Could u tell me what is the differance between HAD and HAS, when to use HAS and HAD, plz give me the detailed explanation for the same, and also inform abt the ” had been” nad only one word ” HAD ”
>
>
Has and Had are two different tenses of the verb To Have. Has is the present tense. It normally describes things that exist in the present. Had is the past tense. It describes things that existed or occurred in the past. Has is only used in the third person singular (he, she, it), other persons use Have. Had is used in all persons.

Today I have to mow the lawn.
Today he has to paint the room.
Yesterday I had to file my report.
Yesterday he had to buy the paint.

You really have a second question. Had been is the Past Perfect tense of the verb To Be. Remember, the verb To Have is also an auxiliary verb. Had been is used to describe a condition that happened before something in the past. For example, “Julius Caesar had been dead ten years before Augustus became emperor.” Augustus being made emperor happened in the past so the past tense is used. Julius Caesar’s death happened before that event, so the verb would normally go in the past perfect tense.

I hope this helps.

Dear S____:

You wrote:

>>Would it be possible for you to tell me whether or not this sentence is grammatically correct.

>>”Well done; you’ve a healthy and balanced approach to life.”

>>Should it not read-“Well done, you have a healthy and balanced approach to life.”

The first is correct. This is really two sentences or clauses. The first is elliptical, but the “you have” or “it is” is understood. That is the way we often respond to what others say or do.

Example:
“What is your name?”
“James.” (i.e., “My name is James.”)

So it is with the expression “well done.”

I hope this helps.

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>1-I went to a place where I used to work.
>
> Can we tell from this sentence whether I was still working there when I went there?
>
Of course. “Used to” means that it is something in the past. In a sense, your time there is all “used.” Whenever you “used to do” something, it means that you no longer do it. That is what it means.
>
> Can one say:
> 2-I went to a place where I had used to work.

No. This makes no sense in English. “Used to” in the past sense does not take any auxiliaries. Try saying “I went to the place where I had worked” if you think you must put it in the past perfect.