Dear A__:

You wrote:
>a. There were Pete and Roger drinking at the bar.
>b. There were Pete and Roger at the bar drinking.
>c. There was Pete and Roger drinking at the bar.
>d. There was Pete and Roger at the bar drinking.

>Which of the above is grammatical?
>Could one add a comma before “drinking” in each sentence?
>
>
A and b are both grammatically correct and say the same thing, but putting drinking at the end emphasizes it more. A comma is necessary before drinking in b and d because it is out of the usual order and acts as an appostive.

A comma is not necessary in a or c but is normal. Basically, if you put a comma in, you are emphasizing the two men and “drinking at the bar” is a participial phrase modifying “Peter and Roger.” If you leave the comma out, you are putting more emphasis on the action, but this is less common, and could only be done with c for reasons stated below.

C and d are not grammatically correct since the subject is plural. However, this is the way many native English speakers say it.

You could argue that without the comma, c is OK. You could say that “drinking at the bar” is a gerund phrase and the subject of the sentence and that “Peter and Roger” is the subject of the gerund. This is a stretch, but one could make a case for it.

I hope this helps.

Dear Ms. M__ C___:

You wrote:
>>I would love to know the proper spelling of the phrase “dos and don’ts.” Going by proper grammar, there should be no apostrophes (except for the contraction part of “don’t,” of course), but I see it constantly as do’s and don’t’s…what is your opinion?
>
>
To be technically correct, the words do and don’t should be italicized or underlined since you are referring to the words themselves. The only time you use an apostrophe plus s to show a plural is with an italicized word. (Some authorities use them with acronyms).

So to be precise, write “do’s and don’t’s” with “do‘s” and “don’t‘s” italicized as well. See Grammar Slammer entries “Underlining or Italicizing Items which Name Themselves” and “Apostrophes with Italicized or Underlined Items” for more on this.

Online see https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000116.htm and https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000135.htm.

Dear W___:

You wrote:
>I have a question regarding capitalization in business writing.

>When writing a meeting’s topic agenda, is it okay to treat the listed topics like titles, capitalizing every word?

>Sometimes agenda items can be longer than the examples provided below, yet are almost always incomplete sentences. Should I continue capitalizing every word, or are there certain
words such as “And” and “Of”, in item 3 below, that should remain lower case?

>I was even unsure about the capitalization of certain letters in the subject line of this e-mail.
>
>
> Agenda
> 1- Meeting Introduction
> 2- Project A Deadline
> 3- Determine Roles And Responsibilities Of Third Party Vendor
> 4- Discuss Plan C
> 5- Roundtable Project Status
> 6- Next Steps
> 7- Action Item Recap
>

It depends on the purpose of your list. The example you gave is really something like chapter headings, so the capitalizing as you show it would be appropriate except for “And” and “Of” in item 3.

If the presentation were more like an outline, then only the first word would be capitalized. For what it is worth, your subject line was fine, but a true bulleted list is simply a variation of the outline. The example you gave is really more like a table of contents.

In titles, the first and last word are always capitalized. Articles, conjunctions, and short prepositions are not otherwise capitalized unless there is a specific reason to do so for emphasis. Item 3 should read “Determine Roles and Responsibilities of Third Party Vendor.”

If there is such a thing as a formal e-mail, then the subject line should follow title rules, but e-mails are not usually that formal.

I hope this helps

> >Another sentence that bothers me is, “Where is my car at?” It is redundant to use “where” and “at” together.

Dear D___:

Yes, we mention this on our page entitled “At after Where” in Grammar Slammer and online at https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000186.htm

The following refers to our observationi on “Prepositions ending Sentences” in Grammar Slammer and online at https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000195.htm.

> >I believe Churchill’s correction to his sentence that ended in a preposition was incorrect. “Up with” is part of the verb “put up with”.

>> There is a class of verbs that are constructed of a verb and a word (in this case two) that is usually used as a preposition. The way to distinguish them is through their meaning. The term “put up with” does not mean “place in a higher location with”

>>I also think the point of the rule
is not that the object of the preposition precedes the preposition but that the preposition has no object. Usually when a sentence ends in a preposition the inferred object is already the object of the verb. Saying “with which” creates a word that can act as the object of the preposition.

>>For example, “I like the town I come from.” Where is the object of the preposition, “from”? “Town” is the object of the verb. I suppose one could say, “I like the town which I came from.” This would still violate the “rule” but not its spirit.

Dear D___:

“Put up with” is a idiomatic expression meaning “to endure.” “With” is a preposition; “up” is an adverb. We can drop the “with” if there is no object, as in the expression “Put up or shut up.”

In everyday English we often drop the relative pronoun in adjective clauses. The sentence about the hometown merely illustrates this.

The whole thing is bogus. If you check our newsletters online, you’ll see that we have received more correspondence on this “rule” than anything. The most striking thing is that no one follows it. The few nineteenth century grammar texts that mentioned it did so in the way we stated—that it was a matter of style, not of accuracy in grammar.

Having said that, we also do repeat that if you think a correspondent might not like it, then avoid it for reasons of taste and harmony.

See https://www.englishplus.com/news/news0201.htm and https://www.englishplus.com/news/news0401.htm for our newsletters on this.

You wrote:
> > I was looking through your list of common mistakes. I think it is missing a section on got/have. “Got” does not mean have. “I got brown hair,” does not mean “I have brown hair.”
>
>>”You’ve got a friend in Pennsylvania,” is actually wrong for two reasons. The third principle part of “get” is “gotten”, not “got”. Since the license plate does not mean “In the past you received a friend,” it should just read, “You have a friend in Pennsylvania.”

Dear D___:

“Got” is the standard past participle in the UK. “Gotten” is standard in North America. Most authorities accept both. In colloquial speech, “got” often does take the place of “have” as you pointed out. I would certainly avoid this in any kind of formal speech, but when I see a Pennsylvania license plate, I think of that old James Taylor song, “You’ve Got a Friend.” It might not be good formal English, but they probably chose the slogan for the “warm fuzzies” that people might get thinking of that song.

Basically, we did not address the use of irregular verbs except when they
were spelling problems. We felt that most native speakers were comfortable with them, and most non-native speakers had charts or books directed for their needs.

Dear C. G.:

You wrote:
Can you tell me if the following sentence is correct?
>
> It’s a quality William Penn lauded before the founding of the republic when he encouraged citizens to show any kindness they can for their fellow humans.
>
> Some of us in the office think the word “can” should be changed to “could”. What is correct?
>
>
Either one is OK. “Could” is conditional; “can” is indicative. Using “can” would imply that you are able to it at any time. Using “could” would suggest you can do it under the right conditions. The difference is subtle, but knowing Penn (he coined the term “No cross, no crown”–the original “No pain, no gain”), “can” would work for him.

By the way, most authorities would probably capitalize “Republic” because it is specifically named. Whichever way you choose, be consistent.

Dear Rachel Lee:

You wrote:
>> Is there any difference in meaning in the following sentences and are
>> there any alternatives which convey the similar meaning?
>> 1. He washed his hands for fear that he should be contaminated.
>> 2. He washed his hands for fear that he would be contaminated.
>> 3. He washed his hands for fear that he might be contaminated.
>>
All three are pretty similar. “Should” is a little stronger than “would” in most cases; similarly, “might” tends to be weaker than “would” in terms of likelihood of the event happening, but the distinction is slight in most cases.

There are certainly other ways of saying this, e.g., “He washed his
hands for fear of being contaminated.”

I hope this helps.

Dear A__:

You wrote:

> -You have never read books by him, have you?
> 1-Oh yes, I have. When I was young I read some books
> by him.
> 2-Oh yes, I have. When I was young I read a few books
> by him.
> 3-Oh yes, I have. When I was young I read books by
> him.
>
>
> Are sentences 1, 2 and 3 all possible replies to the
> question at the beginnning?
> Is there any difference between the meanings of them?
>
Yes. All three are possible replies. There is no significant difference
among them. #3 might be a bit more vague, but they are all essentially the
same answer.

Saw this page online, thought some students of English grammar might find this a challenge. See how you do!
https://web.archive.org/web/20090405171307/http://www.theamericanmuseum.org/april.09.ninth.html.