Dear N T:

You wrote:

 Our Father who are in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

I have seen the phrase ‘Our Father who are in heaven’ written both with and without a comma after ‘Father’. Would the presence of the comma make any difference? Would it make the clause non-defining? Would the absence of a comma make it defining?

First of all, the verb is “art.” This is the now archaic second person singular form of the verb “to be.” I am, thou art, he is, you are, we are, they are.

That form of the Lord’s Prayer comes from either the Book of Common Prayer (1558) or the King James Version of the Bible (1611). Even by 1611 the “thou/thee/thy/thine” second person singular form is becoming rare. However, the King James translators used it to indicate the singular or plural in the Hebrew and Greek original texts. So, for example in John chapter 3, Jesus says, “Marvel not that I say unto thee ye must be born again.” The sentence has both singular and plural forms because Jesus is speaking to only one person (Nicodemus), so addresses him as “thee.” However, the translation shows that the pronoun that would go with “must be born again” is plural—indicating that the necessity to be born again is not just for Nicodemus, but for others as well.

Having said all that, let’s get back to your question.

Of course, the original Greek of the New Testament had no punctuation; it did not even have word divisions in the first century. If there is a comma after Our Father, that implies that the clause is nonrestrictive, that we would know who the prayer is addressed to anyhow. You could make a case for that, since his name is “hallowed,” which in English is too strong a word for a mere mortal, as noble as one’s earthly father may be. With that thought, the clause does not have to be considered defining.

I believe there is a stronger case for not putting the comma there since it emphasizes that the person addressed is indeed our Father in heaven, namely God. That way, it emphasizes for sure which father is meant since everyone since Adam has a biological father. Perhaps even more germane is the fact that “Our Father who art in heaven” is a direct address. Putting the comma in breaks up the direct address into two parts and makes it a bit more confusing and indirect.

Also keep in mind that both the traditional BCP and KJV do not use punctuation marks the same way we use them today. Back in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the various rules had not been standardized. While a period meant the end of a sentence, a stop, the other punctuation marks were often used to show length of pause when speaking rather than a specific grammatical relationship. Back then most people, even when alone, did not read silently the way we are taught today. The pause, then, often contributed to the isochronous accent of the passage, the same way a pause in a piece of music will take a certain number of beats to add to the rhythm. (A comma was the shortest pause, then a semicolon, then a colon, then a period.)

Dear Mr. B:

You wrote:

 When I read articles, I see different uses of a noun or -ing  after a preposition, and I get confused about what the author really means.

For example: 

For measuring brightness, methods are mainly based on the evaluation of the intensity reflected in the specular direction, when the surface to be analyzed is illuminated by a beam of light with a fixed angle of incidence.

For measurement of GSH uptake, cells were first pretreated with 0.25 mM acivicin for 15 min to inhibit GGT activity (Visarius et al., 1996; Lash and Putt, 1999).

After measurement of basal radial artery FMD the NOS inhibitor, NGmonomethyl-l-arginine (l-NMMA), was infused via the upstream brachial artery at a dose (4 mol/min) known from our previous studies to induce maximal reduction of radial FMD [13].

After measuring the produced ANG I, the endogenous ANG I obtained prior to incubation was subtracted.

 In assessment of the pupillary light pathway, both the direct response and the consensual response are tested.

In assessing prognosis, the speed at which tetanus develops is important.

In assessing alcohol intake, the history should also focus on whether alcohol abuse or dependence is present.

 Would you please help me with this matter by giving me more examples? (If you feel necessary)

What is the difference between the noun and -ing as a verbal in meaning? And when do we prefer the use of one to the other one?

You pick very dense material! The gerund “-ing” as in “for measuring” or “after measuring” refers the action. For example in the sentence that begins “for measuring” , you could say “in order to measure” or “when one measures.” It is no different with the sentences using “assessing.”

A measurement or an assessment is a specific act.

Having said that, they often can replace the other form but the wording would have to change. You would not say “for measurement of brightness” in the first one unless you were referring to a specific instance in which the brightness was measured. Even then, you would change the wording to “for a (or the) measurement of brightness.”

The first and last “assessing examples” could be exchanged as long as you used the articles and prepositions correctly. However, using “assessment” in the second sentence really does not fit because the example given is clearly hypothetical. (Also the expression “assessing prognosis” seems odd—after all, a prognosis IS an assessment. Unless one is examining various prognoses, it sounds stilted or redundant.)

The differences are subtle, and many times they can be exchanged with the other, as long as the articles and prepositions are used correctly. The advantage of using a gerund is that it can have direct objects or complements. The advantage of using a noun ending in “-ment” is that it takes modifiers like adjectives and prepositional phrases more naturally.

Dear A B:

You asked:

Why do we say: “An apple for eating” BUT NOT “An apple to eat”?

These two phrases are both standard English, but they have two different meanings. “An apple for eating” has to do with what you do with the apple. There are eating apples and cooking apples (a few, like Macintoshes are both).  A Golden delicious is an apple for eating. A Granny Smith is a pie apple or an apple for cooking. (We could also say “an eating apple” or “a cooking apple.” Or, for that matter, “a baking apple.”)

An apple to eat is more general. “What did you have for snack?” “He gave me an apple to eat.”

What is the difference in meaning between these two following sentences:

Police advised us against entering the building, for a murder had occurred.
Police advised us not to enter the building, for a murder had occurred.

These two sentences mean the same thing. The second one is more direct and clear. The first one sounds a little inflated or bureaucratic. It is a matter of style, not meaning.

He told me about coming to The Netherlands.
He told me to come to The Netherlands.

These have two very different meanings. “To tell about” means to recount an experience or sharing some information. “He told me about his experiments with the T. gondii B1 gene.” “To tell someone to do something” is to give a command or request.

So “He told me about coming to the Netherlands” means “he told me about his visit to Holland,” or, perhaps if the context suggested it, “he told me what to expect upon visiting Holland.” But “he told me to come to the Netherlands” means “he asked or ordered me to go to Holland to join him there.”

I hope this helps.

Dear Mr. B:

You wrote:

Hope all is well with you. Although it is seldom a serious problem for native English speakers, deciding whether to use a gerund or an infinitive after a verb can be perplexing among students for whom English is a second language. For example,  I received a revision from the reviewer of  who have put a comment on title of a paragraph in my article as following: Please change “Semi-nested PCR for detection of T. gondii B1 gene” to “Semi-nested PCR to detect T. gondii B1 gene.” Would you please help me out with this problem?

These two phrases mean the same thing. This is a question of style. Using a verb is more direct and generally clearer.

Dear N:

You wrote:

Which are correct:

1-The writer who had written I knew not what books won the first prize.

2-The writer who had written I did not know what books won the first prize.

3-The writers regarding whom I did not know what books won the first prize.

4-I did not know what books a writer had written.

That writer won the first prize. I think “1” is pejorative. (He had written God knows what books!) “2” also seems pejorative to me. “3” seems correct but convoluted.

Gratefully,

N

These are all pretty convoluted except for #4.

1 and 2 did make sense. There is nothing especially pejorative about either one. Indeed, it may even appear that the speaker is ignorant because he or she had never heard of this prize-winning author. The clause embedded in the middle does perhaps suggest emphasis, but not necessarily pejoration.

3 makes no sense at all. I have no idea what that is trying to say. It appears once again you are using a phrase (in this case a verbal phrase beginning with “regarding”) when English would use a clause. Perhaps you were trying to say “I am not familiar with those writers, but they won first prize”?

4 makes sense, except that you would say “the writer” since you are talking about a specific writer. “The” is the specific article.