Dear Ms. R K:

You wrote:
> As a college student I am a bit confused about what I have read on your
> website, regarding quotation and period placement: My English professor –
> and apparently Lynne Truss, who wrote “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” (satire on
> punctuation) – believe that whether a period comes before, or follows a
> quotation depends on the situation. Example, in Truss’s book there are the
> following..
> 1) …”two-thirds by rule and one-third by personal taste”.
> 2)…”pipe down”.
> 3)”This particular comma,” Thurber explained was, “Ross’s way of giving
> the men time to push back their chairs and stand up.”
> Truss’s book had periods outside the quotation more than inside! HELP!
> What is the difference? Is this an “Oxford” way of doing punctuation?
> Just depends on the situation? And how can one figure it out?
>
Truss is making a point that sometimes you need to have a comma for clarity. There is no particular rule, but the comma makes things clearer. In Grammar Slammer, for example, we have a sentence that reads something like “The room was full of crying babies and mothers.” While there is no rule that there should be a comma after “babies,” inserting the comma makes it clear that only the babies were crying.

As for the periods outside the quotation marks, that is a British practice not observed in North American English. If you have Grammar Slammer Deluxe with Checkers, the grammar checker has options for both.

The only time I encountered that in the USA was a few years ago when I was doing some proofreading for a Christian web site which had many Bible quotations. The webmaster had said that he had gotten negative feedback when he included closing commas and periods inside the quotation marks when the punctuation mark was not in the Bible version quoted. I do not know if there is actually some rule about in Oxford, or wherever, but you do sometimes see periods outside quotation marks in British publications. I am not sure what the pattern is, but it may be whether or not the period or comma was in the original.

I hope this helps.

Dear D S:

You wrote:
> Dear Folks at Grammar Slammer:
>
> In searching for answers regarding the usage of “less” and “lesser,”
> Google gave me a page from your files:
> https://englishplus.com/news/news0701.htm#preview.
>
> Has there been an update regarding this discussion since 2001? The page
> states that in the sentence ” Not that I loved Caesar the less,” “less” is
> an adjective. If it is an adjective, how can it be modified by “the”,
> which is also an adjective? Based on this fact, would “less” in that
> sentence be a noun? Or, is it an incomplete construction?
>
Some authorities take your position that it is a noun; however, both comparatives and superlatives are commonly used with “the” and would be considered by most an adjective or an adverb. Actually, “less” in the example you gave is an adverb modifying “loved.” Think of such expressions as “The more the merrier” or “sixpence none the richer” or “none the better for it” or “so much the better.”

My Funk and Wagnall’s (mentioned on the page you refer to) notes that “the” is sometimes an adverb modifying the comparative or superlative. That is pretty much the accepted position.

> My second question has to do with the following construction located on
> the same page:
>
> “(We have been debating whether the word Less can be used as an adjective
> in the positive form in the office. But you still have not given me an
> example in which the word Less:
>
> 1) is used as an adjective;
> 2) is used as an adjective in the original / positive form (not
> comparative or superlative).”
The page you refer to has one: “A month less a year.” Such a construction, of course, would not be made into a comparative, it is always postive. Other examples we could come up with were comparative by nature.

What may eventually happen with “less” is that “lesser” will become more acceptable in more uses. Look at what happened to “nigh/near/next.” Originally “nigh” was the positive, “near” was the comparative, and “next” was the superlative. Now “nigh” is seldom used–it sounds a bit old-fashioned–“near” means what “nigh” used to mean, and we commonly use the words “nearer” and “nearest” for the comparative and superlative. “Next” still has a similar meaning but has lost all sense of being a superlative. Now when we say, “Sit next to me,” we are just talking about a position; there is no implication that there are others also nearby.
>
> I would like to know if it is acceptable to create a series beginning with
> verbs that are connected to their subject in the main text. Second, Is it
> correct to use a semicolon after the first listing since each listng, when
> affixed to the subject in the text is a complete sentence. I thought the
> listing were to have a self-sufficiency of these ouw and be able to stand
> on their own. It seems that by using the semicolon, the writer of this is
> really jsut taking a sentence and placing a portion of it in a list
> format. If this is the case, then I would question what would happen if
> the reconstruction did not occur? I We would have a repetition of “”is
> used…”, which would create a grammatical problem regarding the proper
> use of the semicolon. Perhaps what is here is a hybred.I guess I am asking
> if the listing is viewed as a free-standing entity or as a part of the
> previous text. I believe in either case, there are grammatical problems.

I am not sure I completely understand this. Can you give some examples?

If I understand this correctly, you are asking about a compound verb in a series. Something like “Caesar came, saw, and conquered.” The verbs, as with any series, would normally be separated by commas. If the items in the series themselves had commas, then you could use semicolons. However, this is not normal for verbs. If you have items in a series followed by modifiers set off by commas, then the modifiers are virtually always modifying nouns as appositives.

>I was always taught that a colon sused for listings should not be used
>after a verb but I was never told it could be used as a continuation of a
>sentence. I thought listing were supposed to follow complete thoughts,
>generally, but not always, followed by the phrase “…the following:”

This is the case. The only time it would be used after a verb is if the verb is the last word of the sentence. For example: “We saw how fast John was running: He was terrifed.” For a list, a colon could follow the word “follow,” but we usually say “the following.” Basically, you are correct that a colon should not separate a verb or preposition from its objects. There is no reason to do so, and it can be confusing.

I hope this helps.

Dear A Z:

You wrote:
> I was going to Harry’s place and I was pretty worried.
>
> a. The last time I had been there he had insulted me.
> b. The last time I had been there he insulted me.
> c. The last time I was there he had insulted me.
> d. The last time I was there he insulted me.
>
> Which of the sentences from a to d could (or should) follow the first
> sentence?
>
Most native English speakers most of the time would use “d.” It is the cleanest and least complicated.

While using the past perfect in the first clause (as in “a” or “b”) is OK because the time frame is relative to the time in which you are revisiting Harry’s place, it makes less sense. The reason is that the clause begins “the last time” which suggests a single point in time, and it modifies the verb you are using. So looking at the second sentence alone, you would have to say “I was”: How could you do something once and talk about it as though it had happened before the time it happened?

A similar logic applies to the second clause. Using the past perfect in the second clause, as you do in “c,” is OK relative to the visit you are making in the first sentence. This would or could be used in some cases, particularly if this is a complicated narrative. However, “d” would be the most commonly used and most direct. You were there at a certain point in time and, while you were there, Harry did something.

The verb tenses do show a subtle difference in emphasis–are they relative to the first sentence more than to the information in their own sentence? Most speakers most of the time would use “d.”

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Suppose one is asked a question like:
> -What is Harry doing?
> with the present continuous tense.
>
> If things are happening very fast, could he use the simple present tense
> in his reply, as in:
> -He breaks the window, jumps out and runs behind the car.
>
He could, but he would give himself away as not being a native speaker. 🙂

If things are happening very fast, he would put the first two items in the past tense (since they have already happened) and the third in the progressive (or continuous) tense:

He broke the window, jumped out, and is running behind the car. Or more likely, he would put it into two clauses:
He broke the window and jumped out, and now he is running behind the car.

Unless the three things happen simultaneously, the tense helps to show the progression of the action.

Dear B J:

You wrote:

> Many uses are out of style, but still gramatically
> correct; doing toefl exercises i found it is not
> correct to use inversions in 1st conditional, such as:
> ‘Wow, can he make the audience laugh!’, ‘Has he more
> money, he will buy a house’; the first sentence sounds
> ok to me; the second one, although somehow out of
> style, could be grammatically permissible, and that’s
> my problem; is it also grammatically correct?

The first example is still standard English. The second makes no real sense in English, though I suspect it might in other languages that retain the subjunctive. Now the sentence would make sense if the main clause were in the conditional and the first clause in the past tense. (That is the case because historically the conditional originally was the past tenses of “will,” “shall,” and “can,” so even today they only “sound right” with the past.)

No native English speaker would ever say, “Has he more money, he will buy a house.” It makes no sense in the indicative. It does make sense in the conditional: “Had he more money, he would buy a house.” This is not commonly
used, but it is still understood. In virtually all cases people use “if” instead of the inversion: “If he had more money, he would buy a house.” Notice that even here the past tense goes with the conditional.

Another possible way of saying it might be “If he were rich, he would buy a house” or “Were he rich, he would buy a house.” Again, even with the verb “to be,” the first clause is in the past tense and the main clause is in the conditional.

Note the use of the perfect tenses in the following sentence: “If he had had money, he would have bought a house.” It is also possible to say, “Had he had money, he would have bought a house.” The important thing is that the tense match the conditional tense, which is either past or past perfect. There is no “future conditional,” since the conditional already suggests something that might be possible in the future.

Dear P G:

You wrote:
> I am confused. Here is one sentence…
> “A Bunch of Scientists ____ (is/are) discussing the
> results of the experiment.”
>
> Which is the correct verb to be used ? Is there any
> special consideration because of the word
> ‘Scientists’?
> Kindly help regarding this.
>
> Thank you.
>
This is something grammarians have quibbled over for a long time. The problem comes with the collective noun. In the U.K. standard practice is to treat collective nouns as plural, e.g., “the government are investigating.” In North America, the standard practice to treat collective nouns as singular, e.g. “the government is investigating.” In practice, the North Americans often follow the British if the collective noun is followed by a preposition with a plural object.

This sounds wishy-washy, but either usage is OK, and in everyday speech you will probably hear “are” more than “is” when you have a “bunch” of people or objects.

Dear N T:

You wrote:
> They were both working on Rousseau’s lesser-known text
> “The Origin of Language”.
>
> Doesn’t this mean that Rousseau had only written two
> texts?
> Shouldn’t it be “one of his lesser-known texts”?
>
Yes, you are correct. Unless there was an established context, the example would suggest that there were only two texts. To qualify it properly, your example is standard.

Dear Kim:

You wrote:
> Is it:
>
> None have wings.
> or
> None has wings.
>
> (i.e.–none of the birds have wings–or–none of the birds has wings)
>
> Thank you for your time. I really appreciate the help because it is one of
> those things that has been bothering me for some time now.
>
Either is acceptable. Since “none” is a contraction of “not one,” there are some who insist that “none” must be singular. When writing formally, you may want to take that into consideration. However, I personally did a study on this which showed that virtually all writers in English from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Twain, including translators of virtually every Bible translation, sometimes used “none” in the plural. In other words, practice is different from the “rule.”

For a lot more on this, see the study at https://englishplus.com/news/news1008.htm.

Dear N T:

You wrote:
> Consider this sentence:
>
> 1-These beliefs go hand in hand with a rejection of social reform as
> either feasible or desirable.
>
> Does this mean that social reform is rejected because it is considered to
> be either unfeasible or undesirable? Or is it considered to be both
> unfeasible and undesirable?
>
Either means “either”; both means “both.” If you want to say that reforms are both, it would be best to say both. However, since the sentence is basically negative (the beliefs “reject” social reform), it would be understood by most that it could be both feasible and undesirable. But it would still be best to say “both feasible and desirable.”

> Would a comma before “either” change anything?
>
> 2-These beliefs go hand in hand with a rejection of social reform, as
> either feasible or desirable.
>
There is no reason for a comma here. “As” is a conjunction or preposition, but in either case there is no reason to have a comma since the clause (if you consider it elliptical) or phrase modify “reform.” At any rate, it is adverbial or adjectival, so neither is a noun. The only reason you would have a comma here would be for an appositive, which is a noun, noun phrase, or noun clause.

Dear N T:

You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-Those two men John and Harry are friends of mine.
> 2-These two books “War and Peace” and “Anna Karenina” are Tolstoy’s best
> novels.
>
They are grammatically correct but the appositives need to be set off by commas or dashes. Because the subjects use demonstrative adjectives, the dashes would make the meaning clearer to the reader.

Those two men–John and Harry–are friends of mine.