Dear D:

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.”

“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 CG:

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 P:

You wrote:

> Dear Sirs
> Please let me know whether the following sentence is correct.
>
> …Your plan is awaited for the start up of the reactors….
>
> In specific can “for” follow “awaited”.
>
This is a trick question.

The difference between wait and await is that wait is intransitive and would take a preposition if there is an object following. Await is transitive and takes a direct object.

We are waiting for your plan.
We await your plan.

However, the example that you gave is in the passive voice. Clearly, you have to use await in the passive voice because you cannot use intransitive verbs like wait passively.

If there is a problem with the sentence, it is that the sentence probably does not make sense. If you put this sentence in the active voice, you would say, “The startup of the reactors awaits your plan.” This in most contexts would not make sense because people wait, not startups.

Do you mean to say, “Your plan awaits the startup of the reactor”? If that is the case, the passive voice would be “The startup of the reactor is awaited by your plan.” This is awkward, but it is grammatical.

You probably can come up with a better way to express what you are trying to say. Consider also the progressive tense.

We also note that in some English dialects people say “wait on” instead of “wait for.” In most dialects, though, “wait on” refers specifically to helping or serving someone–why attendants in restaurants are called waiters.

Hi James,

> You’ve answered questions for me in the past. I have another one for you.
> Is unappropriate an accepted English term? I heard someone use it,
> thought
> it strange, but when i looked it up on dictionary.com it was listed as a
> word, meaning inappropriate. WordPerfect did not recognize it, and it is
> not in Webster’s unabridged dictionary. My guess is that the person meant
> to say inappropriate and just got lucky because it is listed on
> dictionary.com. Looking for clarification. Personally, it was the first
> time I had ever heard anyone use the term, so I assumed it was incorrect.
>
> Thanks!
> Bob
>
Inappropriate is the standard English term (it actually has Latin roots).

English does have a number of prefixes and suffixes which are nearly synonymous, so people, especially in everyday speech, will construct nonstandard words like “unappropriate.” Since we all know that un- means “not,” we know what the person is saying. I suppose you could also say “nonappropriate.” However, usually there is a standard form based on historical use and understanding. That word is inappropriate in this case.

Some dictionaries might include words like “unappropriate” or “nonappropriate” because someone somewhere used the word in a serious manner. Such dictionaries are called descriptive dictionaries; they merely describe the word used without making any observation about its propriety or standard use.

Some people would see such invented constructions as a sign of lack of education or lack of understanding. In the example you gave, use inappropriate even though we may understand the other words. Using the others may give some people the impression that you are not well-educated, well-read, or well-spoken as you could be.

For more on descriptive vs. prescriptive dictionaries, see our article on Two Kinds of Dictionaries.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> You wouldn’t know it by me.
>
> Does this sentence mean:
> 1-I won’t tell you although I know.
> 2-I wouldn’t tell you even if I knew.
> 3-I won’t tell you because I don’t know.
> or could it mean any of the above depending on the context?
>
This is a colloquial expression. It basically means “I have no means of knowing.” It is closer to #3.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> “With him, solitude was very difficult.”
>
> Does this sentence mean:
>
> 1-It was difficult to be alone with him.
> or:
> 2-It was difficult for him to be alone.
>
This would be a very uncommon construction in English. It would have to mean #2, because solitude means “being alone.” If someone else were with him, he would no longer be in solitude!

The sentences #1 and #2 are much clearer. Stick with them.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> John is the first man to have won that prize.
>
> This means that no other man won that prize before John, but does it imply
> that no other man has won that prize since he won it? Can the sentence be
> used if other men won that prize after he did?
>
Yes. Indeed, that is what it is saying. If no other person has won the prize, you would say, “John is the only man to have won that prize.” If something is “first,” that generally means someone is second, unless you are describing a rare or recent feat–e.g., the first person to circumnavigate the world solo, but he is also the only person to do it.