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.

Dear SY:

You wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I’d like to knoe the difference between “On the
> grass” AND “in the grass” phrases?
>
“On” means “on top of”; “in” means “inside.”

A common English expression is “a snake in the grass.” The means the snake is concealed in the grass or hiding in the grass.

A person normally lies on the grass–lying down on top of the grass. However, it is possible to say that someone lies in the grass if the grass is tall and the person is partially or completely hidden in the grass. Then he is no longer on (i.e., on top of) the grass but in it.

>Thank u soooo much for the reply!
>
> I have found out some sentences from the web (grammar sites) which use
> ‘on the grass’ and ‘in the grass’ phrases!
>
> If you can please be kind enough to go through them and make a small
> comment on why they use that relavent phase.
>
> These are some sentences:
> 1) As the little prince cries in the grass, a fox appears.
> 2) They sat down in the grass.
> 3) The football player is laying the football in the grass.
>
1. The grass must have been tall, which is likely because foxes are stealthy and would are not usually found in short grass.
2. Very unusual. The grass must have been tall. I suspect it should be “on the grass.”
3. Even more unusual because football is usually played on short grass or no grass at all. I am pretty sure it should be “on the grass.”

> 4) You can walk anywhere on the grass.
> 5) Teacher talking with his students on the grass.
> 6) we go outside and sit on the grass to admire the full moon.
4-6. All three are normal usage. All three would likely happen on a lawn with short grass and would be unlikely or impossible if they were “in” grass.

> Again James, a BIIIIIIG THANK for u! 🙂
>
> So is it the same scenario for difference between ‘ON THE FIELD’ and
> ‘IN THE FIELD’ phases??

I guess so, but usually “in the field” would refer to a field that has an enclosure. You would say, for example, “the cow is in the field” or “in the pasture,” but that would be because the field is a defined space, and the cow is inside that defined space. The expression “in the field” is more common because it can be used that way, while “grass” is vegetation, not a defined area.

You would still use “on the field” to describe an object or person that is placed on a field, especially if the speaker is in the field himself. So in football, a foul or penalty is called if a team has twelve players on the field.