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.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-For good or bad, this is a private enterprise.
> 2-For good or bad, we are going to do it.
>
While understandable, few native speakers would say this. The usual idiom is “For better or worse.” Occasionally you will hear someone say, “Whether for good or for evil.” While “bad” is sometimes used as a noun, here you would say “good or evil.”

> If they are, what do they mean:
> 1-Whether the final outcome will be good or not
> 2-Whether that’s a good thing or not
> 3-With all the good and bad sides that has (our doing
> it or it’s being a private enterprise)
>
I have no idea what you mean by #3. #1 is the usual meaning. See below for the reason.

In the standard English wedding ceremony, the bride and groom both vow their faithfulness to each other “for better or worse, for richer or poorer” and so on. The implication is the future.

Dear EW:

You wrote:
> -“He didn’t look English.”
> -“What did he look?”
> -“He looked Armenian.”
>
> Is the second sentence in this imaginary conversation correct and natural?
> If it isn’t, what would one say instead of it?
>
Anyone who used the second sentence would betray himself as a non-native speaker. It probably would be understood, but a question with “look” as a linking verb normally has a qualifying adverb with it.

In this case you would say, “What did he look like?” In many cases, people would say “He looked like an Armenian” anyway.

If you were inquiring about a person’s health or physical condition, then (“He looks healthy”) you would say, “How does he look?”

I hope this helps.

Dear AZ:

You wrote:
> a. You’ll earn more money in an honest way.
> b. You’ll earn more money honestly.
>
> Could these sentences mean:
> You’ll earn more money IF you are honest.
>
That is what both sentences imply.
>
> c. You’ll earn more money in a haste.
> d. You’ll earn more money hastily.
>
> Could c and d mean:
> You’ll earn more money IF you are in a haste/if you act hastily.
>
Neither really make much sense here. “Haste” normally has a negative connotation; it suggests not only speed but carelessness. A common proverb is “Haste makes waste.” Perhaps you could say, “You’ll earn more money quickly”; but because you are already using the comparative for with “money,” it might be clearer to say, “You’ll earn more money more quickly” or “You’ll earn more money quicker.”

Dear Prof. R R:

You wrote:
> Could you please tell me if the sentence below is correct English. If it
> is
> correct, what does it mean? Is it in common use?
>
> “Either of the girls has her own camera.”
>
> Thank you.
>
This is awkward and ambiguous. Do you mean “both of the girls” or do you mean “either one or the other of the girls”? Say what you mean.

This is not a common use because it is ambiguous. I cannot imagine anyone saying it. “Neither of the girls” is commonly heard because that is a negative and that means that no girl has a camera.

Dear A Z:

You wrote:
> a. He bought the red or blue notebooks.
> (He bought both the red and the blue notebooks.)
>
> Is a is correct?
Not if you mean he bought both kinds. “Or” means “one or the other,” not both.
>
> b. He bought red or blue notebooks.
> c. He bought red and blue notebooks.
>
> Is there a difference between b and c?
Absolutely. B means that he bought one kind or the other. It would normally be said by someone who could not remember precisely or did not know for sure. He bought either all red ones, or he bought all blue ones; he did not
do both.

C means that he bought both kinds of notebooks, some were red, some were blue.
>
> It seems to me that one would not use b if one were speaking of one
> occasion in which he has bought both red and blue notebooks.
>
That is true.

In English, and throughout the Western world, this distinction is very important. So much of Western writing and communication is based on Aristotelian logic in which the difference between AND and OR can be critical.

Dear Mr. H,

For what it is worth–and I have explained this before to others not from New England–that frappe is a single-syllable word rhyming with wrap. There is no accent on the final e. Especially in the Boston area, if you order a milk shake, you will get flavored milk with no ice cream. If you want ice cream in it, you order a frappe. My favorite flavor of frappe, which predates Starbucks by a century or so, is a coffee frappe, made with coffee ice cream. Coffee ice cream is common in most of eastern New Engand, but pretty much a specialty everywhere else.

Frapuccino is simply a truncation of frozen capuccino since it does not have ice cream in it–no comparison with a coffee frappe made by Steve’s or Brigham’s in Boston. (Brigham’s famous flavor introduced to rest of the world in 2004 was Reverse the Curse ice cream. Then they had a contest to change the name since the Curse of the Bambino was finally exorcised.)

A former Bostonian

Dear R:

You wrote:

Hi there,

I hope you can help settle an argument that my friend and I are having.

When describing a pen, my friend believes that calling it a writing utensil is correct, while I believe that the term writing implement would be more appropriate.

Which should be used in this context?

Thanks,
R

Without meaning to sound wishy-washy, either would work. The term “writing implement” is more commonly used. However, both words mean “tool,” so either would be fine. When you examine the roots, “implement” literally means “something which helps to complete”; “utensil” literally means “something meant to be used.” In the spirit of the holidays, it is not worth arguing over.

I hope this helps.

Dear MK:

You wrote:
> One phrase that bothers me is “on tomorrow” as in, “We will meet
> you on tomorrow.” My stance is that as an adverb, tomorrow, today
> and yesterday do not need prepositions in front. Is this correct?
>
Yes, you are correct. I wonder if that is a regional expression. I cannot say I have heard people say it much. “We will meet you tomorrow” is standard.

“Tomorrow” is technically an adverbial noun–like “tonight.” That means that it is a noun which can act as an adverb. While it can be used as a subject of a sentence as in “Tomorrow is a long time,” it is usually used adverbially just as you say. In that case, there is no need for a preposition.

The root meaning actually is a compound word formed from the prepositional phrase that already begins with “to”; you could argue that adding the preposition is not only awkward but redundant.

It could also be that this expression is a misreading or misunderstanding of the phrase “on the morrow,” which is perfectly fine English, though perhaps slightly old-fashioned.

Dear Lew Bretz:

You wrote:
> As an American living in Australia I’ve become aware of using “alblum”
> with an L, despite the plain spelling of the word without that L.
>
> I thought it was something picked up from my mother, who says the same as
> do my siblings, then noticed its use by two Americans on a TV series
> concerning pop music. No reference to this pairing appears in
> bartleby.com, or in your particular site. Does anyone in your grammar
> network have an idea of whether this variant use is extensive? Thanks if
> you can help, Lew B.
>
It is an American variant you do hear on occasion. I used to hear it more when I lived in Western Pennsylvania. A lot of the colloquial language there comes from German. People were called “dumkopfs” if they did something silly, and thorns were called “jaggers.” “Blum” is a common syllable in German, so it may be more typical of people with Eastern European/German/Yiddish backgrounds.