Dear CC:

You wrote:

>”Long-Time Hyphenated Words ”
>Hi, The above is one of the headings on your website and I’m wondering if it’s grammatically correct to capitalize the 2nd part of a hypenated word? Or is it one of those things that doesn’t really matter anymore?
>Thanks.

Some editors may do it differently, but this is a title, so every word except for short connecting words is capitalized. Since “long-time” is a compound formed from two words that are usually separate, we would capitalize the second part since it is considered a separate word.

If anything, this is the older way of doing things. I have some nineteenth century bird books (including Audubon facsimiles); in those books the birds names are often hyphenated (e.g. “blue-bird” and “black-bird”) and whenever they are used in titles, both parts are capitalized. We do not used hyphens as often as they did in the nineteenth century.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> Is this sentence correct:
>
> He did the magic trick SO SLOWLY THAT we SHOULD see how he did it.
>
> (Indicating purpose and manner.)
>
It is OK, but a native English speaker would probably say “we should be able to see” or “we could see.” Also because the main clause is in the past tense, you would normally say “should have been able to see” or “could have seen” to keep the tenses aligned.

Dear A Class:

You wrote:

>Which of these is it correct?
>Some materials could be mined from the moon and sent back to Earth for processing , or , to be processed , or, in order to process…

>In other words, I want to know is there any difference if we use ‘for + ing’ or ‘infinitive’ or ‘in order to’ to say the reason of an action?

The first two are OK. You would have to put the third one in the passive voice to make sense: “in order to be processed.” After all, the mined materials are not doing the processing!

>Another example: She did her homework quickly for watching TV / in order to watch TV.

The first one does not make sense. Homework does not assist us in watching TV. Perhaps “She wore glasses for watching TV” (i.e., she wore glasses to assist in watching TV).
The second one is fine.

Dear NT:
>
> You wrote:
> Which are correct (they are supposed to mean the same):
> 1-Nowadays many houses are constructed as in the sixties.
> 2-Nowadays many houses are constructed like in the sixties.
> 3-Nowadays many houses are constructed like they were in the sixties.
> 4-Nowadays many houses are constructed like houses were decorated in the
> sixties.
>
> What does the “they” in sentence 3 stand for?
>
The clearest and the most likely to be heard is #3. Technically, in formal English you should say “as” rather than “like,” but in informal and everyday speech that rule is often disregarded.

#1 and #2 would be OK in context perhaps but are a little ambiguous. #4 means something else since “construction” and “decoration” have two different meanings.

There is only one plural noun in the sentence, so it is safe to assume that “they” refers to “houses.” This is especially clear because of the parallel formation of the two clauses (subject + verb to be).

Dear A Class:

You wrote:
> Hello there,
> How can ‘for’ be used to express purpose? What comes after ‘for’ in this
> case? Can’for +…ing’ be used instead of infinitive?
>
I am not sure that I completely understand the question, but in modern English the gerund normally follows a preposition unless the preposition already has the word “to.”

This is useful for helping people in their studies. (typical–preposition plus gerund)

He did that in order to help her read. (infinitive–since the preposition already has the word “to”)

Occasionally you may see material before the 19th century which will have the infinitive after a preposition, but that is no longer used except as noted above and would be considered old-fashioned at best, incomprehensible at worst, or used to make fun of the speaker.

There is, for example, a popular American folk song that goes, in part, “I come from Alabama with a banjo on my knee;/ I’m going to Louisiana my true love for to see” ; but this is a humorous song and part of the humor comes from the mangling of the language. Another two lines say, “It rained all night the day I left, the weather it was dry;/ The sun so hot, I froze to death, Susannah, don’t you cry.” It’s a silly song, so the language is silly. 🙂

The title of the song is “O Susannah.”

I should add that many times the infinitive by itself suggests purpose. For example, the normal way of saying that line from the song would be, “I’m going to Lousiana to see my true love.”

I hope this answers your question.

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.