You wrote:
> I know that quotation marks for a quote within a quote are to be single
> (in the USA). But what if you quote printed material that includes a
> quotation?
>
> A student asked me recently about taking a quote from a text in which
> there was already a quote. In the original text, the quote was printed
> with double quotation marks. In placing this as a quote into her own
> paper, should she change the quote within her quote to single marks? She
> objected as she did not want to change anything within the original quote
> without indicating the change.
>
Yes, you would have to change the quotations marks from single to double as you describe. Technically, since they are still quotation marks, she is not tampering with the quotation, simply making her own work more precise.
Having said that, occasionally some employers or some policies will insist on doing it differently. I once did some proofreading for a writer who had some customers who were strict Christian fundamentalists. He said that some
of his readers would claim he was tampering with Holy Scriptures when he changed the punctuation or capitalization in a quotation form the Bible to make it easier to read in context. Perhaps if she were writing for an audience with strong feelings like that, it might be prudent to keep the original quotation marks and put the larger quotation in single quotation marks surrounded by another set of double quotation marks. Keep in mind that in formal research any quotations four or more lines long usually are indented and the introductory and final quotation marks are eliminated. So any such quotation of four or more lines would have the original punctuation anyhow.
As you noted, in the British Isles, the doubling and singling is reversed.
You wrote:
> I am the director of public information at College X.
> We are currently working on a new mission statement and I
> would like for you to look at it and make sure it is grammatically
> correct. Here is the most current version:
>
> “College X enriches the academic, technical and
> cultural life of our diverse communities. We are committed to offering
> traditional and alternative approaches to education, providing quality
> instruction, and promoting lifelong learning.”
>
> Thank you for your help.
> respectfully,
> L
>
It sounds fine. The only problem is that you are not consistent in the use of the comma. In the first series, there is no comma before the and (“technical and cultural”), while in the second series there is a comma (“instruction, and promoting”). More authorities prefer the less ambiguous way you did it in the second series. To be consistent, add a comma after “technical.”
You wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When ending a sentence with a web or email address, is it okay to
> leave off the full stop?
>
> Best Regards,
> Graeme Walshe
>
Good question. It might be confusing to the reader, especially in e-mails and online postings because the reader might think something has been left out or dropped.
We recommend skipping a space before entering the period. That way, the period will not be read as part of the URL or e-mail address. However, we understand that in formal writing one should place the period in its normal position.
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.
You wrote:
> Can you tell me if ‘Once upon a time there was a little bird called
> Tweetie’ is a simple/complex sentence please??
>
This is a simple sentence. The subject is “bird” and the verb is “was.” There are no other subjects or verbs. “Once upon a time” is an adverb followed by a prepositional phrase. “Called Tweetie” is a participial phrase modifying “bird.”
You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-We have seen people belonging to all age groups.
> 2-We have seen people, belonging to all age groups.
> 3-We have seen some people belonging to all age groups.
> 4-We have seen some people, belonging to all age groups.
>
1 and 3 sound fine. 2 and 4 are incomplete. The comma indicates that the participial phrase is nonrestrictive, but there is no apparent reason indicated in the sentence. They both leave the impression that there is more to be said. That is especially true because of the general nature of the word “people.”
You wrote:
> Is there a difference as regards their meanings between:
> a.”He had talked to her after I saw her.”
> and:
> b.”He had talked to her after I had seen her.”
>
In many cases they would mean the same thing. The tense difference can be significant, though. You probably would say “a” if you had been talking about seeing her and the next event was his talking to her. You would use “b” if you needed to establish that his talking to her took place separately and afterwards and the narrative was not seamless. Perfect tenses emphasize that the action has been completed.
You wrote:
> Hello,
> I have purchased Grammar Slammar Delux and I like the product. I want to
> ask if it’s possible to scroll the text down in the checker window? When I
> start the checker the selected words “errors” shows from top to bottom.
> When I continue running the checker I got the selected words or phrases
> only at the bottom of the window. It gives me a problem when I am in the
> middle of a sentence and I can’t see the part after, where the checker has
> marked an “error”. Then I want to go into the checker so I can see the
> whole sentence. I can click on “cancel” that will close the check grammar
> and past the text back from the clipbord. But when I open the checker
> again it starts from the beginning of the document. I would be good to
> have this option to go into the checker window.
Unfortunately, that is something we cannot program around because of the checker engine we are using. Basically, the checker “takes over” the text page and you have to wait until the checker is finished. That was a concession we had to make to make it compatible with as many editors as possible.
>Another well option would be the possibility to place the cursor anywhere
>in the document and then start the checker at that place. I would be very
>glad if you will send me an answer with suggestions, how I can solve this
>problems or possibilities.
What you can do is highlight a portion of the document at a time using your mouse. Click any button to check. Then it asks you “Check on the selected text?” Click “Yes,” and only the area you highlighted will be checked. That way, you will not have to check through the whole document again.
You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-These are the tools to repair the car.
>
This makes sense and would work. You would be more precise to say “to repair the car with” or “with which to repair the car.”
> 2-I lost the tools to repair the car.
> meaning: the tools which were to be used to repair the car.
>
This makes sense colloquially, but the way you wrote your “translation” (“the tools used to repair the car”) is clearer.
> 3-Somebody stole the tools to repair the car.
> meaning: the tools which were to be used to repair the car.
> This sentence, I think, would primarily mean that he stole the tools IN
> ORDER TO repair the car. I wanted to see if it could work for the other
> meaning, ie. “He stole the tools with which we could repair the car.”
> In this case the “to clause” would postmodify the noun “tools” and won’t
> be a purpose clause.
>
You are correct. This would normally be understood to mean, “in order to repair the car.” For the other meaning we would probably simply say, “Somebody stole the car repair tools.”
Dear SJ.:
>
> You wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I am 15 years old and consider myself to be an amateur grammarian. Ever
> since I learned the rule, ‘Don’t end a sentence with a preposition,’ I
> have found it rather puzzling. If the diagram works out, and there is no
> true grammatical fallacy in writing this sentence, what is the big deal?
>
> I believe I have discovered a grammatical proof that shows that there is
> at least one case where the rules of grammar not only allow, but DICTATE,
> that the sentence end in a preposition. In short, if an interrogative
> sentence has the questioning portion as the object of a prepositional
> phrase, then when the sentence is transferred to the interrogative mood it
> must end in a preposition. For example, “Who are you speaking to?”
>
> Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with me, I would appreciate
> any feedback you might have, and would you please give me the name and/or
> email address of a grammatical institute or association with which I could
> pose the same question?
>
> Thank you to an excruciating degree,
>
> S
>
> (Oh, and, in case you’re wondering, my peers do think that I’m at least a
> little bit weird)
>
We agree (not on your weirdness, but on prepositions). The example you use is common in English. The “rule” came about because all European grammatical terms are based on the terms used in Latin. In Latin the “pre-position” does always come before an object. Some grammarians, especially Englishmen in the 18th and 19th centuries, taught that by definition the preposition always had to come before its object. That may be true in Latin, but that does not mean it has to be true in English. We note that even the King James Bible and Shakespeare end sentences with prepositions.