Dear MT:

You wrote:
> I work for a nonprofit that publishes scientific journals on cancer research. We require spelling and grammar tests of all employment applicants. One test item in grammar is on subject-verb agreement, which goes this way:
>
> “She is one of those songwriters who (like, likes) to compose on the piano.”
>
> Our answer sheet indicates the verb “like” to be the correct answer. Is this accurate, and if not, why isn’t it?
>
> I would appreciate your help on this. Thank you.
>
This is one that can go either way. The pronoun “who” can be singular or plural, and in this case the antecedent is ambiguous. If the “who” stands for “one,” then the verb would be “likes.” If the who stands for “songwriters,” the verb would be “like.” Because the word “songwriters” is closest to the pronoun, generally English speakers would understand that the “who” is taking the place of “songwriters” so that the verb would be “like.” If you were to use the verb “likes,” you would be emphasizing the individual person (she) more than the type of songwriter she is.

Either could be correct; they just have slightly different meanings. If you were to ask for the “best” answer, then it would be “like” for the reason above. If you were to ask for the “correct” answer, either might work. I mention this because most standardized mutiple-choice tests like the SAT always say “best” answer. That gives a little wiggle room in case another answer might work in some instances.

Dear PC:

You wrote:
> what is the rule for using parantheses within parantheses? is it proper to do: His department (Department of Mental Health (DMH)) likes to…
>
> or should it be: His department [Department of Mental Health (DMH)] likes to…
>
Actually, the brackets go inside the parentheses. You should write:
His department (Department of Mental Health [DMH]) likes to…

The best rule of thumb is to avoid this because it does look awkward. Perhaps you can simply use commas with the appositive?
His department, the Department of Mental Health (DMH), likes to…

But if you do have to use parentheses within parentheses, use brackets for the expression inside.

For more see “Brackets” in Grammar Slammer or
https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000139.htm .

Dear Mr. G:

You wrote:

> Please clear up for me the following question raised from my letter to the Editor of a local weekly newspaper. See the question below… The title the editor had created and placed above my letter to the editor was:
“Intellectual growth is contrary to centering your life in Christ”
>
> In a later letter to the editor I had written that I thought his title (in quotes above) had biased the supposition of my previous letter. He responded as follows below at the bottom of my second letter.
>
> “Editor’s note: The headline on Mr. Granger’s July 21 letter, “Intellectual growth is contrary to centering your life in Christ,” was lifted from the text of the letter, “The push for intellectual growth through expatiation in all areas, thought a virtue by relativists, can work against the process of spiritual growth and the centering of one’s life in Christ.”
>
> My question is: Am I in error with my grammar/meaning/use? I had thought there was a difference between “can” and the linking verb “is,” and had meant “can” in the sense of examining, over time, all areas of belief. Is the newspaper editor correct in his response to me based on what I had written? What is the grammar rule that are involved in your response to me?

>Thank you for your help and candid reply in clearing up this question for me. May I quote your reply to me if I should write again to the editor?
>
Technically, you are correct. There is a difference between “can” and “is.” What you said was, in effect, that intellectual growth can, that is, is able to, interfere with spiritual growth. The editor interpreted this to mean that the intellectual growth does interfere with spiritual growth. I would say that he missed the subtlety. It also may reflect a typical journalistic bias that Christians are anti-intellectual–I recall that notorious line from the Washington Post calling Christians “poor, undereducated, and easily led” (or words to that effect).

Any dictionary should be able to point out the difference.

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Consider the following conversation:
> -You haven’t really tried to go in. What have you done to go in?
>
> 1-I have knocked on this door and I still am.
> 2-I have knocked on this door for ten minutes and still am.
> 3-I have knocked on this door for ten minutes and still am knocking on it.
> 4-I have been knocking on this door and still am.
>
> Which of the sentences 1 to 4 is acceptable?
>
In terms of style only #4 would be considered standard because only #4 has a parallel verb construction. There does not appear to be any reason to change the tense.

#1-3 might occasionally be heard in colloquial conversation but really do not make much sense. “Have knocked” implies a single action in the past, so if you have already knocked, the implication is that you were done. The progressive tense more precisely shows that your action of knocking was continuous even up to the present.

Dear Janelle:

You wrote:
> Hi I’m trying to figure out how I should word my selection for children on my response card for my wedding. Should it be: childrens’ selections, children selections, children selection, child selections or child’s selection. I have no idea and need help plaese. Thank you
>
It is not really clear what you are trying to communicate. Do you want “child” singular or plural? (I would guess probably plural if there are more than one child involved). If that is the case, your modifier should be “children’s.” (Plural of “child” plus the possessive.)

If you think about it, there is no such word as “childrens'” or “childrens” because “children” is already a plural, so adding an “s” to make it plural serves no purpose.

Similarly, do you want “selection” singular or plural? If you only have one choice, then it would be “selection.” If there are more than one, then it would be “selections.”

Dear M C.:

You wrote:
> Hello! I’ve just completed a research study for my dissertation. In my paper (which may eventually be published in a scientific journal), I’m including quotations. However, I need to figure out how to punctuate a LIST of quotations within my text. For example…
>
> This category pertains to when they said ___ (e.g., “So the 200 and the
100 make it cut in half!” “What do you think will happen this time?” “Why is
it not going as high anymore?”)
>
> Do I need commas or something in there or does the internal punctuation take care of that? What if the internal punctuation would be a period rather than an exclamation point or question mark?
>
You need no additional punctuation. They look fine as they are. When possible, you should have each quotation on a new line, but the example you give (inside parentheses) is OK.

> Also, when I’m providing examples of two possible quotations, how do I punctuate that? For example….
>
> When asked, “Do you remember the train ride?” these children might have said, “Yeah” or “Yeah, it was fun.”
>
> Should the first “yeah” have a period as well? or a comma? or a period and a comma? Hmmmm. Are the commas before the quotes correct?
>
The punctuation in this example is fine. You do not need a comma after the first “Yeah” since it is not in a series (There are only two quotations). Yes, the commas after the “he said/she said” statement before the opening quotation marks are placed correctly.

> Thanks for any input you have!
>
It looks pretty good.

Dear GP:

You wrote:
> What is the exact tense of the following sentences:
>
> I will have to go.
This is the future tense “will have” followed by the present infinitive “to go.”
>
> My father says I will have to give the exam.

This is the present tense “says” in the main clause. In the noun clause you have the future tense “will have” followed by the present infinitive “to give.”

Dear C:

You wrote:

> In your grammar slammer, you use which when you mean that in the following
> sentence. I expect grammar slammer to have all the right answers! Thanks for
> fixing.
>
> A dangling modifier is a phrase or clause which says something different
> from what is meant because words are left out. The meaning of the sentence,
> therefore, is left “dangling.”
>
I believe you are referring to a spurious “rule” which is not widely recognized on either side of the Atlantic. However, some editors and authorities use it. See the page “That/Which/Who” or https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000255.htm for more on this.