Dear JA:
You wrote:
Which is correct: square-foot or square foot ?
In normal usage, both are correct. The hyphenated form is used for adjectives; the two words are used for nouns (technically, “foot” is the noun modified by the adjective “square.”
Examples:
They marked out in the pattern in square-foot increments. (adjective modifying “increments”)
We had one square foot of fabric left over. (noun, direct object of “had”)
Dear JR, Paralegal:
You wrote:
> I was taught, but cannot remember by whom, that at the end of a pleading page in a legal document, if there was a large blank space, and the document then continued on the following page, you placed two diagonals // to indicate that the document continued. I can find no reference to confirm this. Can you help? Thank you.
>
>
I am not familiar with this. This may be an “in-house” practice at some place where you worked, or it could be a specific use in legal documents I am not familiar with. Are you thinking of the parallel, a reference mark made of two horizontal lines? This traditionally was used along with the asterisk, daggers, and section mark to show a reference of some kind. It is possible that the parallel has or had a special meaning in legal documents just as the section mark does. It also might be a proofreading mark used for the purpose you stated. Perhaps someone reading this can help?
Dear Mr. B:
You wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I’d like to note that there’s a slight error on your capitalisation page on
> englishplus.com (https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000045.htm). You cite this
> as an example:
>
> Correct: Ludwig van Beethoven
>
> Correct: Cornelia ten Boom (First name being used)
>
> Correct: Miss Ten Boom (First name not used)
>
> Beethoven was German, and as such the particle in his name is ‘von’ (‘van’
> is Dutch). Additionally, the second and third examples are somewhat
> confusing, as it’s obviously a Dutch name. This means it can either be Dutch
> or Belgian, and the language rules differ between those countries.
>
> In the Netherlands, particles are not capitalised when the first name is
> used (like you mention), but this is also the case when a title is used,
> such as in the second example.
>
> In Belgian Dutch (Flemish), any particle is capitalised in every case.
> Often, the particle is attached to the surname itself or even part of the
> surname proper with the actual surname losing its capitalisation Because of
> this, the Flemish collate names including the particle, so Van der Ven ends
> up near Vanderbroucke, whereas in Dutch we only collate on (I suppose) the
> first capitalised (non-particle) word in the name, and Van der Ven would end
> up near Van der Vaart.
>
> So, in Flemish it’d be “Cornelia Ten Boom” and “Miss Ten Boom”, but in Dutch
> it would be “Cornelia ten Boom” and “Miss ten Boom”. It’d be “There’s a
> phone call for Ten Boom” in both languages, because of the lack of
> title/first name (and because Flemish capitalises it in any case).
>
Thanks for your input. Perhaps we do need to emphasize that the patterns are general and may vary. It is always best to check with the individual. You might want to double check Beethoven’s preposition. Originally we had “von,” but when we looked up his name, we saw that it was written “van.” We checked it with Funk & Wagnalls, so it may be a reflection of his dialect or the spelling at the time he was alive. Perhaps others spell it differently. Shakespeare’s name was spelled six different ways in documents that he signed. We also note that the German Wikipedia spells his name with a “van.”
Dear Mr. A:
You wrote:
>
> I read this sentsnce in the educational ministry book in Egypt and I
> feel it has a mistake; am i right?
> The sentence:
> Which deveolpment made tourism the massive industry it is today?
This is a question and it makes good sense in English. Another way of asking the same question would be “What development made tourism the massive industry it is today?” However, the word “Which” implies that there are more
than one development, but the question is looking for the best answer.
In this sentence “Which” is an interrogative pronoun, not a relative pronoun.
Dear N:
You wrote:
> Which is correct:
> 1-I don’t trust doctors, specially not me.
> 2-I don’t trust doctors, specially not myself.
>
> The speaker is, of course, a doctor himself.
>
#1 is considered standard. #2 would be used in conversation for emphasis and would be clearly understood, but technically there could be some ambiguity when written (Is he saying “I myself don’t trust them” or is he saying “I
don’t trust them and I am one myself”?). There is no such ambiguity in #1 because of the case of “me.”
By the way, as in this sentence you would probably want to use “especially” rather than “specially.” In modern usage, “especially” tends to mean “with emphasis” while “specially” means something more like “uniquely.”
Dear JS:
You wrote:
> On your website page
>
> https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000370.htm
>
> there’s a mistake: In the sentence
>
> I cannot believe that he said it.
>
> the word “that” is asserted to be a relative pronoun. In this sentence it’s not a relative pronoun, it’s a conjunction. To be a relative pronoun, “that” has to be the subject of the subordinate clause, whereas in this sentence, “he” is the subject of the subordinate clause.
>
Thanks for the input. Some dictionaries do explain it that way. The sources we used must have emphasized more the “relating” part, i.e., “that” relates the second clause to “believe” since the whole clause is a noun clause. Like some uses of participles, authorities do disagree on this. However, your point might be worth mentioning since it is recognized by some authorities.
Dear NT:
You wrote:
> 1-Great novels such as “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House” can be fun to read.
> 2-Great novels, such as “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House”, can be fun to read.
>
> What is the difference between the two above sentences?
There is really no difference in meaning except that the second one means that the modifier is nonrestrictive. So the first would be saying something like “Great novels similar to DQ and BH”; in other words, picaresque novels like “Quixote” or romantic novels with social commentary like “Bleak House” are fun to read. (Personally, “Bleak House” is a wonderful book, but I am not sure I would call it “fun.”) The second one is saying “Greal novels are fun to read; DQ and BH are two examples of great novels.” The commas mean that the phrase can be omitted without changing the overall meaning. Without the commas, the phrase modifies the subject to alter the meaning.
>
> Same question as regards:
> 3-Great novels like “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House” can be fun to read.
> 4-Great novels, like “Don Quixote” and “Bleak House”, can be fun to read.
>
> In which cases are the novels mentioned merely examples of great novels and in which cases do they define a type of great novel?
>
Same as above. The commas mean the modifier is nonrestrictive, so that would fall into the “example” category. Without the commas, the phrase is describing two types of great novels.
You wrote:
> Hi
> I would appreciate some information regarding the appropriate uses for either age or aged. Could you please clarify the contexts below.
> a) Her father died at age/aged 60.
> b) Her father died when he was age/aged 60.
> c) He has one daughter age/aged 16.
> d) He has one daughter who is age/aged 16.
> e) He has three siblings age/aged 30,35,37.
> Any advice would be very helpful.
>
In the context you are using here, “age” is a noun, and “aged” is an adjective (participle). It is mostly a matter of which fits the grammar and syntax.
a) could be “at age 60” (noun, object of preposition) or “aged 60” (adjective), the first is more typical.
b) “aged 60” — predicate adjective
c) “aged 16”–adjective. One could argue that “age 16” would be an appositive, but this is not typical.
d) “age 16” predicate adjective. In both b & d one could make a case for “age” as a predicate nominative, but that really does not apply well since the predicate is clearly describing, not renaming.
e) Same as c.
“Aged” is preferable because “age” can be used an adjective when speaking of historical eras. The guideline I would recommend is whether or not you are describing how old some one is or what era. The best example is “middle aged” (an adjective meaning loosely between 40 and 65 years old) vs. “Middle Age” from the historical period roughly 500-1500 A.D. He was a middle aged man. He lived in a Middle Age castle.
Dear GB:
You wrote:
> If referring to multiplication tables i.e.: fives times tables etc., do you use an apostrophe if you contract it to – 5s 6s 7s etc or write it as 5’s, 6’s 7’s etc.?
>
> Also, a family name as in my case Blank, [not the real name] is an apostrophe used when
talking collectively about the Blank family (the Blanks or the Blank’s) and so on?
>
These are good questions. In the first case, you do see authorities do it both ways. The first way is considered standard; it is simply the plural of the number. However, especially in mathematical situations, you do sometimes see 5’s (“fives”) to distinguish the plural of five from the algebraic expression 5s (i.e., five times s). Neither is really appropriate in any
formal writing. In any formal writing, write out the word so there is no ambiguity: “fives, sixes, sevens, etc.”
In the second case, the apostrophe is only used with the possessive. So you would normally say “the Blanks,” i.e., the Blank family. The only time you would use the apostrophe would be if you were using it with the possessive:
“George Blank’s brother” or “the Blanks’ house.”
I hope this helps.
Dear NT:
You wrote:
> My problem is with negative sentences followed by a clause of purpose:
>
> 1-I didn’t go out tonight (,) to study for my exam.
> 2-I didn’t turn off the light (,) for you to be able to read.
> 3-I didn’t make a noise (,) so that he wouldn’t notice me.
>
> A-Are the commas necesary?
> Can’t there be cases where the absence of a comma might cause ambiguity? (I didn’t go out to study. I went out to have fun.)
> B-Can one use a comma in all of the above sentences?
First of all, the first two sentences really are not good English at all–they are awkward, ambiguous, and hard to understand.
This is what I think you want to say:
1. I didn’t go out tonight in order to study for my exam (weak but understandable).
I didn’t go out tonight so I could study for my exam. (typical and understandable but informal)
I didn’t go out tonight so that I could study for my exam. (standard English) No comma is necessary because the subordinate adverb clause follows the main clause.
2 I didn’t turn off the light in order that you could (or “would be able to”) read. (OK)
I didn’t turn off the light in order for you to read. (informal)
I didn’t turn off the light so that you could (or “would be able to”) read. (Best, standard Engllish)
Again, no commas are necessary, and, indeed, would possibly confuse the reader.
3. Actually #3 is OK except that you would say “any noise” or “a sound.”
That’s the way we speak. #3 is understandable, but “a noise” refers to a single outburst, while “not a sound” would suggest a continuum of silence. Apart from that, #3 is OK without the comma. No comma is necessary, and indeed would be confusing. In all three instances you would use a comma if the subordinate clause came first.
I didn’t make a sound so that he would not notice me.
So that he would not noice me, I did not make a sound.
Acutally, “In order that” is more natural in this sentence, but “so that” works.
In all three cases, there might be a better way to say them. The negative can be hard to follow. For example, “I was perfectly silent so that he would not notice me.” Even better in most cases would be direct cause-effect statement such as “I was perfectly silent, so he did not notice me.” That, of course, expresses effect rather than purpose, but in most contexts this is clearer. Also, in this case, “so” is a coordinating conjunction, the clauses are independent, so you use a comma.
I hope this helps.
[Note to our readers. I learned that this question and a number of others from “N” or “NT” are from a non-native English speaker whose native language uses phrase in most cases where English uses clauses. But these clause questions can be helpful to anyone who wants to learn to be more precise.]