Dear KR, proofreader:

You wrote:
> Please indicate the correct answer (and explanation)
> for each of the two sentences below. I appreciate your
> help.
>
> (1) Twelve cylinders in a car are no better than four if
> there _is_/_are_ no spark from the battery and no gas
> in the tank.
>
> (2) These were strange people in the sense they just
> sort of adapted and became friends with
> _whoever_/_whomever_ was in control.
>
You picked good ones. I have seen both go either way.

1. I believe “there is” is preferred for #1 since both parts of the subject are singular and because of the modifier “no” it is not a regular compound subject. We would still use “is” if they were written in the normal
subject-verb order: “No spark from the battery and no gas in the tank is useless for any size engine” or “No spark and no gas means no power.”

2. I believe “whoever” is preferred for #2. The case of the word in the clause trumps the case of the word in the whole sentence. In the clause, “whoever/whomever” is the subject, so go with “whoever.” See our page on Pronoun Case for some examples.

Dear N:

You wrote:
> Are these sentences correct:
> 1-Yesterday there was a chance of our team losing.
> 2-Yesterday we could lose.
> 3-Yesterday we might lose.
>
> They are all supposed to mean the same thing. I want to avoid “could have” and “might have”, because by using them one implies that we did not lose yesterday. I don’t want the sentence to show whether we lost or not.
> Why did you play defensively yesterday (and why aren’t you doing it today)?
>
> “We played defensively yesterday, because we could lose.”
>
> I think it would be correct to say: “We played defensively yesterday, because we could have lost.” but then that would imply we did not lose. To make things simpler, one could imagine that we did lose.
>
It sounds like you are trying to split a hair that is too fine to split.

#1 makes sense and is standard English. #2 could make sense in an unusual context–if you were talking about your team’s attitude or something abstract–something that was unchanging. That is stretching it, though. I
would avoid it. #3 makes no sense at all. The problem is the use of the present tense.

In the case of both #2 and #3, you probably want to say “we could have lost” or “we might have lost.” In both cases, the implication is that you did not lose. In virtually every case where you use the word “yesterday” you want
some kind of past tense. If you somehow wanted to say it so that it was not clear whether you won or lost, you could say something like “We did not want to lose.” But note that it is still a past tense.

I hope this helps.

Dear TM:

You wrote:
> Hello, I have been reading your sight and love it. I am still a little unsure of how to correctly use the following:
>
> “Since the early 1970s, the overall stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 has risen every Presidential election year except the year 2000, during which we were in the midst of a recession.”
>
> Is it 1970s or 1970’s – which is correct and why?
>
> Also, the below is even more confusing to me:
>
> “The original 1960s Medicare plan only cost a few million dollars initially, but has grown into a behemoth program, severely challenging the flexibility of spending restraint.”
>
> This was originally, “1960s'” which is correct and why?
>
> In reading the sight, I believe the rules about “Nouns Expressing Measurement” apply, meaning they should both be “1970s & 1960s”, am I correct?
>
> This is for a publication going out this week, so if possible need an answer a.s.a.p. We are all debating over this and you are the final say-so.
>
This is a question that authorities differ on. A hundred years ago, nearly anyone writing this would have written out the date in letters: “nineteen sixties.” The basic rule about using apostrophe s for plural limits you to acronyms (and not all authorities agree on that) and words and numbers naming themselves. Because these dates resemble numbers naming themselves, people have started using an apostrophe s for the plural. I will give you two answers.

1. Either way is accepted today. Whichever you choose, be consistent.

2. Having said that, “1960s” without the apostrophe is historically more correct and technically more accurate. The reason is simply that “1960’s” could be a possessive for the year, e.g. “Do you recall who won 1960’s World Series?” If you use “1960s” for the plural and “1960’s” for the possessive, this helps your readers. I might even suggest that the “1960s Medicare plan” should read “1960s’ Medicare plan,” since it really is plural AND possessive.

P.S. I’ll never forget who won 1960’s World Series. I was there at the seventh game. 🙂

Dear M:

You wrote:
> Which is the more correct way in which to express this sports text, either
using the hyphen or the virgule?
>
> Harvard vs. Yale/Brown/Princeton
>
> or
>
> Harvard vs. Yale-Brown-Princeton
>
In informal usage, the virgule means “or.” The hyphen joins and would suggest a joint team from the three schools. So the first would mean “Harvard versus Yale, Brown, or Princeton.” The second would mean “Harvard versus Yale,
Brown, and Princeton combined.” It would depend on what you meant. In most instances, for example, seeding in a tournament, the first would be used–i.e., “Harvard will play either Yale, Brown, or Princeton.”

Dear J:

You wrote:

On the recent married page our local newspaper reports: “The couple now lives in New York City.” Should not the verb be “live” since the subject is plural? Am I correct?

This reflects a difference of usage between British and American English. The British would normally write it the way that you suggest for the reason that you give. Americans would consider the subject singular because it is a collective noun and there is only one couple. If there were more than one couple, then the verb would be “live,” e.g. “At the end of ‘As You Like It,’ four couples are married.”

We note this difference in news reports. When someone from the U.K. is speaking, we hear, “The legislature are”; but if someone from the U.S. is being quoted, we hear, “The legislature is.”

For what it is worth, this is the only significant difference between American and British grammar in the strictest sense of the word.