Grammar

Capitalizing “French”

2 Comments

Dear Mr. B___:

You wrote:

>>I’ve read the rule about capitalizing adjectives based upon proper nouns, but what about verbs so constructed?

>>My dictionary has “Anglicizing” capitalized, same for the grotesque “to French-fry”. Are these proper? I am especially concerned with “French kissing”, most notably whether the slang shorthand “Frenching” has any proper form. (Sorry, but that one pays the bills, sad to say.)
>
>
The standard in most cases is to keep the capital. I certainly would with “French kissing” and probably “Frenching” as well, though it might be advisable to put that in quotation marks to indicate slang unless you were using it in a quotation.

Having said that, some words which began as proper adjectives or proper nouns sometimes have taken on a special meaning that has so little to do with the origin that they are often no longer capitalized. The best example today is probably “bourbon,” which comes from the name of the French royal family. Occasionally you do see “teddy bear” and “french fries” because some no longer consider these proper names any more; however, most authorities still capitalize them.

I do agree that “French frying” is somewhat grotesque. I would encourage you to come up with a different expression for that one, e.g. “making French fries.” Still, in most places not capitalizing “French” would stand out. Unless you wanted to call attention to your grammar, I would advise sticking with the capital letter.

Vocabulary

Aggravate or Irritate?

Leave a comment

>>I like your definition for the term aggravate.

>>But, many dictionaries state that the secondary meaning of the Latin root, is “to irritate, annoy, burden…” hence that to say: ‘You aggravate me’ is a correct usage. I agree with your definition; it makes good sense that the word be used as you explain… no matter the old meaning. i.e.: a situation, condition, state, etc can be aggravated NOT a person! But I am confused about the confusion of those in authority of setting it straight?

Grammar Slammer says:

Aggravate or Irritate?
Aggravate mean “to make worse.” The root is grave, in the sense of “serious.” Remember this root when spelling the word.
Irritate means “to exasperate” or “to inflame.”

Incorrect: His teasing aggravated me.
Correct: His teasing irritated me.
Incorrect: That meal irritated my condition.
Correct: That meal aggravated my condition.

Dear Mr. D___,

Take a look at our newsletter about dictionaries https://www.englishplus.com/news/news1100.htm. Most dictionaries these days are descriptive, that is, they simply describe what people say and write. A few are prescriptive, they analyze words and comment on usage. You are no doubt referring to a descriptive dictionary. Yes, people do sometimes say “aggravate” when they mean “irritate.” The dictionary is recording that. However, if you want to be precise, especially in your writing, do not confuse the two words or your readers may be confused as well.

Grammar

Adverb Phrase Placement

6 Comments

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>Can’t sentences 1 and 2 each have two meanings:

>1-I made the table in the kitchen.

>First meaning: I made the table that is in the kitchen.

>Second meaning: In the kitchen, I made the table (that we are talking about).

Yes, you are correct. This could have two different meanings. It all depends on context. In virtually any case we would understand that the table located in the kitchen was made by you because normally people do not do woodworking in a kitchen! However, it could possibly mean that the kitchen was the place where you constructed it.

>2-They’ll kill your friend in Germany.

>First meaning: They’ll kill your friend who is now in Germany (but maybe they’ll kill him in France).

>Second meaning: In Germany, they’ll kill your friend (who might now be in Italy).

Again, you are correct. This is completely context-driven.

First meaning: “Do you know about my friend in Germany?”
“Yes, they’ll kill your friend in Germany.”

Second meaning: “My friend is going to Germany.”
“Germany? They’ll kill your friend in Germany.”

In English, adverbial prepositional phrases can go at the beginning or end of a sentence. In these cases, one meaning is adverbial (modifies the verb), the other is adjectival (modifies the direct object). To make it clearer, put the adverbial phrase at the beginning. You did that with sentence number one, meaning two. You could do the same in sentence two, meaning two–“In Germany, they’ll kill your friend.” If the phrase is adverbial, putting it at the beginning resolves the ambiguity.

Uncategorized

Another Verb?

Leave a comment

Dear Mrs. H___:

>>Sentence: “Children have access to toys, resources and equipment which are approriate to their age and development and regularly checked, cleaned, and replaced.”
>>Question: Do I need to put another “are” after “development and”?

That is a style question. It is optional. The question is whether you want a compound verb or a compound predicate adjective. The sentence says the same thing either way.

Grammar

Initial Adverb

10 Comments

Dear Mrs. H___:

You wrote:

>Sentence: “Generally, policies and procedures support staff’s good practice.”
>
>Question: Is it all right to use a comma after Generally?

Yes, you should use a comma. The adverb actually modifies the verb. When we have an introductory adverb that is modifying a non-adjacent word or phrase, we set off that adverb with a comma. For more on this see “Commas and Introductory Words or Phrases” in Grammar Slammer or https://www.englishplus.com/grammar/00000073.htm online.

Uncategorized

Cause-Effect

Leave a comment

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>1-With my head spinning, I fell on the bed.
>2-I fell on the bed, with my head spinning.

>Can’t both of the above sentences mean both a and b:

>a-I fell on the bed AND my head was spinning.
>b-I fell on the bed BECAUSE my head was spinning
>
>
Yes. They can mean both “a” and “b.” They clearly mean “a,” but certainly “b” would be implied in most cases.

“B” becomes a question of logic, but in everyday speech the cause-effect relationship would probably be understood though it is not explicitly stated.

In formal writing or in a formal situation like testifying in a lawsuit, you would want to be more direct as in “b.”

Grammar

“To Have To” in Tenses

Leave a comment

Dear Srinivas:

You wrote:

>i have got one query , could u plz help in this regared.
>Could u tell me what is the differance between HAD and HAS, when to use HAS and HAD, plz give me the detailed explanation for the same, and also inform abt the ” had been” nad only one word ” HAD ”
>
>
Has and Had are two different tenses of the verb To Have. Has is the present tense. It normally describes things that exist in the present. Had is the past tense. It describes things that existed or occurred in the past. Has is only used in the third person singular (he, she, it), other persons use Have. Had is used in all persons.

Today I have to mow the lawn.
Today he has to paint the room.
Yesterday I had to file my report.
Yesterday he had to buy the paint.

You really have a second question. Had been is the Past Perfect tense of the verb To Be. Remember, the verb To Have is also an auxiliary verb. Had been is used to describe a condition that happened before something in the past. For example, “Julius Caesar had been dead ten years before Augustus became emperor.” Augustus being made emperor happened in the past so the past tense is used. Julius Caesar’s death happened before that event, so the verb would normally go in the past perfect tense.

I hope this helps.

Vocabulary

Work Cut Out For You…

3 Comments

Dear N___:

You wrote:

>Are these sentences correct:
>A-You would have your work cut out for you to interview him.
>B-To interview him, you would have your work cut out for you.

>If they are, what do they mean?

Yes, they are correct. They both mean the same thing as the adverbial infinitive phrase can come before or after the main clause.

“To have your work cut out for you” (or “his work for him,” etc.) is an idiom which means that you will have to prepare for some hard work. In this case, “it will take hard work for you to interview him.”

The idiom comes from the image of a kit of some kind where the pieces are normally precut (say, a toy airplane). It is clearly more work if you have to cut the pieces out and measure them correctly yourself. The expression is normally used with the word “work,” but I have heard it with the word “task” or “job.”

I hope this helps.

Vocabulary

“Until” vs. “Before”

Leave a comment

Dear Navi:

You wrote:

>Is there any difference between:
>1-Don’t talk to John before I am back.
>2-Don’t talk to John until I am back.

>Do either of these sentences imply that you should talk to John when I have come back? Does either one mean:
>”Wait till I am back and then do talk to John.”

They are similar, but there is a subtle difference. #2 sets a specific condition, #1 is a bit more general. #2 suggests that there is a specific condition that cannot be fulfilled until I return. #1 merely suggests timing.

For example, if I were leaving to find out some information that John would want to know, then I might say #2 because a certain condition (my finding out something more) would give a better reason for speaking to John.

#2 can suggest “Wait till I am back and then do talk to John” if the context has been established. Without a context, neither is imperative about talking to John, just about NOT talking to him. Neither really says what your sentence in quotation marks suggests.

Vocabulary

“Too” or “So”?

Leave a comment

Dear Joan Skliar:

You wrote:

>>Why do we change “too” to “so” when using “should have”?
>>Ex: He bought too much popcorn at the movie. He shouldn’t have bought so much popcorn at the movie.
>
>
They mean two different things. You could certainly say “He shouldn’t have bought too much popcorn,” but it means something else. Ditto with “He bought so much popcorn.”

Too means “excessively.”

So in this sense means something akin to “thus,” “such,” or “in this or that way.” In other words, saying “so much” you are indicating either that the listener is aware of how much popcorn he bought, or you are going to tell him. For example, “He bought so much popcorn that he had to throw half of it away.”

Do you recall the scene in the film Casablanca with the two Dutch refugees who are fleeing to America and trying to teach one another English? When told that it is ten o’clock (or “ten watch”), one of them says “Such much?” She should have said “So much?” or “So late?” but the reply does illustrate what “so” means in this sense.

Either sentence works fine with either word, but they have two different meanings.

Book Reviews and Observations on the English Language