Dear RL:

You wrote:
> Is there any difference in meaning in the following sentences and are
> there any alternatives which convey the similar meaning?
> 1. He washed his hands for fear that he should be contaminated.
> 2. He washed his hands for fear that he would be contaminated.
> 3. He washed his hands for fear that he might be contaminated.
>
All three are pretty similar. “Should” is a little stronger than “would” in most cases; similarly, “might” tends to be weaker than “would” in terms of likelihood of the event happening, but the distinction is slight in most cases.

There are certainly other ways of saying this, e.g., “He washed his hands for fear of being contaminated.”

Dear R:

You wrote:
> I regularly hear references made to individuals, usually in the govt, that
> currently hold a position of authority but are referred to by a title of
> an office or position they previously held. Colin Powell was refered to
> as General while he was the Sec of State, Secretary of Homeland Security
> Tom Ridge was addressed and referred to on the news as Governor. Bill
> Frist, the Majority Leader is called Doctor, as he is an MD. Why does the
> media do this? Do some titles carry weight than others? Shouldn’t people
> be referred to by their current assignment?
>

That is an editorial decision which will vary from paper to paper. The examples you gave are all examples of what are often considered permanent titles. Powell, as a legally retired general, keeps his title. Former presidents and governors (sometimes mayors) are normally referred to by their titles. (Case in point, the former governor of Connecticut served time in prison, but the Connecticut papers still called him Governor Rowland while he was incarcerated.) The same is true of the earned degree of Doctor as Dr. Frist.

Other papers (or networks or radio stations) may do it differently. Some papers, for example, call everyone “Mr.,” even presidents, unless they have a military rank or earned degree.

Practice also seems to show, as you pointed out, that some titles do seem to “carry more weight.” In the USA, I would include chief executives (presidents, governors, mayors), senators, military rank, and higher academic or religious titles (doctor, reverend, rabbi) as being “permanent” titles. Probably the greatest example from US history is William H. Taft, who was both a president and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Unless he is spoken of in the context of a court case, he is always “President Taft” rather than “Chief Justice Taft.”

After answering your first note, I read your second one. It was pretty much the same except that you noted that you had checked a number of grammar texts for guidance. This reflects editorial decisions of periodicals, publishers, and networks. Instead of a grammar book, try something like The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide, or The AP [Associated Press] Stylebook. They would probably give an explanation of their practices.

Dear KG:

You wrote:
> I need to write a formal business letter to clients. This is a lesbian
> couple who were married and share the same last name. What should my
> greeting be?
>
> Dear Mrs. & Mrs. Smith;
>
> Help.
>
The best thing, of course, is to find out what they prefer. Sometimes an application or order form will make this clear. My experience has been that most lesbians prefer Ms., but the civil union/marriage issue is new. When in doubt, you can use their first names as in Ms. Carol and Ms. Angela Smith.

Although it does not specifically address homosexual couples, see our April 1999 newsletter at https://www.englishplus.com/news/news0499.htm for some ideas that may help.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> Which of the following are correct:
>
> 1-For him, drinking is reprehensible only when his enemies indulge so.
> 2-For him, drinking is reprehensible only when his enemies indulge in that
> way.
> 3-For him, drinking is reprehensible only when his enemies do so.
>
A lot would depend on context. All make sense, but #3 is the most natural sounding. With #2 there is a problem with the “that.” What specific way do you mean? It could make sense in context.

#1 is OK but perhaps a bit stilted. #1 & #3 would be better without the “so,” since there is nothing in the context to tell us what the “so” refers to.

I would drop the “so” in either #1 or #3 unless there was something in the context that gave us a clue what the manner of drinking (what the “so” or “that way”) was.

Dear Mrs A D:

You wrote:
> I note that on your website you advise that the greeting in a business
> letter always ends in a colon but any business letters I have received the
> greeting ends in a comma ie Dear Mrs Dudley,
>
> Please advise
>
Is it done differently in the UK? Colons are standard in business letters I receive. Occasionally an advertiser will use a comma to make a more personal appeal.

Dear NT:

You wrote:
> Consider these sentences:
> 1-He opened the door in such a way that everybody should see what was
> going on inside the room.
> 2-He opened the door in such a way as to allow everybody to see what was
> going on inside the room.
>
> Do these sentences mean:
>
> a-He decided to open the door in order to permit everybody to see what was
> going on inside the room. He needn’t have opened the door.
>
> OR:
>
> b-He deliberately chose a manner of opening the door which would permit
> everybody to see what was going on inside the room. (Maybe he had to open
> the door anyhow, but he could have been discreet).
>
Both interpretations seem to be reading more into the sentence than what the sentence implies. He opened the door. When the door was opened, people could see into the room. Period. There is nothing implied about his intent in these sentences.