Dear UC:

You wrote:

It is I
or It’s me?
We just cannot agree, please help.

“It is I” is grammatically correct. Let us face it, in everyday speech most English speakers do often say, “It is me”; however, in any formal situation use “It is I.” “I” is the nominative case, so it should be used as a predicate nominative.

Dear T S:

You wrote:
> I am writing the sentence,
> “Other political partys’ phoney words”

This does not exist. A singular possessive ends with an apostrophe before the s. The plural of party is parties.

> or
> “Other political parties’ phoney words”
> Which is correct?(UK English)

This is correct as long as you are talking about more than one party. It is the same on both sides of the pond.

See “Apostrophes Showing Possession” and “Plural Possessives” in Grammar Slammer or https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000131.htm and https://englishplus.com/grammar/00000132.htm for more on this.

Dear AZ:

You wrote:
> “Adam dissented from Harry in considering their group a financial
> enterprise.”
>
> Is the above sentence meaningful?
>
> If it is, who is considering the group a financial enterprise? Adam or
> Harry?
>
> If it is Adam, shouldn’t it be “by considering”?
>
> Could the sentence mean they both considered the group a financial
> enterprise but in different ways? They disagreed as to the way in which
> this financial enterprise should be thought of.
>
That is a very stilted sentence. It is the type of sentence we sometimes read when the reader or speaker does not really want us to know the particulars.

You do point out the problem, though. It is not clear whether Adam or Henry considered the group a financial enterprise. You are correct in saying that if you used “by considering,” it would clear that Adam considered the group a financial enterprise and Henry did not. If you wanted to show that it was Henry who considered the group a financial enterprise, then your best bet would be to make Henry possessive–something like “Henry’s view that the group was a financial enterprise.”

Dear Professor TR:

You wrote:
> I have a syntax question:
>
> What is the function of the group of words “that it will be perfect” in
> the sentence below?
>
> There is a danger that it will be perfect.
>
> To me it seems to work like an object predicative (complement), but danger
> is not an object here. I cannot work it out.
>
> Appreciate your help.
>
If I understand your question correctly that is an adjective clause modifying “danger.” It is not an object complement for two reasons: (1) there is no direct object and (2) it is not renaming the predicate.

> Dear JB,
> I appreciate you quick response, however, with all due respect, I tend to
> disagree with the analysis of the clause you provided.
> It cannot be an adjective clause, as there is a subject: “it”.
>
> Following the reasoning that, following an adjective clause, the relative
> pronoun will represent either the subject or the object [of the adjective
> clause], it does not make sense.
>
> If we insert the relative pronoun “that”…
>
> e.g. There is a danger that it will be perfect
>
> …we see that it [the relative pronoun] serves neither as a subject nor
> as
> an object. Is it possible that this is a complement of the noun, however,
> not an adjective clause? Something like a free complement?

The relative pronoun does not have to be a subject or object of the clause it introduces. It does introduce a subordinate clause and in this sentence that subordinate clause functions as a modifier of “danger.” You are correct that you could drop the “that,” we often do in English. But that does not change the clause’s function. Perhaps you could argue that the subordinate clause is a noun clause functioning as an appositive, but then you would have to change the verb: “There is a danger: It might be perfect.”

I would still go with the adjective clause. It does describe the noun “danger.”

Dear LB, Administrative Specialist:

You wrote:
> Should the subject “title” be plural or singular in the following
> sentence?
>
> The title Senior Fellow and/or Senior Fellow Trainee may be held for up to
> three years renewable with aprpoval up to a maximum of six years.
>
Most places would make it plural because of the position. The two titles are actually appositives, and since there are two of them, “titles” would be plural. In this case, since the titles are appositives and not the subject and since there is the word “and,” there would be no reason to make “title” singular.

Dear BJ:

You wrote:

> hello; you proved to have answers to almost
> every grammar question that i had, so there is another
> challenge: i am a traditionalist as far as use of time
> linkers such as ‘before’ and ‘after’ is concerned – i
> use simple past + past perfect construction; but in
> recently published by longman grammar books i found
> that it’s ok to use simple past + simple past
> combination; i’m very confused about it, since those
> books don’t offer any explanation when it’s
> grammatically correct to use one or the other
> combination; is there any grammar rule that i can rely
> on in distinguishing when to use them? regards and
> hoping to hear from you soon; baba jaga;
>
>
Either way is fine depending on the relationship beween the two clauses. Generally, if the main clause is in the past, the subordinate clause would be in the past unless you had a specific reason to do otherwise.

For example, “Before I went to bed, I walked my dog.” Both actions are in the past, and this is standard in most cases. You could say, “Before I went to bed, I had walked my dog.” That suggests not only was the action of walking the dog completed, but that you wanted to emphasize the action for some reason–either because the timing was crucial (as in a court testimony) or it was something that you usually did not do.

Longmans has become the standard text in much of the world for teaching English as a second language. While they are British and do reflect British pronunciation and spelling, the grammar in all but a few rare cases is the same for both British and North American English.

Dear AZ:

You wrote:
> A)A hundred people left our town this year, the most for seven years.
>
> Could this mean that this is the highest number of people that will leave
> our town in a singal year in a period of time starting this year? Could it
> refer to any period of time other than the last seven years?
>
> B)A hundred people left our town this year, the majority for seven years.
>
> What does this mean? That the majority of the hundred people left for a
> period of seven years and will come back after seven years?
>
Neither of these sentences are particularly clear because of the placement of the modifier. Sentence B is more understandable because A has the additional problem of an unclear antecedent for “most.” Also “for seven years” means that they would not return until seven years have passed. I think you meant “in seven years,” that is, this is the most people who have left town since before seven years ago.

I would avoid A completely. B means “the majority of the people left for seven years.” It does not say anything about their return and nothing is implied.