Rommie

Hi, Hippo. So far as I can tell, most of these labels are meaningless. I was using things like past perfect continuous (etc.) long before I had heard the phrases which are used to describe them. Grammar existed before grammarians tried to analyse it. I honesly don't know what is the OFFICIAL definition of tense, mood, aspect, and so on. All I know is, whatever you want to say, there's usually a way of saying it. Sorry if that doesn't really answer your question. Rommie.

Are you sure? Wouldn't "The Earth is becoming hotter each year" suffice? What benefit is obtained by the extra words "and hotter"? Just asking, Rommie

If "grammarians", whoever they are, don't agree, then are you asking for OPINIONS? In my OPINION: "tense" tells you WHEN (past, present, future, or doesn't-matter); "aspect" tells you TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION (one-off, continuous, repeated, etc.); "mood" tells you what KIND OF SENTENCE the speaker is trying to convey (making a statement, giving an order, etc.) Therefore, in my OPINION, "conditional" should be a mood. What the grammar books say is easy for you to check yourself, but if they don't agree you must make your own judgement. Rommie

I've decided I was wrong, and I wish to change my mind. I now believe that there are several legitimate circumstances in which zero count nouns is correct. These are: (1) When making a generic statement. For example: "No man is an island". (2) When making an assertion in the subjunctive mood. For example: "None shall pass". (3) When correcting a previously held assumption that there was exactly one item, or to advise that a previously referenced single item is now no longer present. For example: "There is no spoon". The difference appears to be one of emphasis. To use zero singular instead of zero plural seems to give the sentence more power! If, in The Matrix, Neo had been told "There are no spoons", it wouldn't have had anywhere near as much punch. (Zero mass nouns is still always singular, obviously). Rommie

My apologies. It's just that I have a problem with Usenet. I've used it before, and my experience of it has been that one receives several zillion posts a day, and I simply can't deal with that kind of download, nor discussions on quite that scale. And I actually agree with you in that "most visitors here are more interested in raising their test scores than they are in learning the subtleties of English grammar", which of course is exactly why I was on the lookout for a place where more people (but not zillions) might be interestested in the subtleties of English grammar. "Who is the arbiter?" is an interesting question, but the answer is rather obvious. I am. When I write, what other choice is there? I avail myself of all information at my disposal, and make a judgement about what I am going to write. Since I am not a prescriptivist (although the word is horribly misused on this forum and tends to get attached to anyone who thinks that the rules are useful), I have no intention of requiring others to make the same choices. As a writer, there is only one answer I can give. I consider myself to be at least as knowledgable as any other expert. I am the final arbiter concerning what I will write, and I am the final arbiter concerning what I consider to be "correct". The "rules" are there to guide me, not constrain me. They allow me to explore the richness of the language I love, and to utilize subtleties of shades of meaning. Mostly, the "rules" have a purpose - they assist in making one's meaning clear, and when I choose to comply with them, I will do so because I wish to be understood. On the other hand, if I choose to break a rule, I'll do it real good. That's what rules are for, lad. So that you think before you break them. - Terry Pratchet, from Thief of Time. Other people must make a different choice, depending on their circumstances. An English teacher helping people to know enough to "get by" might advise their students that correct is "that which you presume other people to have successfully understood with as little loss of intended meaning as possible". A different English teacher helping people to really understand their language might advise those students to consult the reference manuals you cite, and, where those manuals disagree, to discuss it with other people and eventually form their own judgement. For someone running a forum like this, what you REALLY need are a lot of very knowledgable people ON the forum so that such disagreements can be discussed openly. Finally, you asked: "can you give me an example of the type of tough grammar question you'd like to discuss?". Now, as I have gone to great trouble to attempt to point out, *I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION*. But ... since you insist, I'll make one up on the spur of the moment. The most obvious one which comes to mind is: "Give me an example of one circumstance in which your manuals disagree - preferably the circumstance in which they disagree the most". (And please do so in its own thread, separate from this one). Then we will have something about which to discuss.

No offence, Erin (and I'm sure red pencil meant no offence either), but red was no less helpful than you, in the sense that no-one apart from buggah actually gave a concrete answer to the actual question "where can I find a forum". I took red's words to imply "there are actually people HERE who can work on that level, so there's no need to move elsewhere", which was actually quite a useful thing to know. In actual fact, your replies were rather patronising (for example: "I understand where you're coming from". No you don't). What's more, your subsequent post referred to "...your particular grammar question", which implied that I actually had one. In fact, I simply want to know like-minded people with whom I may converse - there is no "particular question" I want answering, although I'm sure I will encounter such from time to time. Those "fervid arguments" to which you refer were exactly those in which I wish to participate. Because, you see, (and here is the context), the gray areas in which strict grammatarians disagree is EXACTLY the place I want to be. The reason is that I write a lot, and I use formal English in my writing, and where the gray areas arise, I refuse point blank to fall back on "what everyone else does". I don't mind breakng the rules, if I decide so to do, but I would prefer to break them only on purpose, never by accident, in the sure knowledge that I have considered all of the prescriptive evidence and made a judgement. red pencil* may be more fervent than you, but his sentiment is not unique. Rommie PS. Not trying to cause trouble here. Descriptivism does have a place, and if that place is here then so be it. I simply happen to believe there is room for both. * And THAT was a grammatical grey area. Officially, all sentences must begin with an upper-case letter. Officially, "grep is a Unix utility" is not a sentence (or it's a sentence only when spoken, but never when written!) Officially, you would either have to say "Grep is a Unix utility" (which wouldn't be true, of course, since Unix is case-sensitive), or "There is a Unix utility called grep". These are the gray areas in which it is fun to play.

It depends on what impression you want to convey. There are plenty of descriptivists on this list who will tell that going with the flow is the thing to do. "Do what everyone does", and it will be "right" by definition. However - I would point out that if you are WRITING for a PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL (you didn't say professional, but even amateur journals would surely wish to seem professional) then you might want to come across as more, well, learned! That said, the use of "learnt" in America seems to be almost zero even in professional journals, so this could be one of those areas where the "rules" are changing.

Yes. It should be "is", not "are". Alternatively, you could reword choice (2) as "Indeed, the things which really influence the futures of people's careers are ...". You do need to substitute "what", in this case, note, since "what" stands for "that which", not "those which". Rommie

I believe that the strictly formal prescriptive answer is that zero count nouns is plural, but zero mass nouns is singular, thus "no additives are...", but "no water is...". Also, the pronouns "nothing" and "no-one" are always singular. This means that "No student is in class now" is not something you would write formally. But things obey a different rule when you start using the subjunctive mood. Here, zero is singular. Thus: "No student (singular) may enter" is correct. You would not, in formal English, say "No students (plural) may enter". But ... (just to make things even more interesting) it's fine to say either "Students (plural) may not enter" or "A student (singular) may not enter". The reason is, that in this case, your assertion is about GENERIC students, not ZERO students. (The "not" applies to the verb, not to the number of students). Since a generic instance is intended to substitute for any instance, the meanings of "A cat may look a king" and "cats may look at kings" are pretty much identical to each other. The whole singular/plural distinction goes out the window when we stop talking about positive integers. Zero is obviously a special case - if "plural" means "more than one" then zero should be singular. On the other hand, if "plural" means "not one" then zero should be plural. Mathematically speaking, it's neither, so grammar gets fuzzy here. You can see the same confusion with other non-positive-integer numbers. We say "half an egg" (egg = singular), but we also say "zero point five eggs" (eggs = plural). You tell me! I have yet to find a definitive answer regarding NEGATIVE numbers. Which is correct: "I have minus one dollar in my bank account" or "I have minus one dollars in my bank account"? I honestly don't know. (It's simpler in Europe, since the prescriptive plural of "euro" is "euro". The descriptive plural of "euro" is another matter entirely!).

Good trick question there. Surprised no-one spotted it. The answer is surely "None of the above". From a grammatical point of view, the sentence should begin "Indeed, what really influences the future of people's careers are ... - unless of course you're trying to suggest that everyone shares the same career, in which case you should replace "of people's career" with "of the people's career", though I suspect the former is more likely. (Personally, I would also have replaced "or better to say" with "as opposed to, say", but then, whoever said sentences had to be true?)

I concur with you, red pencil. I don't think you're wrong. Well thought out. Rommie

Okay, firstly, you picked a bad example with your choice of "historical", because, contrary to what you might expect, there is no difference between the two words "historic" and "historical". They are identical in meaning, and interchangable. (In fact, "historical" is the preferred form). However, there is a difference between "history story" and "historical story". A history story is a story which depicts historical events. A historical story, on the other hand, is a story which was written in the historical past. In other words, in the latter case, the story itself, not the events it depicts, is the thing which is historical. In general, is shorthand for "a which is ", whereas is shorthand for "a which has something to do with ". (There are of course many exceptions to this crude generalization). Rommie

Actually, I think I can answer this myself. The *prescriptive* answer is: "learned" should used in phrases such as "a learned professor", in which case it is pronounced with two syllables. "learnt" should be used in phrases like "I learnt a valuable lesson today". The *descriptive* answer in British English is: "learned" is used in phrases such as "a learned professor", in which case it is pronounced with two syllables. Either "learnt" or "learned" are used interchangably in phrases like "I learnt a valuable lesson today". The *descriptive* answer in American English is: There is no such word as "learnt". Use "learned" always.

Hi, TestMagic is a great forum for those who wish to discuss how to get by in English speaking countries. Unfortunately for me, I need a little more ... and it's just possible that someone on this forum may be able to help me. You see, what I'm looking for is a forum devoted to strict, formal English grammar. The sort of place where there is general agreement that "It is me" is definitively wrong and unacceptable. The TestMagic forum is very tolerant about informal grammar, and that's obviously nice and considerate to the posters, but I'm looking for somewhere a little less tolerant, somewhere where I can pose questions and get stuffy, formal answers, and not be told "Well, it's acceptable these days to ...". A place where the rules of grammar are not regarded as flexible. Does anybody know of such a forum. I have hunted around the internet for a while, but not found one. If anyone here knows of such a forum (or email mailing list, or similar), please could you tell me? Thanks in advance, Rommie

Indeed. However, the fact that the version with "her" version is "more common" than the version with "she" does not necessarily make it better, and certainly it would be wrong to use it in written English (say if you were writing a novel or something). It's not just a matter of style either. The common version can lead to ambiguity. Consider the following two examples: (1) John hates Jane. He likes his dog better than her. (2) John hates Jane. He likes his dog better than she. In formal English, both are correct, but they mean different things. Statement (1) means "John likes his dog more than John likes Jane", whereas statement (2) means "John likes his dog more than Jane likes John's dog". In common English, statement (1) would be used for both purposes, leading to ambiguity. So ... I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to tell people the standard, formal answer. For what it's worth, the common version may indeed be "more common", but it has not entirely replaced the correct version. Many people still use the formal version even in spoken English. Rommie

Errrm ... I think you'll find it's "A sixteen year old boy was laid in the middle of a football field...". Unfortunately, this sentence has a rather unfortunate interpretation in England, which it's possible you may not find in a grammar text book. As in, "to lay" = "to have sex with". Suggest you don't write this in an exam

I disagree. I still maintain it is "He is fitter than she". Care to adjudicate, Erin?

He is fitter than she.