Page 11 of 13

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 14:50
by humblebee
soft revolution wrote:Which of these sentance ends would be better in a document

...the organisation who you are delivering the workshop for.

or

...the organisation for whom you are delivering the workshop.

The first one is probably more like how I'd say it but there's debate over whether the second one would be preferable if it's written down.
That is exactly what I was talking about above: bending over so far backwards to avoid finishing sentences with a pronoun - which you don't even need to do in modern English - that you do it in the middle of a sentence as well.

There's no reason at all why the second one should be seen as more 'correct' than the first, in either written or spoken English, so if you prefer the first, go for it.

(Personally, I'd leave out the "who" as well. And replace "delivering" with "running" because I hate "delivering" with a passion that verges on blue murder. But maybe that's just me.)

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 14:58
by Colin
humblebee wrote:There's no reason at all why the second one should be seen as more 'correct' than the first, in either written or spoken English, so if you prefer the first, go for it.

(Personally, I'd leave out the "who" as well. And replace "delivering" with "running" because I hate "delivering" with a passion that verges on blue murder. But maybe that's just me.)
I'm glad you've said that, because I posted a response to that effect earlier then thought, 'nah, I better wait until someone who knows what they're talking about comes along' because I wasn't sure about the pronoun bit.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 15:00
by soft revolution
Thanks Pete, that'll tidy it up nicely.

I think I'm getting better at cutting out unneccesary words, and reading this thread does help.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 15:02
by humblebee
Colin wrote:I'm glad you've said that, because I posted a response to that effect earlier then thought, 'nah, I better wait until someone who knows what they're talking about comes along' because I wasn't sure about the pronoun bit.
Oops, I meant preposition, not pronoun! Don't ever rely too much on me knowing what I'm talking about.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 15:38
by Colin
That's the one bit I know *nothing* about. Things like what a pronoun is just never stuck with me. Either that or I wasn't taught it at school, or wasn't listening.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 18:22
by indiehorse
Colin wrote:That's the one bit I know *nothing* about. Things like what a pronoun is just never stuck with me. Either that or I wasn't taught it at school, or wasn't listening.
A pronoun is a word that can be used in place of a noun, like 'he', 'she', 'they', 'it', 'this', 'that'...
I don't really know how to describe a preposition, but it's words like for 'for', 'on', 'in'...

I don't think they taught me about pronouns or prepositions at school; they were too busy teaching the other kids how to used full stops and commas. Bloody mixed-ability classes.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 07:55
by nanski
you would never use "however" and "provided that" together, would you?

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 08:01
by nanski
and another one: "comply" goes with "with", yeah?

can you tell i'm editing again?

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 09:46
by nanski
and another one: "notify someone of the result"

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 09:58
by moopind
nanski wrote:you would never use "however" and "provided that" together, would you?
Erm, I think you could. Maybe with a comma after however and at the beginning of a sentence, it wouldn't sound so bad. Assuming you mean 'however' in the sense of an adverb.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 09:58
by moopind
nanski wrote:and another one: "comply" goes with "with", yeah?

can you tell i'm editing again?
I would say so.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 09:59
by moopind
nanski wrote:and another one: "notify someone of the result"
Sounds fine to me.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 23:59
by nanski
Thanks! when I'm editing Japanese English, I can tell when things are wrong, but the right way doesn't always sound right either. mostly it's just adding and taking away "s" and "the".

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 19:43
by Concrete
nanski wrote:and another one: "comply" goes with "with", yeah?
Yes, and "conform" goes with "to".

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 08:18
by nanski
"the committee shall be comprised of ..."

I know it's wrong, but is "the committee shall comprise ..."

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 08:23
by nanski
nor

do you only use it after "neither"? or can you use it in any negative sentence in place of "or"

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 08:48
by nanski
dictionary.com is telling me that honorariums is right. it sounds stupid to me.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 09:10
by humblebee
nanski wrote:"the committee shall be comprised of ..."

I know it's wrong, but is "the committee shall comprise ..."
"the committee shall comprise ..." is right.
nanski wrote:nor

do you only use it after "neither"? or can you use it in any negative sentence in place of "or"
One useful way to understand 'nor' is to think of it as a synonym of 'and not'. I dunno if that helps... can you give us the context?
nanski wrote:dictionary.com is telling me that honorariums is right. it sounds stupid to me.
I can't help with that, sorry. I've never heard of it! I guess it's one of those stadiums/stadia type issues with Latin plurals though? In which case it's more about style and context. If it's the sort of text that says "shall comprise" instead of "will comprise" then I'm guessing it's also the sort of text where you should go with grandiose Latin plurals. Honoraria? So what are they anyway?

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 09:18
by nanski
thanks, humblebee. I don't know why I can never be sure about comprise.

the context of the "nor": "Unless half of the committee members are present, a committee meeting shall not be held to discuss nor decide on the recommendations ..."
an honorarium is what academic types get paid when they give a talk or serve on a committee. dictionary.com said that both honorariums and honoraria are acceptable plurals. i guess i'll leave it. This is the most incredibly tedious editing I've ever done. Rules and regulations in Engrish. I really shouldn't have to waste my time on this.

Re: STET this STAT: a grammar emergency thread!

Posted: Thu May 06, 2010 09:32
by humblebee
nanski wrote:thanks, humblebee. I don't know why I can never be sure about comprise.
Because other people get it wrong so often that you start to wonder if they must be right after all!
the context of the "nor": "Unless half of the committee members are present, a committee meeting shall not be held to discuss nor decide on the recommendations ..."
Meh. Technically that's a double negative, isn't it? But it sounds right so I'd leave it.