The Grammar Logs
#501

Today, this question arose from the following excerpt:

"...an one-hundred year old tree..."

One employee stated the above statement was correct as written.

A second employee stated that it should be "a" since the statement is about the tree, not about how old it is.

What do you think? Thanks.

I think your second employee is right, but for the wrong reason. We would use "a" because the sound that comes after the article is a consonantal sound, as if it were written "won," with a "w" sound. The article (an, a) is determined by the sound of whatever follows it.

After submitting a paper with the following sentence for review:

"The City of Fairfield is located approximately forty-three miles west of the State's capitol, Sacramento."

He returned it, noting that the word located should be omitted, since "Fairfield is" implies that it is located somewhere, and that "is" makes "located" redundant.
I think he is wrong, since "Fairfield is" could be followed with any number of topics, such as "Fairfield is not meeting its contract with the State," or "Fairfield is experiencing a decline in population." I feel that saying "Fairfield is located" clarifies which subject I am going to discuss. I hope this makes sense. Please let me know if you don't understand. Thank you so much in advance!

I have to admit this is the first time I've seen an objection to the word "located" used in this way. Your professor is not wrong, although I don't think it's the "is" that makes "located" redundant; it's the fact that you then proceed to give the location. Some writers will insist that situated word be a better choice than located, although the sheer numbers of frequent usage would seem to favor located, by far. Bernstein points out that no participle at all is really necessary in this sentence (or in the example he gives: "The canyon is located about sixty miles northwest of the McMurdo Sound base." Well, at least your professor has given us something to think about. Incidentally, don't confuse capitol with capital. Sacramento is the capital.

Authority: The Careful Writer by Theodore Bernstein. The Free Press: New York. 1998. p. 265.

Which is correct:

• Verbs are part of the language used by THOSE who speak English,
or

• Verbs are part of the language used by THEM who speak English?

We don't need the "them" just because we're talking about people. The demonstrative pronoun "those" will work perfectly fine. (We agree, don't we, that this is just a model sentence and that it doesn't mean anything?)

I believe that the expression"for free" is incorrect. ("She got it for free). Why is it incorrect? Should the proposition just be eliminated? (She got it free)

Thanks for settling this argument.

"For free" is an idiomatic expression meaning "without charge or compensation." I have to agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's what everybody says, so go with the crowd on ths one.

Which statement is correct and why:

The preposition "with" is apt to catch on to both "disabilities" and "seniors" as compound objects, and the seniors won't like that at all. (The first sentence will compound the disabilities along with the seniors; you want the seniors to compound with other people, instead.) What I just said may not be concise, but it is so brilliant, so utterly pellucid, to me that it makes my eyes water. I hope it makes sense to you.

1. In the phrase, 'you've eaten little', is the word 'little' an adverb, and if so (1)why? and (2) what kind?

2. In the sentence 'the carpet needs to be cleaned right away', is 'be' an auxiliary verb or a main verb, and if so, why is it what it is?

Many thanks

"Little" is, indeed, an adverb in that sentence; it is modifying the verb, telling us how "you have eaten." Quirk & Greenbaum call it a minimizer, from the same category as that occupied by "scarcely, hardly," and "barely."

In your carpet cleaning sentence, the main verb is "needs." "To be cleaned" is simply a passive form of the infinitive. It is, in fact, the object of what the carpet needs, which means that it's serving a noun function.

Authority: A Grammar of Contemporary English by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. Longman Group: London. 1978. p. 454

I saw an ad for a college and was wonderng if the grammar is correct. Is who or whom the proper form and why? It stated:

X College—the fast track to WHO you want to be.

The clause "who you want to be" is correct. The "who" plays the role of the predicate nominative in that clause, as if the clause were written "You want to be he." That entire clause, then, becomes the object of the preposition "to," but that doesn't change the form of the "who" that introduces the clause.

Is the "1 1/2 boat lengths" part OK, or does it need a hyphen? Thank you for your time.

The shark was just short of 1 1/2 boat lengths or approximately 17 feet.

Yes, that's fine, without hyphens. If possible, write the one-half designation using something that looks like a real fraction, as in 1 ½ boat lengths.

Hello, I am trying to construct a clear, concise sentence using the following information:

For those of you who will be attending this Friday's management meeting in West Springfield, you may want to stay after the management meeting and attend the Sales conference call here in the Supervisor's training Room at 2:00 p.m.

Please help...

The "for those of you. . . you may" is more than a little confusing, I'm afraid, as is the "Sales conference call" (which sounds, at first glance, like we're being asked to call someone).

You might want to try something like this (but come up with a better word than "employees"):

Employees attending this Friday's management meeting in West Springfield may want to stay after the management meeting and attend the Sales conference call, which is scheduled for 2 p.m. in the supervisor's training room.

Or put the time and place in parentheses?

Is the following phrase grammatically correct:

I have been ordered for.

(meaning that somone has placed the order for me)

This might be a good example of a sentence in which the old rule against ending a sentence with a preposition ought still to obtain. I'm afraid that most serving people would wonder what on earth you meant if you said that in a restaurant. I think you better stick with "Someone has placed my order for me."

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing