The Grammar Logs
#569

Would you write:

• "Attached IS a couple of letters" (regarding the word couple in the sentence as singular)
or

• "Attached ARE a couple of letters" (regarding the words "of letters" as plural and emphasising that the description relates to the plural)

With this subject-verb inversion, the subject still controls the number of the verb. We would say "A couple of letters are on the table," right? So we want the plural "are" in your sentence also.

Which use is correct?

1. You will read a story in which a couple do not listen to the advice of their neighbors?
2. You will read a story in which a couple does not listen to the advice of their neighbors?

The collective noun "couple" is usually singular: "The couple that lives next door is really cute." But you will find many situations in which the couple, quite rightly, seems to break in two and act as individuals, or you will naturally use a plural pronoun (like the "their" toward the end of your sentence). In those situations, do not hesitate to use a plural verb (like "do not listen"). Consistency within a sentence is important, of course.

According to all my grammar books the question "What does that mean?" is correct. But Every time I watch an American or English tv programme this is how they form this question:

"What's that mean?"

In casual writing, at least, it's not unusual to see the interrogative "does" contracted to an apostrophe + s. There's nothing wrong with it, really. A very common question, for instance, would be "What's she do for a living?" (What does she do for a living?)

Why is it correct to say "It was absolutely awful." but not "It was absolutely bad."

I think it must have something to do with the nature of being bad. We can say that something is absolutely awful and that puts it in the pits of awfulness. However, we can't say something is "absolutely bad" because "bad" can always admit to becoming worse or being compared to something that is worse (and ultimately, I suppose, to the worst). Thus it really can't be absolute. (Notice that someting can be "absolutely the worst.") I am not a semanticist, but that's my take on this question. You might consider the worthlessness of the word "absolutely," by the way; it's one of those intensifiers that don't intensify much of anything, not even awfulness.

"The Pacific Ocean is more than empty sea." Can you help me identify the words more than? If sea is a predicate nominative, is "more than" some type of modifiers, or what?

In most comparison statements, the "more than" construction is called a correlative subordinator and it acts to connect (and subordinate) the comparative clause: "Jayden is more generous than his brother [is]." However, "more than" does not always introduce a comparative clause; sometimes it introduces a noun phrase of measure or other yardstick of comparison or something that implies degree. The simplest example would be something like "I weigh more than 200 pounds." According to Quirk and Greenbaum, "than" is best considered a preposition in such a sentence "and the phrase which follows it a prepositional complement, since there is no possibility of expanding the than-phrase into a clause" (as I did with the word "is" in the sentence above). I hope this helps.

Which is the correct answer? and what is the difference between " so zem that" and " such — that" ?

" Ms. Kitten has ------- that she is unable to get a job." (A) such little education (B) so little education

I would go with "B," myself, using "so" to mean "to such a degree or extent." According to Burchfield, we often use "such … that" constructions in idiomatic sentences in which the word "such" (a predicative adjective) is followed by a that-clause of result, as in "The confusion was such that I couldn't collect my thoughts." That seems to be legitimate. According to Burchfield, though, both Fowler and the OED agree that "such" followed by a relative pronoun (that, which, who) should be regarded as incorrect: "Such constructions in the twentieth century are due either to writers' entire ignorance of idiom or to their finding themselves in a difficulty and not seeing how to get out of it" (Fowler). "So … that" seems to be the preferred construction.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press. p 749.

I have some problems with the word rehabiliate. In the construction industry they label projects as follows: "tunnel rehabilitation" or "station rehabilatation." I do not believe that you can rehabiliatate a "thing." You can rehabilate a person, concept, idea, or have a rehabilation project. But you cannot rehabilate a tunnel or building.

Instead you can restore a tunnel or building, or recreate a structure, but not rehabilate it. Am I correct? Or has the construction industry created a new definition to this word.

I like the distinction you're trying to make with this word, and my instincts told me you were right. Unfortunately, the dictionaries aren't backing us up on this, and I don't think they ever did. They all allow for the sense of "restoring something to its previous condition," and the Shorter OED even uses the example of "rehabilitating a cottage." I still prefer "restore" or "refurbish."

Authority for this note: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Fifth Edition. Oxford University Press, New York. 2002.

Regarding adverbs: Is it correct to say "drive slow"? My book says it is. I thought that since drive is a verb, it should be slowly. How about "quick"? Do I say, "I am going to the car really quickly" or "… really quick"?

The dictionaries allow for the use of "slow" and "quick" as adverbs in speech and casual writing. "Slow," in particular, has long been used as an adverb, and examples can be found in Shakespeare, Milton, and other great writers. It hasn't taken over entirely, however, and Burchfield recommends that it be used sparingly as an adverb and never when the word immediately precedes the verb it modifies: "He slowly moved around the corner." The use of slow as an adverb is probably best reserved for statements like "Drive slow" and "Let's take it slow." "Come quick" would be OK in casual writing; in formal statements, "quickly" would be preferred.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.

I am the chief sub at an australian newspaper and we have been arguing about whether the definite article needs to be included when talking about the country ''Solomon Islands''. Common usage does include the definite article, as in ''I went on holidays to the Solomon Islands''. But our foreign editor believes it should read: ''I went on holidays to Solomon Islands''. He believes the definite article changes the name of the country. I believe this is incorrect, and my hunch is that most plural proper nouns appear to require the definite article. Unfortunately I cannot find any reference to this in any grammar guide. Can you help?

I would recommend that you spend some time reading analysis of the news from Solomon Islands at the Web site for Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation and Pacific Media Watch to get a sense of how these resources use "Solomon Islands" versus "The Solomon Islands" and "the (not capitalized) Solomon Islands." All three constructions are used frequently, but the "the" is applied far more frequently than it is omitted. If there is a rule of thumb here, it seems to be that the "the" is dropped when referring to something by its official title, like Solomon Islands College of Higher Education, and then only when the title is standing by itself, as in a list. Your boss is certainly wrong about the article "the" changing the name of the country. Incidentally, in many press accounts, you will also see references to "the Solomons." I assume that what you discover in a review of this literature would apply, also, to the Virgin Islands, Hawaiian Islands, and any other such group.

My wife and I are in a debate concerning my use of the word "with" and my habit of leaving the pronoun off the sentence. I've tried seaerching and cannot come up with an answer. An example of how I would say a sentence: "Would you like to come with?" She will correct me with " Would you liek to come with US?" I know her sentence is correct; I just feel that the noun is implied and therefore correct also. Thanks for any input you can give in this oh so tense situation.

I can tell that your wife is angelic in her long-suffering tolerance of your linguistic peculiarity. One envisions all these terminal with's that you've uttered lining up in a kind of prepositional purgatory where they await a proper object. Give them one, for heaven's sake: give them a me or an us and everyone will be happy.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing