grammar question

[tridentseven]

ok english isn't my main language so i get mixed up sometimes when writing. here are couple things i need help with:

1. "if i were" or "if i was"

2. why can't i say furnitures?

3. why is it "sleep in my bed" and not "sleep on my bed"?

4. why is it "In Rome" and not "at Rome"

i mainly have problem with picking the right preposition(in, at, on) and when to use ploral and singular ex. "that needs more water" or "that need more water"

if anyone can recommend a book or briefly explain it to me, that'll be great.

[scotpgot]

To be honest, I can't explain why these things are so either (and I'm a native English speaker).

I can recommend Elements of Style by Strunk and White. It is one of the classics of grammar and composition. Used in most high school and universities. However, I'm not sure if it addresses your specific questions.

[Moira]

furniture

In linguistics, a mass noun is a type of common noun that cannot be modified by a number without specifying a unit of measurement. Thus, it can be said of mass nouns either (a) that they have singular but no plural forms, or (b) that the grammatical concept of singular-vs-plural does not apply to them.

You can say 'two pieces of furniture' ...........

If I were an eagle, I would have wings.

[kandaurov]

1. "if i were" or "if i was"
If I were. Don't really remember the explanation for this, but I think that the conditional tense of the verb "to be" is, in all forms, "were".

If I were
If you were
If he were
etc

2. why can't i say furnitures?
For the same reason that you can't say "breads", or "moneys". Moira has developed this point very well.

3. why is it "sleep in my bed" and not "sleep on my bed"?
Because the preposition "in" suggests more the idea of "above", "on top of" than the preposition "on" does. Well, it's just convention. The english prepositions are a tough cookie to eat, and that is the section of the language in which I'm least comfortable (ex aequo with phrasal verbs)

4. why is it "In Rome" and not "at Rome"
Because "in" is the preposition used for cities and countries. This is a mere convention. In things related to time the same conventions exist:

"At"
nine o'clock
midnight

"On"
Monday
Tuesday

"In"
1927
14th century


As for the book, I'd recommend any grammar. They will surely explain this to you better then I did.

Hope I was of any help, and the other members of this forum will correct me if they see any fault in my explanations. Welcome aboard, tridentseven! :)

[cows]

With "If I were" vs "If I was", the word "were" maintains the hypothertical statement presented by "If". "Was" is past tense for things that happened.

When in doubt, get "The Elements of Style" by Strunk and White.

[tridentseven]

ok thanks alot guys. i'll get the book you guys suggested and see if its on ebay or amazon. As for "if i were" vs "If i was," i usually say "If i were" but i hear alot of people, even on the television say "If i was" so i wanted to make sure.

what about

"that needs more water" or "that need more water"

[kandaurov]

Yeah, even yesterday I noticed Jack Johnson singing "And if I was in your position I'd put down all my ammunition". "If I was". It made me kind of sad :p

"that needs more water" or "that need more water"
That needs more water. When the subject is impersonal (like "that", "it", or the german "es" [where are you from? I could help you more if I knew your mother tongue]) the verbs must be in the third person singular.

[tridentseven]

thanks alot. i don't really know what third person singular is but i guess "needs" is used for object while "need" is used for people. my first language is japanese by the way.

[Sudolee]

to know when you use "need" or "needs" does not depend on if you are talking about a person or a thing, but if it is singular or plural. So a plant NEEDS watering, or your plants NEED watering. Does that make sense?

[Dreadnought]

"were" is the subjunctive tense.

You would use "were" if there was a possibility that it might not happen. "was" is the indicative past tense, indicating with definity that it did happen.

[Moira]

thanks alot. i don't really know what third person singular is but i guess "needs" is used for object while "need" is used for people. my first language is japanese by the way.

First person singular

I need

First person plural

We need

Second person singuar

You need

Second person plural

You need

Third person singular

He/She/It needs

Third person plural

They need

You use 'needs' when you refer to the third person singular.

I hope it is clear enough.

[xtianfriborg13]

1. "if i were" or "if i was"
If I were. Don't really remember the explanation for this, but I think that the conditional tense of the verb "to be" is, in all forms, "were".

If I were
If you were
If he were
etc

2. why can't i say furnitures?
For the same reason that you can't say "breads", or "moneys". Moira has developed this point very well.

3. why is it "sleep in my bed" and not "sleep on my bed"?
Because the preposition "in" suggests more the idea of "above", "on top of" than the preposition "on" does. Well, it's just convention. The english prepositions are a tough cookie to eat, and that is the section of the language in which I'm least comfortable (ex aequo with phrasal verbs)

4. why is it "In Rome" and not "at Rome"
Because "in" is the preposition used for cities and countries. This is a mere convention. In things related to time the same conventions exist:

"At"
nine o'clock
midnight

"On"
Monday
Tuesday

"In"
1927
14th century


As for the book, I'd recommend any grammar. They will surely explain this to you better then I did.

Hope I was of any help, and the other members of this forum will correct me if they see any fault in my explanations. Welcome aboard, tridentseven! :)

Very well explained!

[miyako73]

which is correct?

His breath smells of dead rat.

or

His breath smells like dead rat.

[hillwalker]

Both are correct -

'of dead rat' = his breath has a taint of dead rat to it

'like dead rat' = his breath smells similar to dead rat

The only time it could be misinterpreted by certain pedantic individuals is if you wrote 'he smells like a rat'
- i.e. he smells with his nose the same way a rat smells with its nose.

H

[AuntShecky]

Both are correct -

'of dead rat' = his breath has a taint of dead rat to it

'like dead rat' = his breath smells similar to dead rat

The only time it could be misinterpreted by certain pedantic individuals is if you wrote 'he smells like a rat'
- i.e. he smells with his nose the same way a rat smells with its nose.

H

Every time a question concerning the verb "to smell" comes up, I always grab it as yet another opportunity to quote an old joke and an even older anecdote:

First, the joke:
Man: I just came back from the Vet. My dog had to have his nose amputated.
Woman: Oh, my goodness! How does he smell?
Man: Awful!

And now the anecdote: Dr. Samuel Johnson was riding through the English countryside in an overcrowded coach, which, as one would expect, was redolent with unpleasant bodily odors. A female passenger sniffed and sniffed until she found the source. She turned to Dr. Johnson and complained, "Sir, you smell!"

To wit Dr Johnson replied, "I beg your pardon, Madam. You smell -- I stink! "

[miyako73]

Which is correct?

He left forever and was forgotten.

or

He left forever, and was forgotten.

[hillwalker]

Both are correct, though the comma (called an 'Oxford comma' because it precedes 'and' - not used so much nowadays) would be better employed if there was more to follow, such as

He left forever, and was forgotten once his only living relative died.

H

[miyako73]

I hope I'm not the only one who has benefited from my questions--the subtleties in English grammar. So, which is correct?

I listened to the hit novella on the radio about two lovers where one was doomed to die and the other destined to mourn.

or

I listened to the hit novella on the radio about two lovers where one was doomed to die and the other, destined to mourn.

or

I listened to the hit novella on the radio about two lovers where one was doomed to die and the other was destined to mourn.

[hillwalker]

1 and 3 are correct - 2 is missing something because the pause after 'the other' suggests there's more to follow otherwise it doesn't make sense... like

I listened to the hit novella on the radio about two lovers where one was doomed to die and the other, destined to mourn, never forgave herself for cheating on him.

H

[billl]

Regarding the punctuation, I think the comma in the second example is a little too much, kind of melodramatic, maybe. Other than that, they all look fine to me. The third seems more in the spirit of "just the facts" and the others seem a little more "poetic" or something, maybe because the sharing of the auxiliary "was" gives us a hint of their conjoined fates or something.

BONUS ANALYSIS, PERHAPS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY AND UNWANTED
At first, though, I thought other aspects of the sentence where in question. Is this just some crazy example sentence, put together just to test the construction? Here are my other thoughts about this sentence, but perhaps it's all unnecessary…

If we change "hit novella" to "story" (or "song") and change "was doomed to die" and "was destined to mourn" to "got into trouble" and "got him out of it" or something, then all three sound like the sort of thing people might naturally say. I'm kind of joking around here, and I know it completely changes the meaning of the sentence, but I'm trying to lead into my opinion that using "where" like this doesn't sound like something a person would do if they were also throwing the words doom, destiny, mourn, and novella into the same sentence. Using "where" in that way sounds colloquial to me, especially relative to those more "fancy" words.

Of course, a person might enjoy novellas, might naturally use words like doom, destiny, and mourning, and ALSO speak informally/coolquially, and use "where" in this sort of construction, just like other people in their community do while talking about everyday matters--but, just seeing these sentences on their own, with no other info about the speaker or examples of how they talk/write, I'm quite struck by how they are "mixing modes" here. Beyond the concept of "hit novella" (on the radio!), I could imagine myself saying any of these three sentences. But it's a little strange, and there's a good chance I'd take care to say it in a way that matches the construction to the "literary" subject, like maybe, "I listened to the hit novella on the radio about two lovers, one of whom was doomed to die, the other destined to mourn."

[miyako73]

Thanks a bunch!

For some reason I'm allergic to the sounds of "in which" and "of whom" in a literary prose. They sound too academic or professorial. Is "where" exclusively used for places? Is a jewelry box that contains rings a place? if it is, then which is correct?

I found the box in which I put my rings.

or

I found the box where I put my rings.


I find the flow of the second better. What do you think?

[billl]

The second sounds MUCH better to me (and yes, the box would be a place) but both are correct. I don't like to use "in which" either (if you ever use it, be careful it doesn't sound just as you now fear it might sound...). I think the issue I had had more to do with using "where" to refer to a story or situation. "I was talking about the car accident where you forgot to exchange insurance info last year." "It was the ceremony in which the esteemed prophet conveyed our faith and commitment to our Lord Of The Great Beyond."

[hillwalker]

If we're being pedantic the second sentence is 'incorrect' for what you're trying to convey.

I found the box in which I put my rings - is fine, though should probably be 'inside which I put by rings'

I found the box where I put my rings - suggests you found the box in the same place you put your rings (and does NOT imply the rings are inside the box)


So the flow of the second might be better but the meaning has changed from what you intended.

H

[billl]

That's a good point, I guess it would just be "colloquially correct" without specific context (e.g. if the listener had no idea the speaker had been looking for a box, I think it could be fair for a certain type of pedant to judge the sentence as "correct"). For the record, miyako, in the specific example I'd probably most naturally say, "I found the box I put my rings in", with the preposition right at the end there (and quite a few pedants would jump on that)--which is a nod to the first sentence, really.

[miyako73]

On series and the absence of "and":

1) I gave her a flower, a chocolate bar, and a handwritten poem.

2) I gave her a flower, a chocolate bar, a handwritten poem.

I liked the flow of number 2, but the sentence number 1 expressed exactness. In the first sentence, I gave her only three things. In the second, I could only list three of the things I gave her. What do you think?

[hillwalker]

Both your examples are fine - it's down to the chosen style raaher than exactness of expression. For the record - most would remove the Oxford comma (the one preceding 'and' in your first example) as it's no longer in common use.

H

[miyako73]

Grammar time... hehehehe... thank you.


long, jet black-haired woman

or

long jet black-haired woman

[billl]

"Jet-black" is a hyphenation I'd definitely use, so I'd end up with "jet-black-haired woman"

[hillwalker]

He's right ^^ otherwise we're left wondering where the jet woman came from.

H

[miyako73]

Split infinitive:

I had to readily give her the money to avoid confrontation.

I had to give her readily the money to avoid confrontation.

I had to give readily her the money to avoid confrontation.

I had to give her the money readily to avoid confrontation.

Readily, I had to give her the money to avoid confrontation.


I think the split infinitive in sentence number 1 sounds better. What do you think?

[hillwalker]

The word 'readily' doesn't fit in any of these examples in my opinion - unless you mean 'immediately'.
If that's what you intended, example 4 is the only one that reads correct. The others are messy to say the least.

The word 'readily means 'willingly' - so 'having to' give something 'readily' doesn't make sense.



H

[miyako73]

nothing of him, nothing about him, nothing in him, nothing on him, or nothing from him for this sentence?

I did wonder, however, why I saw nothing of Martin that bespoke even a whiff of pride or a hint of satisfaction over what he somewhat reluctantly showed us.

[hillwalker]

I did wonder, however, why I saw nothing of Martin that bespoke even a whiff of pride or a hint of satisfaction over what he somewhat reluctantly showed us.

It's a muddled sentence to begin with - I think you mean 'spoke of' or 'showed' rather than 'bespoke' (which is a totally different word meaning 'made to meet a certain specification') and 'over what he somewhat reluctantly showed us' - ugh.

All 3 variations are correct but mean different things:

- nothing of Martin means no sign of Martin or nothing regarding his demeanour or behaviour or personality
- nothing about Martin could mean there was nothing in reports of his behaviour, such as in the newspapers or on TV
- nothing from Martin would probably refer to having nothing in a letter you received from him that revealed anything

H

[miyako73]

Hill, I used the definition 4:

be·speak [bih-speek] Show IPA
verb (used with object), be·spoke or ( Archaic ) be·spake; be·spo·ken or be·spoke; be·speak·ing.
1.
to ask for in advance: to bespeak the reader's patience.
2.
to reserve beforehand; engage in advance; make arrangements for: to bespeak a seat in a theater.
3.
Literary. to speak to; address.
4.
to show; indicate: This bespeaks a kindly heart.
5.
Obsolete . to foretell; forebode.

--------------

In the sentence, I want to talk about what I didn't see him do--like talking, expressing through his face, fidgeting, shying away, etc.

Thanks again, Hill, for always helping the desperate :)

[hillwalker]

But it's about 2 centuries out of date (hence Archaic). The word 'suggested' makes more sense, surely.

H

[miyako73]

I think both constructions are correct. What do you think?

---------------

What he really loved doing was draw monster and superheroes.

What he really loved doing was to draw monsters and superheroes.

------------

All I needed to do was try my best.

All I needed to do was to try my best.

[AuntShecky]

What do you think?

---------------

What he really loved doing was draw monster and superheroes.

What he really loved doing was to draw monsters and superheroes.

------------

All I needed to do was try my best.

All I needed to do was to try my best.

He really loved drawing superheroes and monsters.

I only needed to try my best.

[hillwalker]

What he really loved doing was draw monster and superheroes. - is grammatically nonsensical - you're saying 'he loved draw monsters' when it should be 'he loved drawing monsters'

What he really loved doing was to draw monsters and superheroes. - is fine.

All I needed to do was try my best. - is fine because it can be paraphrased as 'I needed to try my best'

All I needed to do was to try my best. - similarly ok.

H