Filed under: Grammar, Student Stumpers | Tags: compound modifiers, compound words, compounds, Englisgh with Jennifer, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, student stumper
QUESTION: How do we know if a compound word is written as a single word, as separate words, or with a hyphen?
ANSWER: Look it up in the dictionary.
I love a question that allows me to give a clear and satisfying answer to a student. Unfortunately, not all questions are like this. The question above about compound words is one that doesn’t lead to immense gratitude from the questioner when I tell the answer. There isn’t one simple rule that makes it easy to know if a compound word is closed (one word), open (two or more words), or hyphenated. This question can cause as much frustration for language learners as questions about gerunds v. infinitives or separable v. inseparable phrasal verbs.
However, compound rules do follow some patterns. Awareness of them will lead to greater accuracy when writing compound words. Most sources I’ve checked agree on the following:
- Compound modifiers with numbers: Hyphenate these modifiers before nouns. Example: a thirty-year-old man. Note the use of the singular unit year. Contrast it with the plural form in this word order: The man is thirty years old.
- Compound modifiers with past participles: These modifiers are hyphenated. Examples: age-related, web-based, drug-induced.
- Color combinations: These modifiers are hyphenated. Example: a blue-green scarf.
- Well-known compounds: Some compounds involving three or more words are so common that there’s little if any chance of confusion, so open forms are used. Examples: a ham and cheese sandwich, high school students, parking lot attendant.
I’d like to add these patterns and see if others agree or wish to challenge them:
- Compound words with numbers: If the numbers are not being joined with common nouns used for weights and measures (such as year, pound, page), a hyphenated form is used as a modifier, an adverb, and a complement. Example: A two-handed throw. / He threw the ball two-handed. / The throw was two-handed. Similar compounds: two-headed, one-armed, three-legged, one-eyed.
- Compound modifiers with present participles: They are hyphenated just as the [noun + past participle] combination is. Examples: ever-changing, all-knowing, fast-growing.
- Compounds with of and only: These multi-word compounds are hyphenated. Examples: state-of-the-art, man-of-war, read-only, text-only.
- Compound words with in-law: These compound nouns are hyphenated. Examples: mother-in-law, brother-in-law, daughter-in-law.
- Compound words with great: These compound nouns are hyphenated. Examples: great-aunt, great-grandfather, great-grandchildren.
- Compounds with single letters: These compounds are hyphenated. Examples: a U-turn, an A-frame, L-shaped, x-ray, t-shirt.
- Directional compounds: These are closed forms. Examples: northeast, northeastern. Exception: if a range is implied a hyphen is used between the two possible directions. Example: travel south-southwest.
Do you need to present the concept of compound words to your students? These short clips may be of help. They’re based on the work done by elementary school children:
Do you need ideas to help students practice using compound words? Check back soon. I’ll offer an activity in my next posting.
Sources:
Mauer, Jay. Focus on Grammar: An advanced course for reference and practice. Longman: 2000.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen#Compound_modifiers
Filed under: Grammar, Student Stumpers | Tags: adjectival phrases, adjectives, English With Jennifer, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, modifiers, placement of adjectives, student stumper, word order
QUESTION: Do adjectives always come before nouns in English?
ANSWER: No.
This question was shared with me by my Finnish colleague, a remarkable teacher with a firm grasp of grammar. She was challenged by her students to prove that adjectives in English always precede the noun they modify. Apparently, other sources led them to believe there was a hard and fast rule about word order. Well, she didn’t have to prove what she knew to be untrue.
At first, when asked about adjectives, we might automatically state a textbook-like definition: Adjectives modify nouns and pronouns. Of course, more readily understood wording could be used, but the basic idea is the same: Adjectives describe people and things, and they typically answer the questions which and what kind. The examples that would most likely come to mind first are simple and common ones: good book, tall man, happy girl, etc. Indeed, the more frequent practice is to place an adjective before a noun or pronoun. (We can say these adjectives function attributively.)
But with deeper reflection, we have to consider a number of constructions in which an adjective is placed after the noun or pronoun it modifies (i.e., functioning predicatively). Let’s start with these two:
- Participial adjectives/ passive constructions: Bruce Lee was, of course, a man trained in the martial arts.
- Reduced adjective clauses (without participial adjectives): Who would play the lead role in this movie? The producers were looking for someone young yet mature./ The patient, now healthy and happy, thanked the doctor before leaving the hospital./I’ll eat anything sweet and chocolaty.
Wikipedia notes the role complex wording plays in deciding the placement of an adjective. This example is cited online: “an evildoer devoid of redeeming qualities”.[1] The point being that a simple adjective generally precedes a noun, but a complex adjectival phrase is more natural when placed after the noun. Going back to our first example, we could talk about a trained artist, but trained in the martial arts is too long and complex to place before the head noun.
I agree with the logic above, and yet does that mean it’s wrong to place a single adjective after the noun it modifies? Consider this statement: I like my coffee strong. This has a different meaning from I like my strong coffee, doesn’t it? The former means I prefer strong coffee to weak coffee. The latter suggests that I have some coffee in my possession, it’s strong, and I like it. Or it might mean that I like my strong coffee, but I don’t like yours. Hmm, so can we add another construction to our list?
- Omission of infinitive to be: I like my coffee (to be) strong. / She likes her men (to be) tall, dark, and handsome.
Here’s final construction Wikipedia poses for consideration:
- Adjectives qualified by an adverb phrase: “I saw three kids happy enough to jump up and down with glee.”[2]
Can you think of other cases when adjectives follow the nouns or pronouns they modify?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective
Filed under: Grammar, Student Stumpers | Tags: apostrophe, English With Jennifer, genitive case, genitive constructions, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, of-construction, of-genitive, possessive adjectives, possessive nouns, possessive pronouns, student stumper
QUESTION: I heard someone say a friend of mine. Is this different from my friend?
ANSWER: They could be seen as synonymous structures. Couldn’t we introduce a friend both ways?
I’d like you to meet my friend, Bill.
I’d like you to meet a friend of mine, Bill.
However, if we take the time to ponder the two structures, we may discover some subtle differences. Let’s start with the fact that sometimes we have more than one way to express possession. Consider another example that’s similar but doesn’t make use of a possessive adjective or possessive pronoun:
The couple’s families and friends attended the beach wedding.
The families and friends of the couple attended the beach wedding.
Here again we have a choice of two ways to express possession or belonging, and one of the choices is the of-construction. Do we have this choice of alternatives with all nouns? No.
Let’s recall the limitations of the apostrophe. Use of the apostrophe to show possession is most common for people and animals. We also use it for organizations like a company, a committee, and the administration. According to Greenbaum and Quirk, “[g]eographical names take the genitive inflection, especially when they are used to imply human collectivity.” This would mean the following are all appropriate and acceptable to use:
Lisa’s mother
The cat’s fur
The school board’s decision
Pittsburgh’s football team
It would also mean that the following are not appropriate and not acceptable:
The house’s condition
Boston’s highways
Instead, we should use alternative structures:
The condition of the house
The highways in Boston
But rules are not always clear when we’re dealing with objects that are inanimate and without gender. For example, should we say:
The Sun’s diameter OR the diameter of the sun?
The ship’s captain OR the captain of the ship?
Look online and you’ll find many uses of the apostrophe as well as the of-construction to indicate the genitive with words like sun and ship.
Let’s consider a larger context and see if that helps us decide on a structure when two alternatives exist.
Context A:
The Earth has a diameter of about 12,742 kilometers.
- Really? And what about the diameter of the Sun?
Context B
Class, today we’re going to learn about the Sun.
The Sun’s diameter is about 1,392,000 kilometers.
While exploring the choice between the two structures, Greenbaum and Quirk discuss the role of focus and the order of new and old information.[1] I would argue that these two factors explain why the of-construction works better in Context A and the use of the apostrophe works better in Context B. In Context A, the Sun is the focus. In Context B, diameter is new information. Would you agree?
Greenbaum and Quirk also consider the possible need for clarity in number.[2] They use these examples:
George’s sister is coming to stay with us.
= ambiguous (How many sisters are there? Just one?)
One of George’s sisters is coming to stay with us.
= clear (He has more than one sister.)
If we now return to our original examples, I don’t think we can argue that one or the other structure puts more focus on Bill, but I do think there’s a nuance regarding number:
I’d like you to meet my friend, Bill.
= ambiguous (How many friends do you have? Just one?)
I’d like you to meet a friend of mine, Bill.
= clear (You have more than one friend.)
What are your thoughts? What possible differences do you see between my friend and a friend of mine?
[1] Greenbaum, Sidney and Randolph Quirk. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman, 1995. Pp.387-388.
[2] Greenbaum, Sidney and Randolph Quirk. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman, 1995. Pp. 103-105.
Filed under: Grammar, Student Stumpers | Tags: English With Jennifer, existential sentences, here, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, there, there as the subject
QUESTION: This sentence doesn’t make sense: There’s a mistake here. How can there and here be in the same sentence? Is the mistake here or there?
ANSWER: Students first learn to use here and there to identify the location or proximity of a person or thing. In the following examples, here and there function as adverbs:
- I live here. = in this place, in this town, in this house, etc.
- Bob lives there. = in that place, in that town, in that house, etc.
English has many informal, spoken uses of here and there that can confuse language learners, such as here you are, there you go, hi there, and here we go again. But one other standard use of there is to express the existence of a person or thing. We don’t have to teach the tongue-twisting term existential sentence, but we can explain that we need the help of there to state something is. In the following examples, there functions as the subject and has nothing to do with distance in terms of space or time:
- There is a book on the table. = The book exists, and it is on the table.
- There are papers on the table. = The papers exist, and they are on the table.
You can write a sentence on the board with one misspelled word and ask students to identify the mistake. (I see books on the tabel.) Once they do, you can confirm the location of the mistake and point to it, saying, “Yes, there’s a mistake here.” Ask which word expresses location, here or there? They should now understand that here still functions as an adverb and there functions as the subject, helping us explain that a mistake exists somewhere.
Here are similar stumpers for you. Are any of the following sentences incorrect? If so, why? Post your answer, and I’ll tell you if I agree.
- There’s no reason to panic.
- There’s always lots of things to talk about.
- There is always something to do.
- There are never enough minutes in a day.
- There are two projects due this week.
- There are a business plan and a sales report due.
- There is a business plan due on Wednesday and a sales report due on Friday.
Filed under: Student Stumpers | Tags: a lot of, English With Jennifer, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, lots of, plenty of, quantifiers, tricky grammar
QUESTION:
I know LOTS and A LOT OF mean many. I can say I have lots of friends or I have a lot of friends. Is there any difference between them? What about PLENTY OF? Is it the same?
ANSWER:
It can be confusing to have so many similar expressions. I told the student about the difference in register, explaining that LOTS and A LOT OF are more informal than MANY. After some reflection, I began to consider if LOTS is the most informal of the three. It seems that A LOT OF has more widespread use than LOTS, and for that reason A LOT OF doesn’t seem limited to informal spoken English. Would you agree?
Since offering my initial explanation, I’ve also wondered about the nuances of each expression. Does anyone else sense that LOTS is slightly more carefree in its estimation of amount or number to the point of exaggeration? Example:
Do you know what you’re doing?
– Sure! I’ve done this lots of times!
Yeah, right!
As for PLENTY, I think it has the versatility of A LOT. It’s common in everyday English, but it’s permissible to use it in more formal situations, especially when the speaker wants to imply there’s more than enough of something. Examples: We got plenty of time, so let’s not rush, okay? / We have plenty of time before the deadline, so I suggest we be as thorough as possible. The second is a more formal statement, but both uses of PLENTY are acceptable, aren’t they?
I also told the student who originally stumped me with this question that having a choice among similar words and phrases can be confusing, but at the same time it allows creativity in our expression. As students reach higher levels of proficiency, we can show them that knowing synonymous expressions furthers their ability to communicate. We can teach them how variety in both word choice and grammar can make their speech more accurate and more colorful.
Filed under: Grammar, Student Stumpers | Tags: English With Jennifer, indirect speech, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, modal verbs, reported speech, student stumper, tricky grammar, wh- clause, wh- infinitive
QUESTION: If the reported statement is he asked me when to come, what was the original statement? “When to come?” Can I ask that?
ANSWER:
No. When to come? is not a grammatically correct question. The original statement was probably when should I come? It could also have been what time do you want me to come?
It’s not always easy to figure out the exact words the speaker used when you hear his or her words secondhand. At some point when teaching reported speech, we need to explain that there’s a degree of interpretation. The person reporting must accurately convey the meaning, but doesn’t necessarily have to use the same structures.
Modals in questions can often be reported using wh- infinitives. One source explains that the wh- infinitive (also called the infinitive wh- clause) is used with an obligational sense, but after some thought, I decided to expand on that:
- [obligation] “Where should I go?” = He asked where to go. – OR – He asked where he should go.
- [possibility] “How can I call without a cell phone?” = He asked how to call without a cell phone. – OR – He asked how he could call without a cell phone.
In doing research, I found confirmation that among the wh- words why isn’t used in wh- infinitives, but how is. For example, we can say how to do it, but we cannot say why to do it. This can be confusing to students if we teach use the term wh- infinitive since why has the wh- spelling but how doesn’t.
…This last point could actually be the topic of another posting. Why is it that we can say how to do it, but we cannot say why to do it? We can only ask why do it? So if we can ask why do it? to mean why should I do it? why can’t we say when do it? to mean when should I do it? Ah, the beauty of the English language.
Sources:
Greenbaum, Sidney and Randolph Quirk. A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Longman: 1990.
http://www.iei.uiuc.edu/structure/structure1/complements.html
Filed under: Grammar, Student Stumpers | Tags: EnglishwithJennifer, indirect speech. modals, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, modals in reported speech, modals verbs, reported speech
QUESTION: How does may change in reported speech?
ANSWER: As a colleague of mine said, I opened the proverbial can of worms by taking on reported speech recently on my YouTube channel. The number of rules concerning changes to verbs is especially high, and some of the rules I dared to challenge.
If grammar sources address modal verbs in reported speech, the list of changes is often limited to a half dozen or so. One modal that is often included is may, but the only rule stated is that may changes to might. Is it as simple as that?
Example 1a:
“The meeting may end early,” Pete said.
Pete said that the meeting might end early.
This makes sense, though I’d note that the general rules for verb tense changes still apply. If we are immediately reporting Pete’s words, then it’s not really necessary to change may.
Example 2a:
“No one may leave the meeting before the vote is taken,” said the director.
The director said that no one __?__ leave the meeting before the vote was taken.
Is it necessary and logical to change may to might in this reported statement? Wouldn’t it sound more natural to use could? I’d argue yes. For statements expressing permission (or lack of it, i.e., prohibition), may changes to could:
The director said that no one could leave the meeting before the vote was taken.
And here’s an example with the negative:
Example 2b:
“You may not abstain from voting,” the director said.
The director said that we couldn’t abstain from voting.
Does that mean may changes to could only when we’re expressing permission? No. Let’s go back to Example 1 and test out could:
Example 1b:
“The meeting may end early,” Pete said.
Pete said that the meeting could end early.
Isn’t could an acceptable alternative that expresses the possibility of the meeting ending early? If so, then let’s see what happens in negative statements that express possibility:
Example 3:
“You may not make the 5:15 train home,” Sally said.
Sally said that I __?__ not make the 5:15 train home.
I think only might is possible in this statement. Could no longer expresses the unlikelihood that may did in the original statement. The reported statement must be:
Sally said that I might not make the 5:15 train home.
Summary
Quoted speech > reported speech
MAY > might - or - could = to express possibility
MAY NOT > might not = to express unlikelihood
MAY > could = to express permission
MAY NOT > could not = to express prohibition
Filed under: Grammar, Student Stumpers | Tags: conditional statements, conditionals, English With Jennifer, indirect speech, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, modals, perfect modals, reported speech
QUESTION: The book says we never change should and could in reported speech. Is that true?
ANSWER: As I was preparing a lesson on modals and conditionals in reported speech, I came across an old online thread about changing what most grammar sources claim is unchangeable. An English language learner reasoned that in reported speech modals like should and could need to shift to perfect modals (should/ could have + past participle) if a past possibility is in question.
For example, the student wrote: My doctor told me I should have eaten more vegetables until I got better. This statement on its own seems fine, but what were the original words?
- Situation A: “Why did you stop eating vegetables?” asked the doctor. “Your body needed the extra vitamins to fight off the illness. Now your condition has worsened. You should have eaten more vegetables until you got better.” This corresponds to the reported statement.
- Situation B: “You are sick and your body needs extra vitamins to fight off the illness,” the doctor told me. “Don’t risk getting sicker. You should eat more vegetables until you get better.” This does not correspond to the reported statement. I would report the final sentence as follows: My doctor said I should eat more vegetables until I get better. Verbs referring to future events that have yet to occur don’t require a shift in verb tense.
I decided to form additional examples to test my logic as well as my instincts.
Example 1:
My supervisor told me I should turn in weekly reports.
(present situation) = It’s expected that I submit the reports.
Original statement: “You should turn in weekly reports.”
Example 2:
My supervisor has told me repeatedly that I should turn in weekly reports.
(present situation) = I’ve been reminded often to turn in reports, but I don’t.
Original statement: “You should turn in weekly reports.”
Example 3:
My supervisor told me repeatedly that I should turn in weekly reports.
(past situation) = I was reminded often to turn in reports, but I never did.
Original statement: “You should turn in weekly reports.”
Example 4:
My supervisor told me I should have turned in weekly reports.
(past situation) = It was expected that I submit the reports, but I didn’t. I can’t change the past.
Original statement: “You should have turned in weekly reports.”
Do you agree so far? Note also, that we could avoid the use of modals entirely and report the statement as a command:
- My supervisor told me to submit weekly reports. (present or past situation)
- My supervisor had told me to submit weekly reports. (only a past situation)
The same thread went on to pose a list of conditional statements to consider. Again, the student argued there was a need to change all modals to their past forms in reported statements. Before I could firmly disagree, I composed my own set of statements to test my reasoning:
Example 1:
“If you turn in reports, you won’t get in trouble.”
> My co-worker said that if I turned in reports, I wouldn’t get in trouble.
(real situation in the present and future – verb tenses change)
Example 2:
“If you turned in reports, you wouldn’t get in trouble.”
> My co-worker said that if I turned in reports, I wouldn’t get in trouble.
(hypothetical situation in the present and future – no tense changes)
Example 3:
“If you had turned in reports, you wouldn’t have gotten in trouble.”
> My co-worker said that if I had turned in reports, I wouldn’t have gotten in trouble.
(hypothetical situation in the past – no tense changes)
Example 4:
“If you had turned in reports, you wouldn’t be in trouble.”
> My co-worker said that if I had turned in reports, I wouldn’t be in trouble (now).
(hypothetical situation in the past and present – no tense changes)
If you are in agreement with my logic, the conclusion is that perfect modals always retain their form in reported speech and modals referring to the present or future may change (e.g., can to could), but they don’t change to perfect forms.
Filed under: Student Stumpers | Tags: difficult grammar questions, English With Jennifer, Jennifer Lebedev, JenniferESL, prepositions, prepositions of time, stumpers, tricky grammar
QUESTION: Do for and in mean the same thing when we’re talking about time? My student gave two examples: I haven’t seen him for ages. / I haven’t seen him in ages.
ANSWER: I give preference to in ages, and this is confirmed by at least one dictionary. However, is for ages completely wrong? I don’t think so. If you Google the phrase haven’t for ages, you’ll see a number of ESL/ EFL sites explaining its meaning. Could it be a difference between American English and other Englishes?
With other phrases like for the past hour and in the past hour, the difference is clearer. For is used to express duration and often purpose: She’s been waiting here for the past hour. In is used more to express that something did or didn’t happen within a period: In the past hour he’s called me three times!
Now consider these examples:
- I haven’t exercised in over a week. / I haven’t exercised for over a week.
– Are both correct?
- I didn’t do anything for a long time. BUT I haven’t done anything in a long time.
– If you think both sentences are grammatically correct, does that mean verb tense can dictate which preposition to use?
- I won’t see you for a while. BUT I’ll see you in a while.
– Does for express during that period while in expresses at the end of that period?
Are you yourself stumped?
