Language desk
< June 19	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 20

Does grammar change when a word in brackets is added?

This is an (pointless) application. vs.
This is a (pointless) application. ----Seans Potato Business 09:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted your question for clarity

Grammar doesn't change. The choice between 'a' and 'an' is purely phonological, and depends only on the following sound, irrespective of how it is written. When reading your sentence out, the following sound is /p/, so the normal choice is 'a'. If you omitted the parenthesised word in reading it, then 'an' would be the usual choice. --ColinFine (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is a bit of a quandary, and doesn't seem to be mentioned in my usual English language reference books, but since the reader will read what is within the brackets, treat them as you would any other parenthesis, whether indicated by commas or dashes, and use "a". If you're uncomfortable with this, it might be better to recast the sentence.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely "a". To me, "an" looks glaringly wrong. 86.179.119.9 (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the "a" versus "an" distinction of article choice is perhaps an "easy" version of this question. Here is a "harder" version to consider. What about if the parenthetical information has an effect on the subject and verb and the question becomes whether or not singular or plural is invoked? This is an example:

A: John (and perhaps his wife Mary) is coming to my party.

B: John (and perhaps his wife Mary) are coming to my party.

I believe that "A" is "technically" correct, since the parenthetical should not dictate the grammar of the rest of the sentence. (I think?) In other words, you treat the sentence as if the parenthetical did not even exist. But, in reading this out loud, "B" seems to sound better (to me, at least). I understand that the sentence can be re-written in different word-order or without use of a parenthetical. But what is the "rule" in a situation such as this, where the parenthetical changes the subject from singular to plural or vice versa? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a good question, or at least I don't know the answer to it. What would it be in this case:

A: John, and perhaps his wife Mary, is coming to my party.

B: John, and perhaps his wife Mary, are coming to my party.

I just don't know. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave out "perhaps" and it becomes clear that the subject is not just "John" but "John, and his wife Mary", which requires "are". The apparent problem is that "perhaps" indicates Mary's coming is uncertain, so it seems wrong to use "are coming" to lump her in with anyone who is definitely coming (John). But even if John were not part of the scenario at all, Mary would still be taking an "is coming", qualified by "perhaps". If she were definitely not coming, the verb would still be "is coming", qualified by "not". The function of "perhaps" is to reduce the certainty of whatever subject or verb it's associated with. In B above, it's clearly associated with Mary and not with John, but since the subject is still plural, the verb must be "are". Take the commas out and the problem magically disappears. Just reinsert the commas and carry on. Imho. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, is your reply only in relation to the comma example of Sentences A and B above? Or also to the parentheses example of Sentences A and B, one post above that? In other words, does using the parentheses, instead of the commas, have any bearing on your answer at all? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good question. I was looking only at the one with the commas. The one with the parentheses is different, imo. Consider the following contrivance:

John (oh, by the way, talking about John, I really must remember to tell you a fascinating bit of news about him when I get a chance, away from all these prying eyes and eavesdropping ears and wagging tongues; remind me next time we're chatting on the phone, ok?) is coming to my party., or
John - oh, by the way, talking about John, I really must remember to tell you a fascinating bit of news about him when I get a chance, away from all these prying eyes and eavesdropping ears and wagging tongues; remind me next time we're chatting on the phone, ok? - is coming to my party.

Whatever's inside the parentheses or dashes is separated from the sense and the grammar of the core sentence "John is coming to my party". It plays no role in determining the number of the verb. Even where the parentheses contain a reference to his wife Mary who might also be coming to the party, it should be ignored for all except phonic purposes (viz. a/an). That, it seems to me, is the very point of enclosing certain words in parentheses or surrounding them with dashes, rather than just using commas. Commas can act parenthetically, but they often just indicate a slight pause, or act merely to clarify the meaning. OTOH, actual parentheses or dashes are "hard coded", and should be treated as such. Such a part of a sentence is meant to be treated just as if it were an interjection from a third party who's interrupting the speaker but not disturbing the speaker's train of thought about whatever it is they were saying. The speaker was talking only about John, and naturally they'd choose to use the word "is". We, of course, know that the speaker of the parenthetical words is the same speaker and not actually some rude third party, but it's helpful to think of a third party and separate the voices and choose the verb accordingly. Imho.

Having said all that, I do acknowledge that some writers mix and match their pairs of commas, parentheses and dashes interchangeably, as if the choice of delimiter has zero implications for choice of verb. Some even use an opening parenthesis but not a closing one, or v/v, but I choose not to accommodate such "writers" in my library. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

valedictions

hello, was there a time when phrases such as "mit freundlichen Grüßen" or "sincerely yours" etc didn't have this ironic undertone (not sure about the Enlgish one, but the German surely has) of "yeah, kiss mine, too"? or have they always been formulaic? Asmrulz (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mit freundlichen Grüßen" certainly has no "ironic" undertone in German. It is simply the everyday, perfectly neutral salutation in formal and business correspondence. Sure, it doesn't guarantee the contents of the letter are really "friendly", but neither does it automatically imply the opposite as you suggest. I remember a time when it was still in competition with "hochachtungsvoll" ("with respect"), which was considered more stilted and more formal, giving "mit freundlichen Grüßen" a somewhat more relaxed tone; that alternative seems now to be pretty much moribund though. On the other hand, people today seem to be searching for yet more informal alternatives again. "Liebe Grüße" seems to be making inroads; I've seen it used in mails from students to their professors, where I suspect it would have been unthinkable earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had such exchanges in mind where after a certain number of "rounds" it does imply that. Automatically, too :) Asmrulz (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think hochachtungsvoll really does have that ironic undertone now; when I see it, it always sounds more like verachtungsvoll. Liebe Grüße (or simply LG) is my go-to signoff in German-language e-mails. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Mit freundlichen Grüßen" nowadays is the standard in formal German letters. Yes, in a complaint letter you don't want the addressee to receive "friendly greetings", but you still write it. As for the question if it has an undertone, every positive comment used in a conversation between two people who don't get along with each will sound like it had one. It doesn't matter if it's "Mit freundlichen Grüßen" or something else. The expression alone is neutral. --2.245.76.23 (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag question

Is there any valid tag question that can go on the end of these sentences?

All you can do is ask, ... ?
All we can do is hope, ....?

86.179.119.9 (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The respective subjects are All you can do and All we can do, for both of which the appropriate pronoun is It. Therefore, we can use the tag question is it not? in each example.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or isn't it? (which I think most people today would find more natural). --70.49.171.225 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All we can do is hope, isn't it? sounds correct to you? 86.179.119.9 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds correct to me, too. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange ... to me it sounds decidedly off. 86.179.119.9 (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a statement like All we can do is hope is usually made with a sense of profundity that would be undermined by adding a tag question. But if you did want to make that statement in a context where a tag question was appropriate—perhaps you've been discussing several possible situations where you might be able to do something more than hope, and are starting to reach the conclusion that none of them apply—then I stand by isn't it? as the obvious and natural one. --70.49.171.225 (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That seems right logically, but it just doesn't sound like something any native person would say. I think most people would naturally say "All we can do is hope, can't we" (cf. "Well, we can still hope, can't we"). There is admittedly a technical problem with such an utterance, but one that might be apparent only to a grammarian. There's also a technical problem with answering the question "Who's there?" with "It's only me", but language users don't always stick to the rules. Strange, that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tag questions such as "... no?", "... yes?", and "... right?" would work, no? Deor (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers sound better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right? is possible for me, but no?" and yes? strike me as things a non-native English speaker would use. --70.49.171.225 (talk) 04:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some native English speakers do use no?, but I believe it's usually a conscious affectation – as James Nicoll might say, an example of rifling other languages' pockets for whatever might be useful. —Tamfang (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say (and write) that "Yes?" not infrequently, and I'm 100 percent American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first thought that came to my mind was "All you can do is ask, don't you agree?" Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon network's highest rated show

The SpongeBob SquarePants article went through a copy-edit awhile back, in which the following sentence - "The series' popularity has made it a media franchise, as well as Nickelodeon's highest rated show, and the most distributed property of MTV Networks." - had the word "network" inserted after "Nickelodeon". "Nickelodeon network's highest rated show" sounds really odd to me, and I don't think that it's grammatically correct. However, I'm not enough of a grammar expert to know why it might be wrong, while the copy-editor who made the change describes herself as a professional writer/editor, so perhaps I'm mistaken. Can anyone explain? --Jpcase (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of grammar, but of factual accuracy. If Nick is a part of the MTV Network, then is it also a network by itself? I rather doubt it. More like a channel on the MTV Network. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the question of whether it should be "the Nickelodeon network's highest rated show". Also, precise English would call for "highest-rated" to be hyphenated here. 86.179.119.9 (talk) 19:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Nickelodeon network's highest rated show" sounds better to me. "The network Nickelodeon's highest rated show" or "The television network Nickelodeon's highest rated show" both sound fine to me as well. If the official name of the television channel were "Nickelodeon Network" like "MTV Network", then that would be fine. Personally, I would prefer to just remove "network" altogether, like in the original version of the sentence. The way that it's currently written seems kind of like saying "John businessman's suit" or "Germany country's economy". I don't if it actually is grammatically equivalent, but it seems pretty similar to me. Could someone explain whether it really is incorrect or not? --Jpcase (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]