Ask the English Teacher

Rather? Whether?

Maureen asks:
Does "rather or not" mean the same thing as "whether or not?"

I am being driven to distraction by someone who writes "rather or not" when I think it should be "whether or not."

You're right. "Rather" is an adverb, meaning with preference for one of two things, or more willingly. "Whether" is a conjunction with several meanings, but the two words are not synonyms.

We might say, "I'd rather not have the seafood platter," meaning we'd prefer not to have it. But we'd never say "Rather OR not."

We can also use it to mean more or less, or somewhat: "He's polite, but rather reserved." The British use it as a strong way to say "yes": "Is she good-looking? Rather!" And we can use it to introduce a contradiction: "He isn't honest; rather, he's a swindler."

"Whether" can be used when we are setting out alternatives: "Whether or not it rains, we're going for a hike." We can also use it as a synonym for "either": "Whether by skill or luck, he reached the top of the mountain." And we also use it in indirect questions when we expect a negative answer: "Please tell me whether you've accept my novel."

He? Him?

Kathy writes:
I have a terrible time deciding the proper pronoun to use. For example:
It was fine for he and I. It was fine for him and me.
It was he who asked about it. It was him who asked about it.

See my problem?

This is a problem with pronoun case, and it makes people crazy.

"Case" defines the job the pronoun is doing in the sentence. If the pronoun is the subject of the sentence (or of a subordinate clause in the sentence), it's in the subjective case: I, he, she, we, they, who.

If the pronoun receives the action of a transitive verb, it's the object of the verb—so we're in the objective case: me, him, her, us, them, whom. For example, He (subject) kissed her (object). She (subject) slapped him (object).

Notice that a couple of pronouns are the same in both cases: you and it. ("Ye" used to be both a plural of "you" and the objective form of the pronoun: "I gave ye a gift." But those usages have been obsolete for centuries.)

Pronouns can also be objects of prepositions, words like by, from, through, after, apart, etc. So we use the objective case here as well: The poem was written by him. The gift came from her.

So in your first example, we should write "It was fine for him and me." "For" is a preposition and both pronouns are objects of that preposition: fine for him, fine for me.

Now it gets complicated!

Pronouns are the objects of transitive verbs, verbs that transfer some kind of action. The verb "to be" is not a transitive verb—it just describes a state of existence. So a pronoun following a form of "to be" should remain in the subjective case: "It was he who asked about it."

(By the way, notice that "who asked about it" is a subordinate clause with "who" as the subject...so it should indeed be "who" and not the objective "whom.")

General usage, however, assumes that any pronoun after a verb is going to be in the objective case. When I phone my wife, I should say: "Hello. It is I." She's an English teacher too, but she would think I was crazy. So I say, "Hi. It's me."

So in casual usage, it's acceptable to say, "It's me. That must be her. It's them." In formal usage, prefer "It is I. That must be she. It's they." (And even educated people will think you sound strange!)

Until? Before?

Frank in Taiwan asks:
Here I am again. This time I have a single choice question to ask:
( ) He didn't tell me anything _______ he left.
(A) until (B) before (C) after (D) since

Either A or B could make a correct sentence:
"He didn't tell me anything until he left." That is, he said something as he was going out the door.
"He didn't tell me anything before he left." He left without saying anything.

It would be hard for him to tell me anything after he left (unless he had a mobile phone!). And if we used "since," we'd have to change the sentence a lot: He hasn't told me anything since he left. (Again, he'd have to use a mobile phone or email to tell me something.)

Single-Sentence Paragraphs

Joyce writes:
My husband insists that single-sentence paragraphs may be used in writing, rather liberally, and even as transitions. I maintain that they should be used rarely, if ever, and then only for emphasis. plus, they just look so darn tacky.

Can you please share your thoughts in this regard? We both have jobs that involve writing for a living.

As a former columnist for a tabloid paper, I have no problem with single-sentence paragraphs. However, like any stylistic device they can be overdone.

In English, at least, we tend to read sentences and paragraphs with varying attention. We pay most attention to the beginning and ending of a sentence, and the beginning and ending of a paragraph. These are "hot spots" where we respond most strongly to the information.

This is also why many business writers will put a bad-news message in the middle of a paragraph: The reader still understands it, but it doesn't sting as much.

So a one-sentence paragraph will have a couple of very hot spots, where the information can have dramatic impact. As Joyce says, they can emphasize a point. This is one reason why suspense thrillers (and tabloid news stories) use a lot of them.

In online writing, reading effectiveness improves as paragraphs and sentences become shorter. A paragraph of 8 or 9 lines, with sentences over 20 words, is physically harder to read on a screen than it would be on paper. This is especially true if the text runs right across the screen. That's why I prefer a three-column layout on my blogs.

Readability levels are also a concern. Long words in long sentences in long paragraphs require a higher level of education to understand. To reach a large readership, the writer should aim for the lowest possible grade level—not to "dumb down" the content, but to make it accessible. (For more on this subject, go to http://www.readability.info/ —very enlightening! You can also use the grammar checker in the Tools menu of Word to get some of the same analysis.)

I got a vivid lesson in this issue when I typed a chapter from the Book of Ecclesiastes as a Word file and then checked its readability. And I cheated—each verse is only one sentence, so I combined several verses into two- and three-sentence paragraphs. Even so, the readability level was just grade 3.

Clearly, though, a string of one-sentence paragraphs can defeat the writer's desire for impact. Used sparingly, they can be effective at making key points.

Drunk Again!

Cynthia writes:
We are having a debate at work about using the word drunk.

Example: She has already drunk three cups of coffee.
Or: She has already drank three cups of coffee.

Which is the correct way of saying this?

This question comes up all the time. It's a problem because "drink" is a strong verb. Strong verbs are old words that change tense by changing an internal vowel (and sometimes even more):
drink, drank, had drunk
sink, sank, had sunk
swim, swam, had swum
think, thought, had thought
strive, strove, had striven

Compare these with weak verbs, which just add -ed:
blink, blinked, had blinked
love, loved, had loved

So in the example you give, the sentence should be "She has already drunk three cups of coffee." That is, in the unspecified time leading up to the present, she has consumed a lot of coffee.

If we were talking about a specific time before the present, we could say "She drank three cups of coffee before going to work." (And that's about how much I need before I can start working!)

Either? Neither?

Mahesh asks:
I have a small question. Is it correct to say:
"I like to live neither in Moscow nor in St. Petersburg."
(Is it same as I do not like living in both cities?)

"Either" and "neither" are hard to understand. We have some expressions that work as positives, and others that work as negatives.

So in the sentence you give, I would say: "I don't like to live in either Moscow or St. Petersburg." That is, we put the negative in "don't," and then use the positive "either."

Or we could say: "I prefer living in neither Moscow nor St. Petersburg." But this is a very awkward way to say it. Most readers would prefer "I don't like to live..." or "I don't like living..." because they're easier to understand: We know at once that the sentence is negative.

Within?

Clara asks:
I have a question regarding "within" and it goes as follows:
"The division/Department Director, or his designee, must be notified within one hour of the employee's scheduled work shift."

Suppose the employee's starting time is 8 a.m. When is the employee to call to notify?

Between 7 and 8 a.m.

But this is a good example of unclear wording: A lawyer might say the employee could call as late as 9:59, almost an hour after the start of the shift. Or it could mean an hour after the employee's shift is over! So I would rewrite this sentence to say:

The employee must notify the division/Department Director, or his designee, no later than one hour before the employee's scheduled work shift begins.

What Little There Is...

David writes:
I find it difficult to understand the phrase "what little there is". The following is a sentence I met with in my grammar exercise:
The home improvements have taken what little there is ____ my spare time.
The answer is "of"
Could you explain it and give some other examples?

I love answering these questions because they make me think about expressions that I've always taken for granted.

In this case, "what little there is of my spare time" is a long-winded way to say "my scarce spare time." A subordinate clause ("what little there is of") acts like a one-word adjective ("scarce").

So it's grammatical, but not the kind of expression you should use often. Here are some more examples, with the shorter versions I would use instead:

I was happy with what encouragement my friends gave me. (I was happy with my friends' encouragement.)
She was pleased with what few good reviews her book received. (She was happy with her book's few good reviews.)
They rejected what little support the government offered their project. (They rejected the government's small support of their project.)

English permits many ways to say the same thing. In general, when you can say it briefly, say it briefly. If you just want to play with the language, and you don't care if people can understand you, then you can say it with a lot of words.

As Much? Or As Many?

Diana asks:
As is known to well-educated English speakers, the difference between "as many as" and "as much as" is that the former modifies a countable noun while the latter modified an uncountable noun. But on hearing the utterances like "the whale can travel AS MUCH AS 100 kilometers a day",I don't think I fully understand the usage. Can we also say "AS MANY AS" in the sentence?

What a great question! You've brought up an important point.

Yes—we use "as many as" for countable nouns: "As many as four hundred persons attended the wedding." And we use "as much as" for uncountable nouns: "She makes as much money as he does."

But English always has exceptions. In this case, we can sometimes use a plural as a singular:
"Six months is a long time for a probationary appointment."
"A hundred thousand dollars was stolen in the robbery."
We're not thinking about individual months or dollars, so we treat the whole amount as if it were singular.

In the example you give, we should treat "100 kilometers" as a singular—the distance a whale can travel in a day.

These ones? Those ones?

Eric writes:
I was wondering if it is grammatically incorrect to use "these ones" or "those ones" when answering someone who just asked me a question like.. "which ones are done?" or "which of those still need to be wrapped?" It seems to me that if it's ok to say "this one" or "that one" that "these ones" and "those ones" would also be acceptable. I notice I use them more often when I am pointing at something and want to be very specific.

The guys at work say that it is incorrect usage of grammar. Are they right?

They're right, but I don't think I can offer a clear explanation.

"These" is the plural of "this" and "those" is the plural of "that." It's perfectly OK to say "This one is mine; that one is yours."

But when we go to the plural, the "ones" is understood: "These are mine; those are yours."

Why this inconsistent usage? I wish I knew. English is full of rules, and half of them are broken.

Afterthought: I've just realized that the problem is with the number. You can say "This one," and "These two." If the number is uncertain, you can use "ones" in certain ways:

"Bring me four potatoes."
"Which ones?" [particular potatoes from a larger group]
"Those four in the bowl."
"These four?"
"No, they're too small. Try the ones in the cupboard." [the uncertain number of potatoes in the cupboard]
"Are these OK?" [we know how many are wanted]
"Those are perfect."