Ask the English Teacher

Indefinite Article and Negative Expressions

Mini asks:
Yet another query: Does the following sentence require the indefinite article before '....more rapid ....'?
Nothing in Sri Lanka’s development experience suggests that a commitment to re-distribution and human development is necessarily inconsistent with the attainment of a more rapid economic growth.

Articles in English like "a" and "there" are a big problem for people learning the language. They are also a big problem for English teachers trying to explain them to students who grew up in language that don't use them.

In this case, we could say "more rapid economic growth" or we could say "a more rapid economic growth." With "a," we are saying that Sri Lanka could grow rapidly in various ways. Without "a," we are saying that Sri Lanka could grow rapidly, even if only one way is possible.

But the sentence has another problem: Negative expression. The author has said "Nothing is inconsistent." Even for native English speakers, this kind of usage is confusing. For English learners, it must be awful...and it's in a sentence that is 27 words long.

Suppose we wrote this sentence positively:
Sri Lanka could grow faster economically while still committing itself to redistribution and human development.

That's 15 words. Is it easier to understand? Has it changed the meaning of the original 27-word sentence? I don't think so.

And we don't even have to decide about using indefinite articles!

As usual, Is usual...

Lance asks:
I am a student in Taiwan, and I read this article by chance. 'than usual' or 'than is usual' has confused me for a long time.
In this article, it seems that ‘than usual’ and ‘than is usual’ have the same meaning. However, they are not the same in the following question.

The Parthenon is larger than ____ for a Doric temple, with eight columns on the short sides and seventeen on the long ones rather than the typical six and thirteen.
A) usual
B) is usual
C) has been usual
D)one usually is
E) it is usual
The correct answer is B. Can you explain why A and E are not correct ?

I would actually prefer A, though I'd accept B also. "The Parthenon is larger than usual" contains an "understood" word (is). This is a fairly common usage in English, like "The girl [that] I marry will be wonderful." We drop the "that" because people will still understand us.

I prefer to write the shortest possible sentence that will convey my meaning. So I prefer A to B on grounds of style.

E is not correct because it inserts a whole clause ("it is usual") where it doesn't belong. We would have to rewrite the whole sentence:

It is usual for a Doric temple to have...

I would hate to do that, because "it" is such a boring word at the beginning of a sentence!

Since and After

Nini asks a very interesting question:
How does one use 'since' and 'after' when dealing with time. Since the 1990s or After the 1990s? Can they be used interchangeably? Is there a difference in emphasis?

In this usage, both words are adverbs. "Since" tends to describe a past state of affairs that has continued to the present:
Well, since my baby left me, I've found a new place to dwell...(And Elvis is still living there!)
Since the 1990s we have lived in Vancouver, BC. (And we haven't moved away.)
Since we met, we've been friends. (And we are still friends.)

"After" tends to place an event at a particular time:
After my baby left me, I found a new place to dwell...(But I may have moved again since then.)
After the 1990s, she abandoned the cello. (But she may start playing again some day.)
After we met, we became good friends. (It happened at once.)

I notice one problem for some non-English speakers. They may say:
I have lived in Vancouver since four years.

This is understandable, but not standard. It's preferable to say:
I have lived in Vancouver for four years.
Or:
I have lived in Vancouver since 2002.

Parts of Speech

Mohammed writes:
I have a question and I want your help. Could help me?

I study English in the USA and I have some problem to know what is the difference between V, adj, n, adv.

These are "abbreviations": short ways to write words.

v means "verb"—a word describing action: walk, speak, grow, fall

n means "noun"—a word for a person, place, or thing: Crawford, Vancouver, tree

adj means "adjective"—a word that changes the meaning of a noun: old Crawford, beautiful Vancouver, tall tree

adv means "adverb"—a word that changes the meaning of a verb: Crawford walked slowly; Mohammed spoke well; Vancouver is growing rapidly; the tree fell suddenly.

Horsepower(s)?

Robert writes:
This car has 265 horsepower.
Why isn't horsepower countable and thus take an "s"?
100 horses 5 powers of Superman

The meaning is like the "uncountable power", but then you shouldn't be able to put a number in front of it.
He has a lot of power in his arms.
This plant produces a lot of (electrical) power.
This office (job-position ) has 3 powers. One is the power to hire someone. The second is the power to fire someone. However, the most interesting one is the power to declare a one day holiday for the workers twice a year.

By all rights, horsepower should have an "s". Either that, or you should not be able to put a number in front of it!

My dictionary defines "horsepower" as "The standard theoretical unit of the rate of work, equal to 550 pounds lifted one foot in one second." (For metrical people, that would be 250 kg lifted 30 cm in one second.)

The dictionary says nothing about plural forms of the word, and you'd think it should have a plural. But if it did, it wouldn't be horsepowers but "horsespower"—which people would find hard to say!

We do have some expressions where a plural is expressed by a singular: For example, I'm six foot one, and I have (alas) a 38-inch waistline. (It doesn't seem so bad in metric: 185 cm tall and 96.5 cm around the middle.)

Think about terms for units of energy. We say "100 watts," but then we go looking for a 100-watt bulb. We say "220 volts," but then we talk about "220-volt wiring." So "265 horsepower" is not that far off.

Ending with a preposition

Jesse writes:
I'm always careful to avoid ending sentences with prepositions (with typically annoying consequences). Many simple-seeming sentences seem confusing to some people when they're fixed. For example:

"Did you find what you were looking for?" becomes, "Did you find that for which you were looking?", which is hideous. I suppose could use, "Did you find what you sought?" but that evokes a sort of "medieval quest" tone, which is not the intention.

Is it acceptable to violate this rule in the interests of clarity?

The last of George Orwell's rules for clear writing is "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

You can also take the advice of Winston Churchill, who was famously annoyed by an editor who tried to remove a preposition at the end of a Churchillian sentence.

So yes, it is more than acceptable. In the interests of clarity, it is mandatory.

Does she? Doesn't she?

Elizabeth writes:
I have a question that I can not seem to find the answer to on my own. My boyfriend and were having a discussion last night or the correct way to use have and has. I can not explain to him why when you say, "Does she have a ring?", you do not use the word "has" instead of have. I am certain I am correct but I can not seem to find a rule explaining why. In fact, according to the grammar rules I have found, it should be has. We have gone over and over this and he will not accept my explanation of "I don't know, it is just how I was taught". I appreciate any help you can give me!

"Do" is a verb with many functions, and that can make it confusing. But you're right.

My dictionary tells me that one function of the verb is as an "auxiliary" or helping verb, but without a specific meaning, in negative, interrogative, and inverted sentences:
I do not want to study. (negative)
Does he want to study? (interrogative)
Little did he study! (inverted)

So the sentence you ask about is an interrogative, or question. But turn it into a statement:
She does have a ring.
The "does" makes it more emphatic—and it's the emphatic form that we turn into a question:
Does she have a ring?

This is a common North American usage, but in England people will often use a simpler inversion:
She has a ring.
Has she a ring?

Well, I did say "does" can be confusing! If you're still confused, let me know and I'll try again to explain it.

In response or As a response?

Here's a timely question from Maricel:
I have a question regarding the corect usage of 'in response to and 'as a response to'. When do we use 'as a response to'?

I know that it should be 'Israel retaliated in response to Hezbolla's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers.' How about the phrase 'as a response to'?

"In response to" works best when we really have only one response possible: "The phone rang, and in response I picked it up."

"As a response" works when we have several choices: "As a response to Maricel's question, I posted an answer on my blog." I could have sent an email, a letter, or phoned. But I chose to post this answer to Maricel's very interesting question.

So in the case of Israel's retaliation, it depends on whether you think Israel had only one way to respond, or several.

Allows to or Allows us?

Anne asks:
Is it acceptable to say for example "this system allows to edit information, blah, blah, blah" or do we have to say "this system allows US to edit information........"?

Interesting question! You can't follow a verb like "allows" with an infinitive phrase ("to edit")...because you have to allow a person or thing, not an infinitive verb.

So you can say "This system allows us," and you'll be fine.

Working the Floor

Sara asks:
What does "Work the floor" mean?

When we meet in large groups—at a party, at a conference—we enjoy talking together. Some of us talk just to a few people we know.

Other people want to "network"—that means they want to make friends with a lot of people. So they go across the floor of the gathering, meeting everyone. They shake hands, introduce themselves, gossip a little, exchange jokes. Later, they may phone the people they talked to, and say: "Great to meet you at the conference! I wonder if you'd be willing to vote for me (or invest in my company, or help another friend of mine)."

People who do this are "working the floor."