Ask the English Teacher

If or In case of?

Lavinia asks:
Can you give me a good and comprehensible explanation as to the difference in using if/ conditional and “in case of”?

In general, we'd use "if" as part of a subordinate clause, and "in case of" as part of a phrase ending in a noun:

We'll use our umbrellas if it rains.
We'll bring our umbrellas in case of rain.

If the house catches fire, we'll break the glass and sound the alarm.
In case of fire, break the glass and sound the alarm.

The House is A-Rockin'?

Kip has a great question:
After listening to a couple songs from my collection, a question came to me: what is the significance of adding an "a" before a verb?

For example: "The Times They Are A-Changin' " and "The House is A-Rockin', Don't Bother Knockin' "
It seems to have made its way (though not drastically) into mainstream conversation.

Is there any reason for this other than for artistic effect? When did this first appear and become popular in our language? It must predate the two aforementioned songs as it is also used in the classic Christmas carol "Here We Come A-Wassailing".

I've been aware of this usage since I read "We'll go no more a-roving/By the light of the moon." So when I went a-googling to look for more such examples, imagine my surprise when I found myself, answering a similar question back in January! And that answer still seems pretty good to me.

Who or Whom?

Daniel writes:
There is a sign at my work which reads, "If you are not sure whom somebody is, please do not answer the door." I know instinctually that it should be 'who' instead of 'whom,' but I'm not sure why.

Since 'you' is the subject, and the unknown person is the object, why is it not whom?

You're right—it should be "who." Millions of people have trouble with this one, and it's because the "unknown person" is not the object—that person is the complement.

The verb "to be" describes the subject, but it doesn't transfer an action to anything. So a noun, pronoun, or adjective after a form of the verb "to be" is the complement of the subject:
Daniel is curious.
That man must be Daniel.
It was he who asked the question. (Notice--it's not "him" because "him" would require a transitive verb.)
I don't know who he is.
And that last sentence is the equivalent of "If you don't know who somebody is." We have a subordinate clause, "who somebody is," and since the verb is a form of "to be," the pronoun will have to be "who."

"Whom" is the objective-case version of "who," just as "him/her" is the objective-case version of "he/she." We use "whom" when the person is receiving some kind of action, or is the object of a preposition:

Whom did you select for the job? (=You selected him for the job.)
From whom did this message come? (= This message came from her.)

Yes, it's confusing. I tell my students that in a few more generations, "whom" will be obsolete and we'll use "who" for everything...just as we now use "you" in both subjective and objective cases, instead of "ye" for the objective case.

Were or Was?

A company sergeant major asks:
I am responsible for checking all of my soldiers’ awards and report cards. The question came up about the use of “were” and “was”. Need some clarification:

His dedication to duty and determination was instrumental to the unit’s success.
His dedication to duty and determination were instrumental to the unit’s success.

Which is correct? Or are they both okay to use?

“Were” is correct, but I can see where the confusion arises. We might hastily read “dedication to” as applying to both “duty” and “determination,” which would make “dedication” the singular subject of the sentence...thereby requiring “was” as the verb.

But we are not “dedicated to determination.” This soldier has has two traits: dedication to duty is one, and determination is the other.

Turn the sentence around, and the verb is clearly “were”: His determination and dedication to duty were...

University Names

Zhichao in the UK asks:
What is the difference between "the University of Oxford" and "Oxford University"?
And, where and when should we put "the" before the name?
Is there any difference between with or without a "the" in front of the name?
Are there any grammatical rules for a university's name?

This is another usage I'd never thought about, so thank you for making me think about it.

The general practice seems to be this: if the name of the university comes before the word "university," don't use "the": Oxford University, Columbia University, Simon Fraser University.

If the name follows "university of," it will usually need "the":
He attended the University of Southern California.
She teaches at the University of British Columbia.
(If anyone can think of a similar name where we wouldn't use "the," please let me know!)

But if we use only the university's initials, we drop the "the":
He attended USC.
She teaches at UBC.

These abbreviations are acceptable if the audience is likely to know what the initials stand for. Otherwise, it's preferable to write out the name in full—at least the first time you mention it.

Note that "university" is a proper name only if the word is linked to a proper name. Otherwise it doesn't take a capital U: Oxford is a great university. So is Cambridge University.

Complements?

Clueless in Ohio asks:
Are these infinitives functioning as complements?
Jim doesn't know when to quit drinking.
Jim doesn't know how to fix the printer.
Jim doesn't know where to register tomorrow.
Jim didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

And if all those are complements, what grammar role does when, how, where, and whether play?

According to my dictionary, a complement describes or identifies the subject or the direct object:
He is the treasurer. (subjective complement)
She is talented. (subjective complement)

We elected him treasurer. (objective complement)
The prize made her happy. (objective complement)

The sentences you supplied don't have complements—they have adverbs or conjunctions that link infinitive phrases to the verb "know." Each linked phrase tells us what Jim doesn't know: when to quit drinking, how to fix the printer, and so on. In the last sentence, "whether" is a conjunction linking "to laugh" and "to cry," and again the function is to modify "know."

For free? For shame!

Frank writes:
I continue to hear people use the term “for free”. For example, I hear ads saying “ “Come to our store and get a gift for free”. I was always under the impression that was incorrect grammar. Should it not just be “free”?

It grates on me too. I guess people are reasoning that if you can say, “I got it for ten bucks,” you can also say “I got it for free.” It’s not grammatical: “free” is an adjective in this usage, so “I got it for free” is like saying, “I got it for pretty.”

By the way, a gift, by definition, is free. So the ad should simply say, "Come to our store and receive a gift."

Continuous Tense

Tony writes:
We have always been taught that verbs like (see and hear) are not used in the continuous or progressive, e.g: I am seeing a tree. or -I am hearing their voice.

However, I often hear sentences like:

-We are seeing a reply now. (from a football match)

-You are hearing four sounds now. Can you determine what they are? (from a TV program).

I am hearing them also, and I am reading them, and they are coming from my students, who are using continuous-tense verbs like there is not going to be a tomorrow, and it is driving me crazy!

It's obviously not just "sense" verbs like "hear" and "see" that people use with the continuous tense. In some cases, continuous is absolutely necessary: I am typing this answer. This is a contrast with the present tense, which describes something I may generally do: I type my answers on an iMac computer keyboard.

Preference for continuous tense seems to be a trend, especially among younger persons. (Of course, at 65 I think everyone is a younger person.) I do notice it among my students. They prefer to say "I will be graduating in April," rather than "I will graduate in April."

In the present continuous (I am typing this answer), we don't have a clear sense of when the action will stop. The future continuous is also vague about the time it will take to something: I will be planning my courses next week. Maybe I'll do it in a day; more likely it will take all week and part of the following week.

But when my students say "I will be graduating in April," I know that graduating doesn't take that long. You go to convocation, pick up your cap and gown, march into the auditorium, listen to some speeches, pick up your diploma, get your photo taken by your proud family, and off you go after just a couple of hours.

However, I don't expect my opposition to the continuous tense to have an effect. This is a long-term language change. Maybe my students aren't thinking about it, or maybe they really do think of graduation as a long, uncertain process.

When I think about it, the trend is older than I'd realized. After all, a classic 1944 love song promises us:

I'll be seeing you
in all the old familiar places...

Is or Are?

Ghassan asks:
Which is right?
The man, together with his children, ............... attending the party tomorrow. (is/ are)

"Together with his children" is a prepositional phrase. It modifies the subject, "man," but it's not an additional subject. What's more, the prepositional phrase could go elsewhere in the sentence.

So the sentence should be "The man, together with his children, is attending the party tomorrow." It could also be "The man is attending the party tomorrow, together with his children."

To use a plural verb, we would need to drop "together with" and replace it with the conjunction "and": "The man and his children are attending the party tomorrow."

Punctuating Subordinate Clauses

Quinn writes:
My family and I have been arguing over an issue of punctuation all evening, and we finally decided that we need a third party to settle the debate for us. Here's the sentence. "Because of this, I began working towards my B.A. in Criminal Justice, while I was a soldier, at Ft. Eustis, VA."

I believe that, "while I was a soldier", is a subordinate clause. Therefore, it is a nonessential element. As a nonessential element it should have commas around it. My family does not believe that commas are required. What do you think?

"While I was a soldier" is acting as an adverb, defining when "I began working." It's a subordinate clause, all right, but that doesn't make it a nonessential element. A different punctuation usage should apply here.

When a subordinate clause begins a sentence, a comma is necessary. (That sentence illustrates the usage.)

A comma is not necessary when a subordinate clause ends a sentence. (This also illustrates the usage.)

A sentence that begins with an introductory phrase (not a clause) will be set off with a comma if the phrase contains a verb, OR if the phrase is more than five words long:

In closing, I want to thank our hosts.
By means of a rope ladder, he escaped from the prison.

In the sentence that Quinn supplies, I would treat "while I was a soldier at Ft. Eustis, VA" as the whole subordinate clause. It falls at the end of the sentence, so I would punctuate the sentence this way:

Because of this, I began working towards my B.A. in Criminal Justice while I was a soldier at Ft. Eustis, VA.

Introductory phrases under five words can still take a comma, and in this case I'll exercise my option and use a comma after "Because of this"—it's going to be a long trip before we reach the comma after "Ft. Eustis." "Because of this" provides a good transition from the previous sentence, and the comma gives us a brief pause before we launch into 17 unpunctuated words. (We need a comma after "Ft. Eustis" because standard practice expects it between the name of the community and the name of the state or province.)