Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2007 October 23

= October 23 =

Monetary grammer
When I'm Writing an amount in dollars, like 21, is it; 21 dollars, $21, or $21 dollars? -- Naruto     Tron   01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends, but "21 dollars" is not usual, and "$21 dollars" is wrong because the dollar sign means "dollars". You spell out "dollars" if you've spelled out the number, "twenty-one dollars", and not if not, "$21". You use decimal cents only if there is an amount nearby formatted that way: "This costs $10.50 and that costs $21.00". By the way, this is style, not grammar.--Milkbreath 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] You can write either "21 dollars" or "$21" (which is read as "21 dollars"). It is incorrect to write "$21 dollars" because that expression includes the word or symbol for "dollars" twice.  Marco polo 01:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When numerical amounts get into the millions or larger, it is common (though slightly informal), to combine "million" and larger numbers in words with a multiplier in digits. For example, "21 million" instead of "21,000,000" or "twenty-one million"; "2.1 million" (pronounced "two point one million") instead of "2,100,000" or "two million, one hundred thousand".  In the case of dollar amounts, these amounts are treated like amounts that are entirely in digits: you would normally write "$21 million" or "$2.1 million". --Anonymous, 05:50 UTC, October 23, 2007.


 * I've heard that in material meant to be read aloud, e.g. on radio, it's common to write "$21 [dollars]" to save the reader a bit of effort that might impede the flow. &mdash;Tamfang 19:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * While it is possible that the written form "$21 dollars" is used in teleprompters and scripts to be read for broadcast, that form never appears in print. It is nonstandard. Outside of broadcast scripts, it should not be used.  Marco polo 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I would have expected "twenty-one dollars" to be used in material meant to be read aloud. —Angr 21:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You also might want to consider qualifying just what type of 'dollar' you are using (presumable US, but could easily be another national dollar). I think some use USD for US dollars. So 21 USD. Personally i was taught the style that says write-out numbers below 10 and then above that use them as digits so '21 dollars' would be correct and 'two dollars' would be correct (not '2 dollars'). This was certainly the way I was taught in school ny156uk 23:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You write out numbers above nine if they are in the same sentence with written-out numbers below ten. Like that. Writing out only single-digit numbers is journalistic style and a good rule of thumb. Chicago wants the numbers from one to a hundred spelled out in non-technical contexts. That's all for numbers as such, but dollar amounts follow their own rules. --Milkbreath 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Assuming you mean US Dollars, USD 21 is the international standard (see ISO 4217) so you should use this format if you want to be completely unambiguous. 130.88.79.2 12:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When "someone commiting an action" is used as a noun instead of a verb, should "someone" be possessive?
The chrysanthemum tea my cousin left in the toilet, and Helen mistaking it for urine, became a standing joke in the school? OR The chrysanthemum tea my cousin left in the toilet, and Helen's mistaking it for urine, became a standing joke in the school?

(I know I suck at making example sentences) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.10 (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The possessive form is perfectly fine, but is probably considered a little mannered or outdated these days. It might even raise some eyebrows, and given that it's becoming obsolescent, it might even confuse some readers.  Writers who know their grammar generally have no qualms with using the non-possessive form.  --  JackofOz 04:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to disagree with my esteemed Australian colleague. "Helen's" is right in my world (USA), though you do hear the other all the time. It seems to me that "Helen" has become normal in Britain, though I can't prove that, but here it still sounds a lot like bad grammar to some people. Without the possessive, we have a compound subject consisting of "tea" and "Helen", which is not what we mean. It is "tea" and "mistaking", and whose mistaking is it? Helen's. I've overlooked the problem of sense in the sentence in the interests of grammar.
 * This "rule" runs into problems sometimes, and it's sometimes better to drop the possessive. A good test is to ask yourself whether you'd use the possessive if the noun were a pronoun, though that falls through with "her". If it had been Harry instead of Helen, I'd say "his mistaking it" every time. There are Brits for whom "him mistaking it" would be perfectly natural.  --Milkbreath 10:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, some of us (Brits) are happy with either. Bazza 12:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On re-reading it, I think there is indeed some room for compromise. However, I think the ultimate test is whether the "Helen" version would ever be misinterpreted.  I don't think it would be.  I'm not saying that you should be able to get away with just anything that the listener/reader wouldn't misinterpret.  Eg. I would never sanction "He didn't hear nobody say nothing", even though it's pretty clear what was meant.  But in the case in question, since the "Helen" version is found "all the time", it seems that usage trumps grammar.  My only (belated) concern with the "Helen" version is that it's ungrammatical, but for other reasons.  To wit - and I acknowledge the questioner admitted it's not a great example - the phrase "and Helen mistaking it for urine" would sound more natural, to me at least, as "which Helen mistook for urine".  But maybe that's getting away from the point of the question.  --  JackofOz 13:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, in the final analysis, the answer is "whatever". But I might suggest that in a garden-variety case like this one, if you don't go with the possessive more people will notice it than would if you had. --Milkbreath 13:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We'll probably never know, and it may depend on where in the anglo world you are and exactly who you're talking to, but I kinda doubt that, Milkbreath. We're noticing it now because we're focussing on it, but if you slipped either of these sentences surreptitiously into a conversation, I really don't think the other party would think there's anything amiss with either of them.  In a written context, for the reason I stated at the outset - the obsolescence of the "Helen's" version - that version might (depending on the style used in the text) be more likely to hit the reader in the eye than the "Helen" version.  And anything that causes the reader to stop reading and wonder, even momentarily, what the writer is on about, detracts from whatever the narrative might be and puts the focus onto the writer.  That's a Bad Thing, in my books.   --  JackofOz 15:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would take a great deal more study than I'm willing to devote to determine the current state of this conundrum. All I can say with certainty is that, for me, the form without the possessive is a clinker in the run-of-the-mill case, betraying a certain disdain for or ignorance of logical grammar. I always notice it. The possessive is available, and it resolves the sentence, so why not use it? I don't hear it as antiquated at all, although, as I've said, in some cases it is overnice. --Milkbreath 16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to confuse things a bit, I'd say both are perfectly fine because they're different things, aren't they? "Helen mistaking it for urine" is Helen doing something, whereas "Helen's mistaking it for urine" is a mistaking of tea for urine that happens to be Helen's. I mean, I could put a comma in "Helen, mistaking it for urine" but not in *"Helen's, mistaking it for urine".--Rallette 14:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I never could buy that argument. What became a standing joke was her mistake, her having made the mistake. In the sentence I just typed, "her" could not be "she" because that would change the meaning. --Milkbreath 15:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rallette, when you add the comma in "Helen, mistaking it for urine," you've changed mistaking from a gerund (which is what it's been in all of the discussion above) to a circumstantial participle. If it is meant as a gerund (that is the mistake became a joke and not Helen) it is essential to delete the comma before "became."  Otherwise, use two commas, and you've got a participle, and Helen herself is the joke.  Wareh 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fowlers' The King's English (1906) was adamantly pro-genitive, calling the other the "fused participle". Otto Jespersen demonstrated that many great authors had used "fused participles", prompting H. W. Fowler's famous rejoinder "I confess to attaching more importance to my instinctive repugnance for without you being than to Professor Jespersen's demonstration that it has been said by more respectable authors than I had supposed.". (i.e. "I don't care, I know I'm right"). Both The Columbia Guide to Standard American English and The American Heritage Book of English Usage have no problem with "fused participles". the aue faq shows it can sometimes lead to ambiguity. ("Basil dislikes that woman wearing shorts"). jnestorius(talk) 15:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a better example? Another reason for Japan starting the war in the Pacific was the rise of militarism in Japan? OR Another reason for Japan's starting the war in the Pacific was the rise of militarism in Japan? We use British English here but we're not good in English. I don't know what a gerund is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.121.36.10 (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a better example (although it would really only work in writing, because when speaking, "Japan's starting" sounds very close to "Japan starting", so the listener might miss the subtlety and you'd have wasted your -'s. Unless you almost over-pronounce "Japan's" - but that would lead to an unnatural break in the flow of the sentence).  But apart from that, I'd still say that either version is acceptable these days.  Naturally, my lactic friend is free to disagree.  --  JackofOz 06:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * * looking up from his bowl of Froot Loops* Yep. Let's talk about formal writing like you'd find in a scholarly journal so we're all on the same page. If we don't want to jar the reader, we have to maintain consistency. I don't think anybody would claim that the possessive is never necessary. Take "Japan('s) retaining the Emperor led to political confusion" or "The question of their/them retaining the Emperor caused controversy even in Japan." Later in the article we might see "There were concerns about MacArthur('s) taking command." This is the borderline case, but consistency demands we go with the possessive. Sez me. Of course, "The problem with generals(') managing a country is their militaristic outlook" has even me vacillating. I think it's a judgement call, and that in formal contexts it is still better to go with the possessive when you can.
 * The article cited above doesn't really have no problem with the fused participle. It is a good brief discussion of this topic, and it uses a "usage panel" drawn from all walks of life to pass judgement on the different cases, expressing relative acceptability as a percentage of the panel—the only sensible approach in my book. They are never unanimous, so I don't expect to convince anybody here, and I don't mind being in the minority from time to time, either. The other link just makes an empty pronouncement that I see as a kowtow to the rabble. That sounded snobby, didn't it? OK, an abdication of their responsibility to maintain high standards in English. --Milkbreath 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... I might accept your thesis that formal writing demands a higher standard, but the original query was about a sentence involving chrysanthemum tea, toilets and urine, so .... As to whether the possessive is never necessary, I did say in my first response that writers who know their grammar generally have no qualms with using the non-possessive form.  In this particular case, it was fine, imo.
 * Btw, is "The article cited above doesn't really have no problem with the fused participle" an example of the high standards to which you refer? I had to read it a couple of times to get what you were saying and convince myself you hadn't used a double negative; while it ultimately made sense in the context of the foregoing discussion, it did stop me in my tracks for a while.  A good example of the Bad Thing I referred to earlier.  :)  --  JackofOz 00:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Touché! En garde. --Milkbreath 00:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Same sense?
Do all the following sentences carry the same sense or do they differ? if they differ then at what level do they differ? Like at the level of sense, or just the structure or whether it is some intention or intonation etc..

1. Were it not for the Sun, we couldn't live at all.

2. If it weren't for the Sun, we couldn't live at all.

3. But that it is for the Sun, we couldn't live at all.

4. But for the Sun, we couldn't live at all.

5. Without the Sun, we couldn't live at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.53.9 (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Without a fine-tooth-comb, yes -- they are all saying the same thing -- more or less, by and large. That is, yes -- they all get the same general idea across.  I am not so sure that # 3 has correct grammar, though.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 07:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC))


 * All, but one of them convey the same meaning and tone to me. #3 isn't very grammatical. Hmmm...didn't see the duplication above. Clarityfiend 07:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So are these sentences replacable with one another. 196.12.53.9 07:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not quite. 1, 2, 4, and 5 don't differ in meaning, but they differ in tone. (#3 makes no sense.) I suggest that you avoid writing #1 or #4; they sound very formal, but this clashes with the informal contraction "couldn't". Also, the phrase "But for the Sun" in #4 gives the impression that it was written more than fifty years ago. #5 is the least formal, but it is fairly interchangeable with #2.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest something simpler and punchier: "Without the sun, there would be no life." Or "There would be no life without the sun." --Eriastrum 18:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They all say the same thing, but with different implications. #1 is somewhat more poetic-sounding, and might be the best if it's part of a poem. #2 and #5, as mentioned above, are less formal; they're also more easily understandable so might be best for prose. #4 is somewhat awkward, but is most similar to #1. As for #3... huh? Pyrospirit  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 22:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Really. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned that.  3 doesn't make any sense.  Corvus cornix 01:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest omitting 'at all'. Brrk.3001 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since both "it" and "the sun" are singular, the second phrase should read: "If it wasn't for the Sun, we couldn't live at all." - Mgm|(talk) 11:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In standard British English, yes. Americans can still use the subjunctive mood in cases like this, so "weren't" is right in the USA. Some Americans would say "wasn't", and that would be right, too, though probably a little less common. --Milkbreath 11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)