Post: #1

There are many ridiculously good writers on this website, both known and unknown. I figured everyone, from veteran writers to newbies who never paid attention in elementary or middle school, could use their help in answering any grammar related questions in this thread.

I'll start.

Could some please explain which of the following sentences makes more sense and why?

1) variance from market performance was due to post-IPO integration costs
2) variance from market performance was due to the post-IPO integration costs

I have noticed more and more asking myself whether I need "the" in most sentences but at a cursory glance it seems to make sense both ways. However, if one way is more correct than the other I'd like to know.

Post: #2

gramer is 4 colludge peepol.

Post: #3

I think effective grammar focuses on reducing redundancy. This particular example is subtle, but in my opinion revolves around redundancy. All things equal it is usually best to get the message across as simply as possible.

A little trick I've always used for the "due to" phrase is to replace it with "caused by". If the sentence still makes sense you are using it correctly.

If you replace "due to" with "caused by" in that sentence the addition of "the" seems unneccessary. I'd say option 1) is best, but it comes down to style. I still understand what both sentences are saying.

Post: #4

alphaspiraton Wrote:Could some please explain which of the following sentences makes more sense and why?

1) variance from market performance was due to post-IPO integration costs
2) variance from market performance was due to the post-IPO integration costs

I have noticed more and more asking myself whether I need "the" in most sentences but at a cursory glance it seems to make sense both ways. However, if one way is more correct than the other I'd like to know.

I don't have any specific rule off the top of my head why this is the case as I'm not a fancy grammarian type, but...

If that's all you're saying, I would use option 1. Both are correct but there's no need for the "the" before "post-IPO" because you're not talking about particular post-IPO integration costs, but post-IPO integration costs in general.

... google ...

Okay, so I looked this up out of curiosity and it confirms what I was trying to explain with an example but couldn't easily articulate, since as I say I rarely cite or specifically apply rules of grammar:

Quote:Definite Article: the

The definite article is used before singular and plural nouns when the noun is specific or particular. The signals that the noun is definite, that it refers to a particular member of a group. For example:

"The dog that bit me ran away." Here, we're talking about a specific dog, the dog that bit me.

"I was happy to see the policeman who saved my cat!" Here, we're talking about a particular policeman. Even if we don't know the policeman's name, it's still a particular policeman because it is the one who saved the cat.

"I saw the elephant at the zoo." Here, we're talking about a specific noun. Probably there is only one elephant at the zoo.

My opinion is you should leave it as the general case, without "the", until you want to discuss more details about specific costs. But both are still correct and accurate given the information.

Post: #5

Building upon weambulance's reply, use "the" if contrasting such costs to other potential factors already mentioned (as in, between the costs and regulatory hassles, it was the costs that caused the variance). Omit "the" if you intend merely to explain that such costs were the factor (without contrasting to other potential factors) else it would be overly specific.

Example:
"Shareholders might wonder what caused the variation. It was integration costs.", vs. "Shareholders might wonder whether integration costs, regulatory hassles, or some other factor caused the variation. It was the integration costs."

Post: #6

People are right, option 1 is correct. As weambulance posted, it is about general vs. specific things.

It is like asking, which is correct?

I like milk.

or

I like the milk.

This is a very common mistake among Latin American English language learners.

Post: #7

It doesn't help that English is unusual in that we don't always require articles before our nouns.

Spanish: la leche
French: le lait
German: die Milch
English: milk.

Post: #8

(02-12-2017 05:15 PM)Hoser Wrote:  It doesn't help that English is unusual in that we don't always require articles before our nouns.

Spanish: la leche
French: le lait
German: die Milch
English: milk.

^^ That's precisely why it is a common mistake. I can almost guarantee any student will make that mistake at least once in a lesson, unless they are a very advanced speaker.

Post: #9

I wonder if native English speakers do the same thing learning Russian, considering how often Russians speaking English omit articles, e.g., "Have nice day." Not a part of their sentence construction, apparently.

Post: #10

Recommended book: AP Manual of Style. It'll sort out lots of grammar and editorial issues specifically in regards to journalistic writing.

Post: #11

My English on fleek... I gots my GED

Post: #12

I posted something last night in the Muscle Barbie thread that I have a feeling is not right, it was along the lines of...
"I bet she's packing a steroid clit that she could beat whales to death with"

Some distant memory from English class tells me that I shouldn't end a sentence with "with" and it probably should have read...
"I bet she's packing a steroid clit that she could use to beat whales to death"

Is that correct? Is it a rule or are there exceptions?
Other examples:

"She's never going to honestly admit how many men she's slept with"
"Would bang, but she's not someone I could ever imagine myself living with"
"Any RVF members in [location]? I'll be in town for the weekend and I'm looking for someone to hit the clubs with"

Post: #13

(02-12-2017 10:43 PM)Tex Cruise Wrote:  I posted something last night in the Muscle Barbie thread that I have a feeling is not right, it was along the lines of...
"I bet she's packing a steroid clit that she could beat whales to death with"

Some distant memory from English class tells me that I shouldn't end a sentence with "with" and it probably should have read...
"I bet she's packing a steroid clit that she could use to beat whales to death"

Is that correct? Is it a rule or are there exceptions?
Other examples:

"She's never going to honestly admit how many men she's slept with"
"Would bang, but she's not someone I could ever imagine myself living with"
"Any RVF members in [location]? I'll be in town for the weekend and I'm looking for someone to hit the clubs with"

You're probably thinking of the "rule" that says you shouldn't end sentences with prepositions. You can read a lot more about that at the following link:

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/...positions/

In short, what you said was fine, especially since you were using colloquial English, not writing an academic paper.

If I was going to rephrase it, I would say "I bet she's packing a steroid clit with which she could beat whales to death" but you can see that sounds a bit stilted.

Post: #14

(02-04-2017 07:57 AM)alphaspiraton Wrote:  Could some please explain which of the following sentences makes more sense and why?

1) variance from market performance was due to post-IPO integration costs
2) variance from market performance was due to the post-IPO integration costs

You lost my interest when none of that included anything about beer or tits.

Post: #15

(02-13-2017 01:06 AM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(02-04-2017 07:57 AM)alphaspiraton Wrote:  Could some please explain which of the following sentences makes more sense and why?

1) variance from market performance was due to post-IPO integration costs
2) variance from market performance was due to the post-IPO integration costs

You lost my interest when none of that included anything about beer or tits.

1) She winked at BrewDog as she raised a can of PBR and poured it over her chest. BrewDog licked his lips as beer flowed down between her big, juicy tits.

2) She winked at BrewDog as she raised a can of PBR and poured it over her chest. BrewDog licked his lips as the beer flowed down between her big, juicy tits.

Something like that?

Post: #16

Who versus whom.

Post: #17

(02-13-2017 02:14 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  Who versus whom.

Who* = subject of a sentence or the person/actor who does something.

Whom = direct/indirect object(the person or thing that is acted upon by the subject or received an action from the subject.

Example: Patty pegged her cuck husband Greg.

Patty did the action, she is subject and could be replaced by the pronoun who. Greg was pegged, he received(heh) the action from the subject making him the direct object and as such could be replaced with the pronoun whom(or with Chad from down the block depending on how horny Patty is).

Or if someone calls you and you don't know the caller, technically the correct way to ask is "Whom am I speaking with?" or "With whom am I speaking?" Not who. Who is you. The caller is being spoken to and as such is direct object.

*Everyone in the US born past 1992 thinks these words are interchangeable synonyms.

Post: #18

(02-13-2017 06:02 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:14 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  Who versus whom.

Who* = subject of a sentence or the person/actor who does something.

Whom = direct/indirect object(the person or thing that is acted upon by the subject or received an action from the subject.

Example: Patty pegged her cuck husband Greg.

Patty did the action, she is subject and could be replaced by the pronoun who. Greg was pegged, he received(heh) the action from the subject making him the direct object and as such could be replaced with the pronoun whom(or with Chad from down the block depending on how horny Patty is).

Or if someone calls you and you don't know the caller, technically the correct way to ask is "Whom am I speaking with?" or "With whom am I speaking?" Not who. Who is you. The caller is being spoken to and as such is direct object.

*Everyone in the US born past 1992 thinks these words are interchangeable synonyms.

Even English professors get this wrong. It's one of those incessently pedantic rules no one really understands and is most likely on the way out.

For example, I remember in my first grade english studies that you don't put a comma at the end of a collection of things (ex: apple, orange and banana). I switched schools and the rule suddenly became apple, orange, and banana. So what is it? Apparently both, but someone changed it somewhere.

The real question is if you're using street (colloqial) english or trying to write a dissertation. If it's street english don't worry too much about rules like this.

When in doubt, paying a proof reader will do wonders for your work. They're cheap and can be readily found on that freelance website. English is constantly evolving especially with it being taught world wide. Apparently American english is rife with slang that confuses everyone. I realized this when I moved to europe.

Post: #19

(02-13-2017 06:23 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 06:02 AM)Goldin Boy Wrote:  

(02-13-2017 02:14 AM)Meat Head Wrote:  Who versus whom.

Who* = subject of a sentence or the person/actor who does something.

Whom = direct/indirect object(the person or thing that is acted upon by the subject or received an action from the subject.

Example: Patty pegged her cuck husband Greg.

Patty did the action, she is subject and could be replaced by the pronoun who. Greg was pegged, he received(heh) the action from the subject making him the direct object and as such could be replaced with the pronoun whom(or with Chad from down the block depending on how horny Patty is).

Or if someone calls you and you don't know the caller, technically the correct way to ask is "Whom am I speaking with?" or "With whom am I speaking?" Not who. Who is you. The caller is being spoken to and as such is direct object.

*Everyone in the US born past 1992 thinks these words are interchangeable synonyms.

Even English professors get this wrong. It's one of those incessently pedantic rules no one really understands and is most likely on the way out.

For example, I remember in my first grade english studies that you don't put a comma at the end of a collection of things (ex: apple, orange and banana). I switched schools and the rule suddenly became apple, orange, and banana. So what is it? Apparently both, but someone changed it somewhere.

The real question is if you're using street (colloqial) english or trying to write a dissertation. If it's street english don't worry too much about rules like this.

When in doubt, paying a proof reader will do wonders for your work. They're cheap and can be readily found on that freelance website. English is constantly evolving especially with it being taught world wide. Apparently American english is rife with slang that confuses everyone. I realized this when I moved to europe.

The comma rule is British English vs. American English. Both are correct. I think the Brits use the extra comma.

Post: #20

(02-13-2017 08:07 AM)Moto Wrote:  The comma rule is British English vs. American English. Both are correct. I think the Brits use the extra comma.

We don't as far as I'm aware.

Post: #21

I believe you're talking about an oxford comma, which is a comma used before the final part in a list of 3 just before the usual 'and'. For example;

I told my mother I'd like some apples, some oranges, and some pears.

Another very common mistake that Americans make is when they say 'I could care less'. That simply doesn't make sense if you are implying that you don't care- you should say 'I couldn't care less'.

Last on the list of ones I can remember off the top of my head is 'could of' or 'would of' instead of 'could have' and would have', though this is mainly in the UK I believe.

Easy tip to work out if you should use 'who' or 'whom'. If you were speaking about a specific male, would you use 'he' or 'him'? If you would use 'he', use who. If you would use 'him', use whom. For example;

'I'm going to give it to him'- To whom are you going to give it?

'He loves to dance'- Who loves to dance here?

Post: #22

(02-13-2017 02:11 PM)britchard Wrote:  I believe you're talking about an oxford comma, which is a comma used before the final part in a list of 3 just before the usual 'and'. For example;

I told my mother I'd like some apples, some oranges, and some pears.

Another very common mistake that Americans make is when they say 'I could care less'. That simply doesn't make sense if you are implying that you don't care- you should say 'I couldn't care less'.

Last on the list of ones I can remember off the top of my head is 'could of' or 'would of' instead of 'could have' and would have', though this is mainly in the UK I believe.

Easy tip to work out if you should use 'who' or 'whom'. If you were speaking about a specific male, would you use 'he' or 'him'? If you would use 'he', use who. If you would use 'him', use whom. For example;

'I'm going to give it to him'- To whom are you going to give it?

'He loves to dance'- Who loves to dance here?

I could care less what a Brit thinks of my colorful english!

On a delightful note, I enjoy how much of my american slang isn't understood in England.

Post: #23

Delete (sounded smarter in my head than on screen)

Post: #24

"I could care less" and variations bug me just from a logical point of view. It's the exact opposite of what people think they're saying.

And I'm on team No Oxford Comma unless it's necessary for clarity.

I don't care that much about the Oxford comma debate--just be consistent within a piece--but it's funny how salty people get over it sometimes. I mentioned it at dinner once and one of the women there went on a thirty second rant about how the Oxford comma is the only correct way of punctuating a list.

Post: #25

^Agreed. The people who get uppity about such things have too much time on their hands and too little respect for themselves.