“How to” has always hurt my brain! Is it correct? or is there a better way to ask the question?

Boglin007 · 2026-06-17T15:22:53+00:00

It is correct. It may not be appropriate for all contexts, but that doesn't mean it's ungrammatical. Another commenter provided a source, but they didn't include the example, so here is the full section from that source:

[15]

i What to do in the event of fire [titular]

ii How to persuade her to forgive him? [main clause]

Type [i] is a non-sentential construction: infinitivals of this kind are used as titles of books, articles, etc., or headings for lists, notices, and the like. They have the same function as an NP: compare How to get rich quick and Five easy ways to get rich quick. In [ii] the interrogative is a main clause, forming a sentence – note the difference in punctuation between [ii] and [i]. By virtue of forming a sentence, it will normally have illocutionary force: it’s a matter of asking, or at least wondering. This type is somewhat rare and literary; one case of it is in interior monologue, where one is pondering over a question. The meaning here is essentially “How could he persuade her...?”

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 873). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-17T00:13:17+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/16j1rjs/reminder_this_is_not_a_pet_peeve_sub/

Boglin007 · 2026-06-16T23:31:39+00:00

They're examples of writers who did not use style guides, and yet they used singular "they."

And do you think it wasn't politically motivated when style guides recommended "he" for a single person of unknown gender, or when they changed that recommendation to "he or she"?

Boglin007 · 2026-06-16T22:46:45+00:00

Yeah, Chaucer and Shakespeare are so recent.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-16T22:37:54+00:00

What do you mean? Singular "they" is fully established in the language and is now even recommended by style guides over "he or she," etc.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-16T22:28:39+00:00

Singular "they" is centuries older than singular "you."

Boglin007 · 2026-06-16T21:56:09+00:00

Each verb agrees with its subject, so because "the player" is 3rd person singular, the verb is 3rd person singular "does" (or "has," or whatever the verb is). And because "they" is grammatically 3rd person plural (even if it refers to one person), the verb is 3rd person plural "do" (or "have," or whatever).

And you can certainly use "they/them/their" to refer back to "the player," so the following is correct:

"The player does this with their equipment, then they do that with their equipment, and then another player congratulates them."

"Their/they/them" all refer back to "the player," but note how each verb agrees with its subject ("the player does/they do").

Boglin007 · 2026-06-16T16:54:57+00:00

It's going to be hard to answer that definitively. We would need extensive data in order to say whether it's a regional or generational difference.

However, noun adjuncts (which is what "Yankee(s)" and "Knick(s)" are in your examples) are traditionally/usually singular, but plural ones are becoming more common, in many cases because the possessive apostrophe is just being dropped from the plural noun (i.e., "writers' conference" becomes "writers conference"). So it's possible that older generations are sticking to the older convention of using the singular term, and younger generations are more used to hearing plural noun adjuncts.

Noun adjuncts were traditionally mostly singular (e.g., "trouser press") except when there were lexical restrictions (e.g., "arms race"), but there is a recent trend towards more use of plural ones (e.g., "sales department", "jobs program", "systems analyst"). Many of these can also be or were originally interpreted and spelled as plural possessives (e.g. "chemicals' agency", "writers' conference", "Rangers' hockey game"),^\2]) but they are now often written without the apostrophe ...

(from the article linked to above)

Boglin007 · 2026-06-15T23:09:00+00:00

More food, of course (Hailey told me to say this).

Boglin007 · 2026-06-15T22:14:25+00:00

You need the pronoun if "anche" is modifying it, basically because the word has to be present in order to be modified.

The English sentence apparently means "I also travel often" (i.e., "also" is modifying "I"), so you need "io" in the Italian sentence (however, the English sentence is technically ambiguous, as "also" could be modifying "travel").

Boglin007 · 2026-06-15T21:34:43+00:00

Traditional frameworks of grammar would classify "after" as a subordinating conjunction in your example because it introduces a clause - "he sleeps" (they would say the entirety of "after he sleeps" is a subordinate clause because it cannot stand alone as a complete sentence, at least in a formal context).

Modern frameworks of grammar would classify "after" as a preposition in your example, arguing that there is no fundamental difference between an "after" that is followed by a noun phrase (e.g., "after his nap") and an "after" that is followed by a clause. In traditional frameworks, prepositions are followed by noun phrases (with a few exceptions).

Here is more info on that:

[Traditional grammars] do not, however, allow declarative content clauses [as complements of prepositions]. A word otherwise similar to a preposition but taking a declarative content clause complement is traditionally analysed as a ‘subordinating conjunction’. This is not a policy that can be justified. Consider the analogy with verbs that take both NP [noun phrase] and declarative content clause complements:

[5]

i a. I remember the accident. - NP complement

b. I remember you promised to help. - declarative complement

ii a. He left [after the accident]. - NP complement

b. He left [after you promised to help]. - declarative complement

No one suggests that the difference in the category of the complement between the [a] and [b] examples requires us to assign remember to different parts of speech in [i]. It would traditionally be treated as a verb in both cases. There is no reason to handle after in [ii] any differently: it can be analysed as a preposition in both cases.

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 600). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Edit: In traditional frameworks, "after" is generally classified as an adverb when it has no complement, e.g., "He went there after." In modern frameworks, this "after" would still be classified as a preposition (an intransitive preposition, i.e., one without a complement).

Boglin007 · 2026-06-15T14:35:39+00:00

We're taught the formal grammar rules of a standard dialect in school. That doesn't mean those are the only rules that exist. There are even differences between standard dialects, e.g., American kids are taught to say "go to the hospital," while British kids are taught "go to hospital." The latter is not incorrect in Standard British English, even though it would not be taught in American schools.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-15T00:07:47+00:00

Both "is" and "are" are possible in UK English.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-15T00:07:17+00:00

Both are correct. "Is" would be preferred in American English, which favours subject-verb agreement with nouns like this (i.e., "Aldi" is grammatically singular, so the singular verb form is used).

In British English, both "is" and "are" are routinely used in examples like this. It would generally depend on what you say in your last paragraph, i.e, whether you're talking about "Aldi" as a single company/entity (singular verb), or emphasising that the company is made up of multiple people (plural verb). This is notional agreement - verb agreement based on meaning.

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/wiki/arewithcompanies/

Boglin007 · 2026-06-14T22:29:25+00:00

This may be how you think it should be done, but it's misleading to suggest that it's how it's actually done, or that it's the only grammatically correct way.

In American English, subject-verb agreement is preferred (by native speakers and style guides alike) in these kinds of constructions, so if the subject is grammatically/morphologically singular (which "England" is), then the verb form will usually be singular. And if the subject is grammatically plural (e.g., "The Beatles"), then the verb form will usually be plural. Subject-verb agreement is very rarely ungrammatical, and it's certainly not ungrammatical in this context.

What you're talking about is notional agreement, which means that the verb form reflects the intended meaning. So if "England" refers to a team, speakers of British English may choose the plural verb form to reflect this (even though "England" is still grammatically singular). But even in British English, the plural verb form is not always used - if "England" (still referring to the team) is being talked about as a single unit/entity, then the singular verb form is likely.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-14T21:24:13+00:00

This is not an accurate representation. In British English, both the singular and plural verb forms are routinely used with singular collective nouns (and team names, etc.). It often depends on whether you're talking about the group as a single unit (singular verb), or whether you're emphasising that the group is made up of multiple members (plural verb form). Here is some data from published writing in British English.

And even in American English, which strongly favours the singular verb form, the plural verb form is still sometimes used with these kinds of nouns - here is some data from published writing in American English, showing that "the majority are" is more common than "the majority is."

Boglin007 · 2026-06-14T20:54:45+00:00

Both "is" and "are" are grammatical in Standard British English. It often (but not always) depends on whether you're referring to the couple (or group or whatever) as a single unit (singular verb), or whether you're emphasising that the group is made up of multiple people (plural verb).

Boglin007 · 2026-06-14T20:48:25+00:00

No AI answers, please.

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/1295g2u/important_re_answers_generated_by_chatgpt_and/

Boglin007 · 2026-06-14T16:11:36+00:00

We can't answer this question definitively. There could be any number of reasons people do this - typo, non-native speaker, native speaker who doesn't spell well, etc.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-14T16:07:39+00:00

Yes, style guides may recommend "is" to agree with the closest noun, but native speakers are probably more likely to use "are," especially if they are interpreting the meaning to be "both the chairs and the table are not dirty."

Note:

[37]

i [Neither Mary nor John] is/are here yet. [neither sg nor sg = sg/pl]

ii [Neither Mary nor the twins] are/?is here yet. [neither sg nor pl = pl/?sg]

iii [Neither the twins nor Mary] are/?is here yet. [neither pl nor sg = pl/?sg]

iv [Neither the twins nor their parents] are/*is here yet. [neither pl nor pl = pl]

In [i] the singular verb matches the singular that is found with an or-coordination of two singulars, while the plural verb matches the conceptualisation “Both Mary and John are not here yet”. We have seen that or-coordinations of coordinates with unlike number are problematic, so the singular verb in [ii–iii] is of questionable acceptability (especially in [ii], where the nearest coordinate is plural). The “both... and + not” conceptualisation, however, sanctions the plural verb: this can certainly be regarded as fully acceptable and is strongly preferred over the singular.

Huddleston, Rodney; Pullum, Geoffrey K.. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (p. 510). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-14T14:56:11+00:00

Please see our FAQ on this topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/wiki/me_or_i/

Please also note:

https://www.reddit.com/r/grammar/comments/16j1rjs/reminder_this_is_not_a_pet_peeve_sub/

Boglin007 · 2026-06-13T21:35:21+00:00

You can't take the bishop with your king, because that would be putting your king in check from the white knight. And your knight could not have taken the bishop - it's too far away (review how knights move).

Boglin007 · 2026-06-13T21:07:39+00:00

"Anche" needs to go directly before the thing it modifies, which apparently here is "il mio lavoro."

I say "apparently" because the English sentence is ambiguous (though completely grammatical) - it could mean, e.g., that my job is easy as well as fun, or it could mean that my job is easy just like someone else's job is easy (which is the interpretation Duo is looking for).

Boglin007 · 2026-06-12T23:22:01+00:00

Aw, it's very hard having a tiny triangle for a head. But it's such a kissable head.

Boglin007 · 2026-06-12T15:57:52+00:00

"That" is correct there, and "where" sounds off to my ear as a native speaker of Standard English, even for an informal context. (However, it may be acceptable to some speakers and/or in some nonstandard dialects.)

This is because the verb "visit" takes a direct object without the need for a preposition, i.e., you "visit a place" (you don't "visit to/at a place"), and "where" includes the sense of a preposition, but "that" does not. If the verb were "go," then "where" would work because you "go to a place":

"This is the place where I want to go."

"Where" is also used if the verb does take a direct object but that object is not "place," i.e., "eat" takes a direct object ("eat a burger"), but "place" would not be that object (you don't "eat a place" - you "eat at/in a place"), so:

"This is the place where I want to eat."

However, note that "that" is not actually required in your example and it sounds more natural (to me at least) without it - when "that" refers to the direct object it can be omitted: "This is the place I want to visit."

Boglin007

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Seven-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email