‘Graphics is’ vs. ‘graphics are’ – singular or plural?

There are many singular English nouns that end with an “s”, such as mathematics, physics, or politics. Those are typically names of certain fields of science or human activity.

The word “graphics” fits the above pattern. It can be used in the singular to refer to the field of graphic art or the process of making graphics:

Computer graphics is one of the fields you can choose to study. (correct)

Computer graphics are one of the fields you can choose to study. (dubious)

There is, however, one important difference. While there is no “one mathematic” and “one physic”, there in fact is “one graphic”. A graphic, apart from its traditional meaning of a drawing or a picture used as an illustration in a book or a newspaper, can also refer to a computer-generated image viewed on a screen. And here’s the catch.

When “graphic” refers to a computer-generated image, it is usually used in the plural (since what you see on your computer screen is a sequence of images, not just a static image). When people say that a computer game has good graphics, the intended meaning is usually the plural of “graphic”. In other words, most people would say:

This game’s graphics are really good. (correct, common)

On the other hand, some people refer to the process via which the graphics were generated, which would be the singular graphics:

This game’s graphics is really good. (possible but uncommon)

Such a sentence should be understood as “this game’s process of generating what we see is really good”, which also makes perfect sense. Be it as it may, it is much less common than “graphics are”, to such a degree that many native speakers would consider it to be an error. Hence, it is advisable to use the plural when speaking about a game’s graphics.

Read More

‘I am agree’ vs. ‘I am of agreement’ vs. ‘I agree’ in English

Saying “I am agree with you” is a common error among native speakers of Romance languages. For example, when you want to say that you agree with someone in Spanish, you would use the phrase

Estoy de acuerdo. = (literally) I am of agreement.

and there is no single Spanish verb having exactly the same meaning as the English verb “agree”. It is important to understand that “agree” in English already means the same as “estar de acuerdo”, not just “acuerdo”, so “I am agree” literally means

Estoy estar de acuerdo.

which is clearly not right.

Although “estoy de acuerdo” literally means “I am of agreement”, the latter is not used in English. Some learners try to improve on “I am agree” by saying “I am agreed”, which makes sense grammatically but which is unfortunately also not used. The correct form is:

I agree with you. (correct)
I am agree with you. (wrong)
I am of agreement with you. (unnatural)
I am agreed with you. (unnatural)

It is possible to say “to be in agreement with someone”, but this is rather formal and much less common than “agree with”:

I am in agreement with you. (possible, but fairly formal and uncommon)

Read More

‘Help do’ vs. ‘help to do’ vs. ‘help doing’ in English

Both “help someone do something” and “help someone to do something” are acceptable. The form without “to” seems to be more common in everyday speech than the form with “to” (especially in American English), but both forms are common in formal writing:

He helped me move to London. (correct, more common)

He helped me to move to London. (correct, less common in spoken language)

Some learners try to combine the -ing form we can find in other phrases (such as “go doing something”) with “help”, but this is unfortunately not correct:

He helped me (to) move to London. (correct)
He helped me moving to London. (wrong)

When you use “verb+ing” as a noun expressing a continuous process, it is possible to say “help in doing”, for example:

The truck helped in transporting the waste.

Finally, there is one phrase in which we do use “help doing”, namely “cannot help doing”. If someone “cannot help doing something”, they cannot suppress the need to do it. For example:

I can’t help thinking about her constantly. = I must think about her constantly.
I cannot stop thinking about her.

This idiom means the same as “cannot help but do”—we could also say, “I cannot help but think about her constantly.”

Read More

‘Interested in doing’ vs. ‘interested to do’ in English

Some English teachers claim that “interested to” is always wrong, but this claim is not substantiated by actual usage. The fact is, the forms “interested in” and “interested to” mean different things and are common even in very formal writing.

“Interested in” is used when referring to a thing you are attracted to or that you would like to do, for example:

I am interested in English literature.

This sentence means that you are attracted to English literature; you find it interesting and would like to know more about it.

On the other hand, “interested to” may be used when you want to obtain more information about a fact, as in

I’d be interested to see whether the new drug helps to cure the disease.

which means

I would like to find out whether the drug helps to cure this disease.

“Interested to” can be used only with verbs of perception and “knowing”, such as:

see, hear, read, learn, know, find out, …

When used in the past tense, the expression means “I found out about it and the information was interesting”, e.g.

I was interested to hear that she had divorced Peter.

which should be understood as

I found out that she had divorced Peter, and I found the information interesting.

In practice, “interested in doing” is much more common than “interested to do”, simply because people usually want to express interest in an activity, as in

I am interested in cooking. (correct)
I am interested to cook. (wrong)

When “interested” is used with a verb that is not a verb of perception, “in doing” is the only correct form. When the verb in question is a verb of perception, you should ask yourself, “Is it possible to replace ‘be interested to/in do(ing)’ with ‘want to find out’?” If the answer is yes, it is fine to use “interested to”; if it is no, you should always use “interested in”. For example,

I am interested to know why she committed the crime.

is possible because the intended meaning is “I am interested to find out why she committed the crime.” Note, however, that many native speakers use “interested to know” and “interested in knowing” in the sense of obtaining information interchangeably and could as well say

I am interested in knowing why she committed the crime.

while others find the second variant less natural and would only use “in knowing” when “know” is used in the sense of “have knowledge of”, as in

I am interested in knowing everything about the English language.

In this case, most native speakers would consider “interested to know” less natural.

Read More

‘Got’ vs. ‘gotten’ in English

Let’s not beat around the bush with a large number of linguistic terms; the difference between “got” and “gotten” is relatively simple. First:

If you learn British English, just use “got” and avoid “gotten” altogether.

There is no such word as “gotten” in British English, and perhaps the only British expression containing the word is “ill-gotten”, which is an adjective meaning “obtained illegally or unfairly”.

If you learn American English, the situation is slightly more complicated. The past tense of “get” is “got”, just as in British English, but you should remember that:

In American English, the past participle of “get” in its literal sense of “receive” or “become” is usually “gotten”. In the sense of “must” or “have”, the past participle is always “got”.

For example, in the first case (receive, become):

I have never gotten good grades. (= I have never received good grades.)
I’ve gotten interested in chess. (= I’ve become interested in chess.)

And in the second case (have, have to):

She’s got five children. (= She has five children)
I’ve got to go now. (= I must go now.)

Note that “have got” in the sense of “have”, “possess” is more common in British English and is often considered colloquial or even incorrect in American English. Also note that there are regional differences, and some Americans would prefer “got” in the first case as well. Nevertheless, the “gotten” form in the sense of “receive” and “become” is much more common.

Read More

‘Than I’ vs. ‘than me’ in English

There has been an ongoing debate whether the correct form after “than” is I, he, she, we, and they or me, him, her, us, and them. Consider, for example, the following three sentences:

1) Peter is smarter than I am.
2) Peter is smarter than me.
3) Peter is smarter than I.

Is any of them wrong? No. English has no regulatory body which could give a definitive answer to what is considered unacceptable. What matters is how people use the language, and all three forms are commonly seen in professional writing.

Smarter than I am is the most common form in formal writing. The reason is that probably all English speakers consider it acceptable, while there is a certain amount of controversy surrounding the other two.

Smarter than me is the most common form in spoken language and also the second most common one in English literature, so it can hardly be considered wrong. Don’t be afraid to use it. That’s just how the language developed.

Smarter than I has been traditionally understood as a short way of saying “smarter than I am”. Some grammarians argue that “than” is always a conjunction (like “so”, “while”, “because”, etc.) and what follows must be a whole clause, where the verb may possibly be implied; hence they argue that “than me” is wrong because “than me am” doesn’t make sense, and therefore one should say “than I”.

Nonetheless, the third form is the least common one of the three when we examine the existing body of modern English literature, and it is quite uncommon in spoken language, to such a degree that a great number native speakers would even consider “than I” to be an error. Thus, my personal recommendation is to avoid it altogether.

Cases when one of the variants is wrong

We have discussed the case when the compared things or people constituted the subject of the sentence and there was no object. However, consider the following situation:

Peter likes Laura, he likes also me, but he likes Laura more.

There are two ways to describe the situation:

Peter likes Laura more than he likes me. (correct, unambiguous)
Peter likes Laura more than me. (correct, somewhat ambiguous)
Peter likes Laura more than I. (wrong)

The third option doesn’t work here because the implied meaning would be that “Peter likes Laura more than I like Laura”, which is not what the sentence is supposed to mean. Similarly, if

John likes Amy. I also like Amy, but John likes her more.

there are again two ways to express the thought:

John likes Amy more than I do. (correct, unambiguous)
John likes Amy more than I. (correct, unambiguous)
John likes Amy more than me. (likely to be misunderstood)

The third sentence is not strictly speaking wrong; it follows the same pattern as example no. 2) at the beginning of the article. However, it is so likely to be misunderstood as “me being the object of John’s liking” that you should, ideally, never use it.

In conclusion, if there is a possibility of misunderstanding, the best solution is to use a subordinate clause (“than I do”, “than he likes me”), which is always unambiguous.

Read More

Irregular English verbs: -eave to -eft

There are only three English verbs that follow the pattern -eave /iːv/ → -eft /ɛft/, namely (listed as infinitive – past tense – past participle):

leave – left – left

bereave – bereft or bereaved – bereft or bereaved (see below!)

cleave – cleft, cleaved, clove, or clave – cleft, cleaved, or cloven (see below!)

Bereave means “to deprive of; to take away by death or force”. The past tense is usually “bereaved” when referring to the loss of a beloved person, and in this sense it is usually used in the passive as a (nominalized) adjective:

I expressed my condolences to the bereaved.

When used in another meaning, the customary past tense is “bereft”:

He lost all his money and was bereft of hope.

Cleave is a formal word meaning “to split something in two using a sharp tool or weapon” or “to move something quickly through something”. The past-tense form “clave” /kleɪv/ is now considered obsolete, although we can still find it in literature in biblical references. Also note that “clove(n)” is pronounced /ˈkləʊv(n)/ in the UK and /ˈkloʊv(n)/ in the US.

One relatively common expression with “cleave” used in historical contexts is “cleft in twain” (“twain” being an archaic form of “two”), as in:

The sword swooshed through the air and cleft his head in twain.

Read More

Irregular English verbs: -ake to -ook (take, shake, forsake)

A few English verbs follow the pattern -ake → -ook → -aken in the past tense. They are all derived from the verb “take”, apart from “shake”, and “forsake”. Here are the ones derived from “take”:

take – took – taken
mistake – mistook – mistaken
retake (“take control of something again”) – retook – retaken
overtake (“to become greater or more important than”) – overtook – overtaken
undertake (“take responsibility for and start doing”) – undertook – undertaken
partake (“participate”, “take a portion”) – partook – partaken
betake oneself (“go”) – betook – betaken

Note: “betake” is used with a reflexive pronoun, e.g. “he betook himself to his room” = “he went to his room”. The only other two verbs following the same pattern are:

shake – shook – shaken
forsake (“abandon”) – forsook – forsaken

Read More

‘Did he died’ vs. ‘did he die’ in English

The phrase “Did he died?” is a running joke in the comment sections of YouTube and similar websites. People use it when something mildly dangerous happens in a video (e.g. when someone trips over) because it is, presumably, funny.

The fact is, “Did he died?” is perhaps the most overused “joke” on the Internet, and although it may have been funny the first few times someone used it, I find it hard to understand why people still continue using it (Google alone returns about 10 million results for “did he died” as of March 2015). What I find worrying is that non-native speakers could easily pick it up and use it even in normal conversation, unaware that it is a joke (English learners often struggle with avoiding the past tense after “did”).

The origin of the phrase is unclear, but it probably started as a genuine error. Nevertheless, it is pointless to point out its ungrammaticality to the people who use it, since the error is usually intended. If you see someone using the phrase, you can simply ignore them; the only grammatically correct form is “did he die”:

But, did he die? (correct) 
But, did he died? (please, stop this nonsense)

Read More

‘Shall’ vs. ‘will’ in English

The traditional rule says that “shall” indicates the future tense for the first person (I shall, we shall), while “will” indicates the future tense for the other persons (you will, he will, …), but this rule should now be considered completely outdated.

“Shall” as a future tense marker is almost non-existent in modern spoken American English. It is still somewhat widespread in British English but is also falling out of use there. In either case, it is still moderately common in formal texts.

If you are an English learner, it is safe to say that you cannot make a mistake if you only use “will” as your future tense marker. Most native speakers (of both American and British English) prefer “will” anyway, and it will save you a lot of trouble analyzing when “shall” is appropriate.

However, “shall” also has a few idiomatic uses where it cannot be replaced by “will”. For example, it can express an order or a threat: shall-not

It is also quite common to use the phrase “Shall we?” as a polite way to say “let’s go” or “let’s proceed”, often accompanied by a hand gesture showing the intended direction. For instance, when you meet a friend of yours in front of a café, you can point at the door and say: “Shall we?” Such usage is not considered old-fashioned.

Nonetheless, apart from such idiomatic meanings, English learners shall be advised to use “shall” only in formal writing; otherwise you run the risk of sounding old-fashioned or pretentious, depending on your conversational partner’s dialect.

Read More