Boris B - I think that I agree most closely with your idea. I guess that the sentence construction (again):
“Bush is yet to lose a southern state primary.”
sounds wrong to my ears but NOT unfamiliar. And as for the word “yet” - I agree there is very little difference between it and “not yet” - although, ironically, “not yet” sounds more optimistic to me.
Still, I vote for “has” - even if “is” and “to” form “will” when removing the word “yet”. As in, “Bush will lose a …” = “Bush is to lose a …” = “Bush will not lose a…” = “Bush is not to lose a…” = “Bush will soon lose a…” = “Bush is yet to lose a…”
Okay, I now feel like one of those English majors I used to mock in college!
Even if I had a signature, I doubt I’d have room for it.
Either “has this proper grammar” or “is this proper grammar” is correct.
On the subject of grammar, may I just say, apostrophes are not generally used to make plurals. The only time they are (and I don’t think they should be then either) is if all of the letters of the word being pluralized are caps. Example: one CD, two CD’s, although I see nothing at all wrong with “two CDs.”
On the subject of apostrophes not generally being used, my grade 12 English notes on Grammar contradict that. They are used for Possesive and Plural Possesive terms.
Ex. Plural: Boys
Possesive: Boy’s
Plural Possesive: Boys’
The apostrophe is making a possessive, not a plural. The plural (boys) is made without an apostrophe. The possessive forms of both the singular (boy’s) and plural (boys’) have apostrophes. There is no plural non-possessive that requires the apostrophe.
Dee da dee da dee dee do do / Dee ba ditty doh / Deedle dooby doo ba dee um bee ooby / Be doodle oodle doodle dee dohhttp://members.xoom.com/labradorian/
The “is to” construction is common enough. (ex.: “John is to go to Vancouver next month to meet with potential investors.”) What makes the OP example a bit unusual is the presence of that adverb (yet), which is more commonly found in the “has yet to” construction suggested as a better alternative. The “is to” construction suggests some sort of imperative (I mean imperative in the sense of the context of the action being described, not in the grammatical sense), which is lacking in the “has yet to” construction; though curiously it is present if you take out the “has”: “John has to go to Vancouver next month…” vs. “John has yet to meet with his potential investors.”
As an editor, I would probably have changed this to “has yet to…”, but I don’t think the example is absolutely wrong.
Dee da dee da dee dee do do / Dee ba ditty doh / Deedle dooby doo ba dee um bee ooby / Be doodle oodle doodle dee dohhttp://members.xoom.com/labradorian/
Dee da dee da dee dee do do / Dee ba ditty doh / Deedle dooby doo ba dee um bee ooby / Be doodle oodle doodle dee dohhttp://members.xoom.com/labradorian/
I was trying to be specific on when apostrophes should and shouldn’t be used. You are correct, they should not be used simply to make something plural. Possesive terms are not automatically plural, although apostrophes are used for possesive plural, just not in the same location as possesive terms.
This is all making my head start to spin. I am at a complete loss for how I managed to get a 98% on my grammar test. I’d better stop now while I still remember my name.
Actually, I wrote “Has this proper grammar?” sarcastically and so that dopers would be more likely to read the question (because though that question can be argued to be correct, it sounds wrong just like the “Bush” sentence).
My take on plurals: the English have taken the initiative to remove apostrophes and periods from short words. For example, CDs, ATMs, Mr Underwood, abbrev, etc (.) It sure makes reading newspapers and magazines easier on the eye.
Even if I had a signature, I doubt I’d have room for it.
“Has this proper grammar” is positively, absolutely correct. Absent other context, it assumes the subject “this sentence” and is in that a properly constructed question. I don’t think it can be successfully argued to be wrong, for it isn’t. No doubt it sounds erudite to some and pedantic to others, but it is not wrong.
“Bush is to lose an election” is a determinative(?) statement about the future, semantically parallel to “Bush will lose an election.”
“Bush has yet to lose an election” is a definite statement about the (recent) past leading up to and including the present time.
“Bush is yet to lose an election” SOUNDS like an attempt to make a definite statement about a current state. (“Bush is,” because of its use of the ‘be’ verb, addresses existence or the current state of affairs.) What is Bush? “Yet to lose an election.” Excuse me? It parses as an attempt to describe Bush as existing in a “yet to lose” state - which may be acceptable by the sloppy thinking standards of our time, but which is grammatically incorrect.
Summing, then:
“Bush is to lose” - future statement.
“Bush has yet to lose” - description of events leading to present.
“Bush is yet to lose” - apparent attempt to describe a currently extant state.
The first two are fine, the last both technically wrong and inacceptably sloppy. It may derive from the acceptable construction “Bush is not yet an election loser,” but it doesn’t inherit acceptability from said construction. It’s wrong, and they and their editor should know it.
Unless corrective-surgicaly joined at the hip, neither would be correct. Surgery would necessary recompose the body. Solution: Have you herd that I heard sheep.
