I was proofreading a report for on the engineers I worked with, and I came across something that I’m not sure how to address. Consider the following two forms of the same sentence:
Ground elevations within the eastern drainage area typically are between 4% and 10%.
vs.
Ground elevations within the eastern drainage area are typically between 4% and 10%.
Wherever this type of sentence came up, the engineer invariably used the first form, which sounds awkward to me. I recommended using the second form, even though there’s nothing grammatically incorrect about the first.
I couldn’t come up with any consistent explanation for why I preferred the second form. In contrast:
Cats typically have pointy ears and long tails. Cats have typically pointy ears and long tails.
In this case, the second form sounds extremely bizarre, and gives the impression that “typically” is modifying “pointy” rather than “have”.
Are there are any rules of style that govern this sort of thing?
I don’t know the technical language for this, but it’s generally not good to wedge stuff between the verb and its object.
In your cat example, pointy ears may be typical of cats, but other animals have them, too. If you had said, “Tabby cats have typically M-shaped markings above the eyes,” that’s something you don’t find outside the tabbies, so the adverb can modify the markings.
Oh, dear. I have the feeling I’m overreaching, and that I’m confusing the issue.:smack: I should probably delete this, but I won’t.
Yes. The rule is: Avoid awkward-sounding constructions.
The problem is, with so many dialects, what sounds awkward to one person may not sound awkward to another.
But, generally speaking, English puts its modifiers in front of the modified word. On that basis, and barring some compelling reason to go a different way, I’d stick with Ground elevations within the eastern drainage area typically are between 4% and 10%. To my ear, that construction places emphasis on the word typically, which seems appropriate.
As an engineer who typically writes reports containing similar verbage, I concur with Knead to Know. The engineer is emphasizing the word typically, and that construction makes it stand out.
Except surely they meant the watershed slopes were 4% to 10%?
I think the difference lies in the predicative phrase. In the first case, the prepositional phrase “between 4% and 10%” is used as an adjective modifying the subject. Thus the phrase is a predicate adjective (describing the subject, introduced by the linking verb “to be”). The “typically” is modifying the predicate, not the subject
In the second case, the “pointy ears” are the predicate - namely, what the cats have. The “typically” here is modifying the subject, not the predicate.
To use more discrete examples, you would say:
Cats are typically furry. (typically modifying the furry)
vs
Cats typically eat food. (typically modifying the “cat”, not the “food”).
I know this is horribly, horribly prescriptive of me, but adverbs do a lot of things, but they do not modify nouns. In both examples you give, typically modifies are.
:smack: My 6th grade grammar teacher is probably rolling in her grave right now. My point still stands (corrected) though, in one typically is modifying the verb, in the other, the adjective.
Yes. This is what happens when I get interrupted in the middle of writing example sentences. There were a couple sentence constructions like this in the report that I had in mind. One involved a range of elevations and the other involved typical grades. My brain forgot which I was talking about when I sat back down to write the predicate half of the sentence.
The problem isn’t that it’s horribly prescriptive. It just isn’t true. Sometimes, adverbs do modify nouns. (Examples taken from Huddleston and Pullum.)
I’m virtually his only friend.
I bought almost the last copy. (Compare to: I almost bought the last copy.)
A shortage internationally led to a rise in prices.
*Those aren’t the only two options. There’s also: Typically, ground elevations within the eastern drainage area are between 4% and 10%.
The confusion here is that typically isn’t modifying one small piece or another. It’s modifying the whole clause, which gives it a little more leeway about where you can put it. The cat example is different, because putting the adverb after the verb creates a miscue. (That, and there’s a fundamental difference between the verb “have” and the verb “be”). We think for a second that it might be intended to modify the adjective pointy, when in fact it’s modifying the whole thing. This can again be seen by sticking it at the front: Typically, cats have pointy ears and long tails.
This fronting can’t be done as fluidly with adverbs that modify smaller pieces. Compare:
In the OP, either is correct, you cannot come up with a meaningful difference between the two. Use whichever you prefer.
The cat example is a false analogy. The verb in the sentence is “has,” which is a typical verb meaning “to possess.”
However, the original examples have “is” as the verb. This is a linking verb, and that makes all the difference in the world. For instance, they do not have direct objects – they have predicate nouns or adjectives or phrases. A linking verb does not change meaning when the adverb is moved. The fact that Hellestal can come up with another example also is due to the fact that you’re using a linking verb. You can also use:
Ground elevations within the eastern drainage area are between 4% and 10%, typically.
To use dactylic hexameter’s example (the only one using a linking verb):
Cats are typically furry.
Cats typically are furry.
Typically, cats are furry.
Cats are furry, typically.
All say exactly the same thing. You may prefer one or the other, but that’s a different issue.
This is completely correct and needed saying. In my first post, I didn’t comment on this distinction beyond a throwaway parenthetical remark. Even so, it’s worth making clear the distinction between adverbs that modify clauses and adverbs that modify smaller pieces.
Cats are typically furry.
Cats typically are furry.
Typically, cats are furry.
Cats are furry, typically.
This stuff is all good, and it all says the same thing. Whereas, the next examples…
Cats are wondrously furry.
Cats, wonderously, are furry.
Wondrously, cats are furry.
Cats are furry, wondrously.
In the first, there’s no question: wondrously modifies furry. How furry are they? Wondrously furry. You might could get away with the other three examples in certain contexts if you were talking about what a wondrous weird wild thing it is that cats are furry. But there’s no question that those sentences convey a different meaning from the first. They’re modifying the whole clause, not just a part of it.
I disagree. In your first example, “wonderously” does not describe how furry the cat is. There is no way to objectively define “wonderous”; it describes the speaker’s opinion, and all four sentences say the same thing: “I think a cat’s furriness is wonderous.” The word does not describe the cat’s fur at all – just your opinion of it. Saying “wonderously” modifies “furry” is incorrect. (And using wonderously in the first place is to start out with an awkward sentence).
But “typical” is not a matter of opinion; it’s a fact (i.e., “furry” describes most cats).
Virtually modifies the adjective “only” here, not "friend.
"Almost modifies “last,” here, not “book.”
This is just grammatically wrong, or, at best, has an elided verb. In any case, it’s not a grammatically correct example of an adverb modifying a noun.
“Typically” modifies “are” in that one.
What makes it easy is that there aren’t any other verbs, adectives or adverbs intervening betrween the verb that it’s modifying.
This is correct. The confusion occurs because it’s unclear whether “typically” is modifying the verb or the adjective.
Funny, but really, the difference is that in the second sentence, “hard” can be read as an adjective, not just as an adverb.
I looked up the H&P reference (a cite including more than just the authors’ names would have been helpful). First, these examples are not of adverbs modifying nouns; H&P assert that adverbs modify noun phrases, a slightly different animal. Although H&P make a statement, they don’t really delve into their rationale for it. I am not a professional grammarian, and I didn’t even take English in college but I agree with Diognese, to wit:
This argument becomes clearer if you omit a single word in each noun phrase, still leaving a noun phrase but rendering the adverb nonsensical:
I’m virtually his friend. (Doesn’t work unless you mean you know him in “Second Life” ;))
I bought almost the copy.
I don’t think you can provide an example of an adverb modifying a noun phrase if that noun phrase does not contain an adjective or adverb modifying the noun, and I would therefore conclude that it is the adjective or adverb that is actually being modified.
My intent was just to make clear that I wasn’t pulling these examples out of my ass. I was prepared to cite book and page number on request, but I honestly didn’t think it would be necessary. And I did note the entire modified NP with the underline, not just the noun. Perhaps I should’ve made that clearer, but I was going for a brief treatment. It’s a fair point to make, though, that NPs that include adjective modifiers are a different beast from bare nouns (NPs with no complements, or only a determiner).
If you want to argue that it’s only modifying a part, rather than the whole, then… Well, go ahead. That’s a bit too anti-authoritarian for my taste, but this distinction isn’t especially important to me, since the third sentence I provided was an unequivocal example of an adverb modifying a noun. As it turns out, Diogenes even denied that example, but he’s completely wrong on that one, whereas his criticisms of the first two could be seen as valid from a certain perspective. The example:
A shortage internationally led to a rise in prices.
The sentence is not ungrammatical, and there is no elided verb.
I’m not going to spend another hour of my life hashing out substantive notions of grammatical correctness (at least, not if I don’t have to), so I’ll just throw out again the best explanation I’ve seen of the topic. This particular structure fits how English speakers speak English. In Standard English, adverbs can sometimes be used as post-head modifiers of nouns. That is the way people write and speak, even in formal contexts. It’s not terribly common, but it’s still not a mistake. Similarly, there is no understood verb that has been dropped. Those situations must typically be understood in context. “Have you ever been to Mexico?” “I have.”
The response to the question is unclear if you don’t know what was asked. There’s no such problem with the example sentence. It is unambiguous even without further context because there’s no missing verb or adverb or adjective. The adverb modifies the noun directly. Adverbs generally don’t do that, but sometimes they can.
That’s not even remotely relevant. An adverb can express an opinion and still modify a single word.
Cats are comfortably furry.
*Comfortably, cats are furry.
There’s no way to objectively define “comfortable”; it describes the speaker’s opinion, and yet you can’t reasonably argue that this adverb is modifying the entire sentence. But beyond that, there’s also a clear difference in comparatives: adverbs modifying clauses can’t be compared.
Dogs are wondrously furry.
Cats are more wondrously furry than dogs.
Wondrously, dogs are furry.
*More wondrously, cats are furry than dogs.
The exact same set of words, but one is grammatical and the other is not because they are modifying different things. The fronted adverb is a little awkward, but the problem with that last sentence goes far beyond a touch of awkwardness. It just isn’t right because the comparison doesn’t work. We need more wondrously to modify furry, not the whole clause, to repair it.
That’s easy to assert, but incorrect. It is either ungrammatical or contains an elided verb. Those are the only two choices. “internationally” in that sentence cannot modify “shortage.” at best it modifies “shortage’s” (elided) existence. At worst it’s ungramattical. All of your cited examples rely on adjectives or verbs to work, and none of them would make any sense if you removed those parts and left only the nouns. Yes, you can say they’re modifying whole clauses, but the adverbs are still dependent on the existence of the verbs and adjectives within those clauses and make no sense without them.
I wasn’t trying to be snarky, but I *did *want to see the context of the examples.
Funny you should say that because I started wondering why it mattered at all, as long as everyone agrees the sentence is a grammatically valid construction. Past that it sort of turns into angels dancing on the head of a pin.
but I agree with Diognese, to wit: