Her grandmother - well, that's her issues, and her loss.

Absolutely. I feel lucky that my grandparents are/were all pretty liberal and accepting of differences. Either side could have been the type to cling tightly to the notion of "people like us," coming from opposite ends of the class spectrum -- on the one side, they were poor and white in Texas, and on the other side, they were well-to-do (at least) and definitely upper class (fancy doctors and lawyers) in New England.

Hey friends, grammar help needed. "Neither the terms of Section 741(8) nor the Court’s prior Opinions limits [the interpretation of x to y]"

Limit or limits?

Limit, I think. "Terms" is the subject there.

My whole problem with the class article is that the woman profiled seems to think it's all based on economics, ignoring environment, education, and culture. I get why it could be helpful at a local level for teaching and understanding your students, but her genralizations leave a lot out. For example, I would think most poor/working-class immigrants would not fit into her analysis of food preparation at all.

My mother grew up dirt poor, and not just because she was living under the Occupation. In fact, my grandparents let one of my aunts be brought up (and later adopted) by the bourgeois family in town to give her a better chance.

8 of my Dad's siblings didn't go to college. He and my uncle did because of the GI bill. So most of my relatives here were farmers, but, because of my Dad's job, I was exposed to the uber-rich throughout my life. Yet, because my Dad grew up on a farm, we always grew our own fruits and vegetables and ate them throughout the year.

By our income, we were certainly middle class, but our practices wouldn't fit her model at all. We didn't have a lot of "things" but I grew up in a 10-room colonial (which we didn't own) with parents who argued over the value of Bach (Mom) vs. Beethoven (Dad). Mozart being relegated to the back burner by all.

And the people I've met in academia and publishing (both of which pay sh*t) certainly wouldn't fit her middle-class parameters, primarily because of their education.

It depends whether you consider "neither" as singular or plural. You'd say "neither one limits", I think.

Neither terms nor options limit.

And the people I've met in academia and publishing (both of which pay sh*t) certainly wouldn't fit her middle-class parameters, primarily because of their education.

I've thought about this over the years, and I'm pretty sure my best friend from college's parents made almost the same salaries my parents did. But my parents were a consultant and a political appointee, and hers were an office manager for anesthesiologists and a physical plant manager. My family was definitely more upper class than hers, which I definitely attribute to education and expectations. She was the first generation in the family to go to college, and even my grandmother has a college degree.

Hmm. If it is an arguable grammar point, I might leave it as is, since partner and client have already approved.

Last week at work, baby!

Patricia T. O'Connor says:

When both halves of the subject (the parts on either side of or or nor) are singular, so is the verb: Neither alcohol nor tobacco is allowed. When both halves are plural, so is the verb: Ties or cravats are required.

If you have a plural and a singular, the one nearer the verb should govern the verb: Neither the eggs nor the milk was fresh. Neither the milk nor the eggs were fresh.

A quick google turns up that "neither" is generally accepted to be singular in formal writing, though it often takes the plural in conversational language.