1

I received an e-mail from a person thanking me for my help when I had traveled to Germany. I would like to start my answer with the following phrase. Is it correct?

I'm glad I was of any help!

I do not need to be extremely formal, that's why I put the exclamation mark.

Kris
  • 37,386
Ian Liu Rodrigues
  • 113
  • 3
    We'd probably render this more idiomatically as "I'm glad I could help!" or "I'm glad I was able to help!". Thought, that said, there's nothing technically wrong with the way you originally phrased it. – Dan Bron Nov 25 '14 at 12:22
  • 2
    Or, alternatively, “I’m glad I could be of help”. The thing that feels most wrong in your sentence is any, which is usually restricted to questions, negatives, and cases where the emphasis is on “any[thing] at all, even minor [things]”. This isn’t really such a case, so it feels odd. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Nov 25 '14 at 12:25
  • 2
    Glad to be of help. (I'm is assumed and can be safely omitted.) Alternatively: Glad I was of help. – Joe Dark Nov 25 '14 at 12:29
  • Yes, you can. However, your intention in using any is not clear. It gives the sentence a particular meaning. If that's what you are trying to say, then it's fine. Can you add more detail? – Kris Nov 25 '14 at 12:49
  • @Kris My intention is to express gratitude and surprise, for this was my first presentation in this particular scientific congress, and yet I was able to help people. Also, I'm from Brazil if that matters ;-) – Ian Liu Rodrigues Nov 25 '14 at 12:56
  • Fine, it conveys quite the same sentiment: "my first presentation ..., and yet I was able to help." – Kris Nov 25 '14 at 13:02
  • I'm glad I was of some help! – Wayfaring Stranger Nov 25 '14 at 13:03
  • I would like to compliment you on your English, being a non-native speaker. – Kris Nov 25 '14 at 13:04

1 Answers1

5

No, you can't say that, because in such contexts any is a negative polarity item.

1: I don't have any money
2: I have some money
3: ? I don't have some money (very unlikely)
4: * I have any money (not valid)

Thus OP could reasonably say "I'm sorry I was not of any help", with explicit negation. Or more subtly, by introducing a conditional element "I'm glad if I was of any help". Note that although the negative polarity doesn't seem to be so "absolute" in conditional contexts, many native speakers would say "I'm glad if I was of some help" in that last example.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • It would further improve your very helpful answer if you added that NPIs also occur in interrogative information questions (as opposed to interrogatives functioning as requests, or suggestions): Do you have any ideas?, for example. – Araucaria - Him Mar 14 '16 at 14:22
  • @Araucaria: I know I picked up the term negative polarity item from John Lawler here on ELU, but obviously when I posted this I couldn't [be bothered to] find a similar earlier question featuring his answer. One has been identified now though, so I'm for closevoting. – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '16 at 15:04
  • ... Hold on a sec, there's till no reference with regard to NPIs about Questions. Interrogatives are an environment, like conditional antecedents, where we expect to find NPI's. So don't vote to close, but perhaps update your answer! Because the venerable Lawler's does not have this info in, and he's not generally up for updating his posts. – Araucaria - Him Mar 14 '16 at 15:14
  • @Araucaria: But he does include a link to (his own) summary of Negative Polarity Items (illustrated with *not) - complete with a list of Negative 'Triggers'* (illustrated with *any*). If all similar NPI questions were closed in favour of that one we could treat it as the "canonical" question for the usage. I don't suppose John would object if someone cut & pasted the entirety of his linked page into an answer there (accredited, obviously) - but even if that might be a bit ott, it could still be useful to give a slightly shorter summary on that page. – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '16 at 15:34
  • Which of the several pages that JL addresses NPIs on are we talking about? (He never seems to mention interrogatives, when he discusses NPIs.) – Araucaria - Him Mar 14 '16 at 15:35
  • 1
    @Araucaria: John's answer on the question cited in dup vtc's above has only a single link, to his own 1-page doc entitled *NPIs.pdf*. The second of 4 types of "Negative Trigger", headed Questions (overt and embedded) gives three examples Did you see anybody? How does anybody* stand this? I wonder how anybody stands this.* – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '16 at 15:48
  • Yes, but as you rightly say, it isn't written in any of the answers - which, it would be better if it did ... – Araucaria - Him Mar 14 '16 at 15:50
  • @Araucaria: I'm acutely aware that you're more au fait with such formal classification than me, but would you have thought to mention *embedded questions* in this context? I certainly wouldn't! All I'm saying is practically everything relevant to the issue seems to be either on the actual ELU page, or just one click away. And I think there would be no harm at all in extending John's answer text (or posting another) to include any particularly important points that should be made even more "visible". I'm all for reducing the total number of closely-related questions still kept open. – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '16 at 16:06
  • Yes, but I'd have avoided the issue in a short answer like yours by just saying interrogative clauses. However, I still haven't seen which of John's differently purposed NPI posts you're talking about. One click away wouldn't be considered adequate for any other stack answer (you'd just get reprimands warning of link rot). But it would take you about ten words to add interrogatives to your answer here! I'm not keen on fiddling with JL's posts, unless it's a typo. – Araucaria - Him Mar 14 '16 at 16:17
  • @Araucaria: Oh. Does my link to NPIs.pdf in the comment 4 above this one not work for you? It does for me. Anyway, my feeling is that since this question doesn't directly ask, for example, What are NPIs and Negative Triggers?, it would be a bit overbearing to throw in additional background information that doesn't directly relate to the question as asked. Unless the question is being "groomed" to be "canonical", in which case I'd say that original one is a better candidate. – FumbleFingers Mar 14 '16 at 16:27