Keep your subject and verb close

Together forever.

A simple way to add clarity to your writing is to keep the subject and verb of a sentence close together. When they are separated by a lot of other words, readers have to hunt for the words that belong together. This can be especially confusing if the extra words include other verbs.

Bad Good writers, no matter how much they like to interrupt themselves with a verbal diversion, imagine a magnet between subject and verb. 

Good Good writers imagine a magnet between subject and verb, no matter how much they like to interrupt themselves with a verbal diversion.

Here's another example, this one from, ironically, the federal government.

The natural word order of an English sentence is subject-verb-object. This is how you first learned to write sentences, and it's still the best. When you put modifiers, phrases, or clauses between two or all three of these essential parts, you make it harder for the user to understand you. 

Consider this long, convoluted sentence: 

If any member of the board retires, the company, at the discretion of the board, and after notice from the chairman of the board to all the members of the board at least 30 days before executing this option, may buy, and the retiring member must sell, the member's interest in the company. 

In essence, the sentence says: The company may buy a retiring member's interest. All the rest of the material modifies the basic idea, and should be moved to another sentence or at least to the end of the sentence.  

Remember boys and girls, Big Brother is watching you write.

Is anyone checking their speeches?

"Grammar and style were problems for most speakers at both party conventions, alas, but a bipartisanship of low standards is not good. The president said, for example, “when you pick up that ballot to vote [what else would you do with it?], you will face the clearest choice of any time in a generation.” Strike “of any time,” please. I’m reminded of his speech a few years ago when he hailed ordinary Americans’ “doing their business.” He meant “attending to.” Has he never walked that expensive dog of his?"

-- Charles Kesler

Hopefully you will read this

Because I had to memorize The AP Stylebook when I joined that organization a lifetime ago, I perk up when I see references to it. Seems The AP has yielded to the great unwashed on the meaning of "hopefully."

Grammatical purists have insisted that the correct meaning is: “In a hopeful manner.” As in, “ ‘Surely you are joking,’ the grammarian said hopefully.”

Now, according to the AP, it's okay if we use it in this sense: “It is hoped, we hope.”

The battle is joined. Monica Hesse of The Washington Post asserts: "The barbarians have done it, finally infiltrated a remaining bastion of order in a linguistic wasteland."

Maeve Maddox, who has taught English and blogs as the American English Doctor, counters: "When it comes to crimes against the language, using hopefully to mean “it is hoped” is a long way from the equivalent of murder."

Maddox says we should keep our powder dry for such offenses as:

• I’ve made reservations for Megan and I.
• The chancellor will talk about he and his wife’s relationship with the governor.
• Why don’t you let your father and I talk.
• Me and my friends attend Cal-Tech.
• The suspect told police that him and another man shot the store owner.
• They’re 100% identical as theirs.
• This is something we probably should have did right after 9/11.

I'll grant that those are worse. But hopefully if we draw the line at hopefully we won't be forced to relent on those.

Hopefully you won't read this

On Tuesday morning, the venerated AP Stylebook publicly affirmed (via tweet, no less) what it had already told the American Copy Editors Society: It, too, had succumbed. “We now support the modern usage of hopefully,” the tweet said. “It is hoped, we hope.”

Previously, the only accepted meaning was: “In a hopeful manner.” As in, “ ‘Surely you are joking,’ the grammarian said hopefully.” 

This is no joking matter.

You know these kinds of arguments. 

You know them well. Linguistic battlefields are scattered with the wreckage left behind by Nauseated vs. Nauseous, by Healthy vs. Healthful, by the legions of people who perpetuated the union between “regardless” and “irrespective,” creating a Frankensteinian hybrid, “irregardless.” 

These are the battles that are fought daily between Catholic school graduates, schooled in the dark arts of sentence diagramming and self-righteousness, and their exasperated prey. They are fought between prescriptivists, who believe that rules of language should be preserved at any cost, and descriptivists, who believe that word use should reflect how people actually talk. 

“It was an unconscious mistake,” say the descriptivists. 

“You mean subconscious.” 

“Well, anyways — ” 

“You mean anyway.” 

“That begs the question. Why do you care about grammar so much?” 

“No. It doesn’t! It doesn’t beg the question at all. It raises the question. It raises the question!” 

“I’m going to beat you subconscious.”

Hopefully, you will bite me.

Clip and hang on your refrigerator

(Grammarly. Thanks, Carolyn.)

You shoont opened this blog

Realizing she shoont.

My insane and dear (which describes most of them) friend Rick asked me this morning, "Is shouldn't a contraction?"

"Yes."

"So is shouldn't've a double contraction?"

"Must be."

"Is a double contraction legal?"

"In some states."

"What is a double contraction?"

"That's when a woman is really, really about to have a baby."

"No, that's when a woman is about to have twins."

Rick had me there. So, as it developed, shouldn't've is a contraction of should not have.

"But," Rick says, "my wife contracts that to shoonta." As in, "You shoonta taken a nap."

Most important things in life revolve around naps.

"Maybe there's yet another contraction waiting," I said.

"Shoont," Rick said.

"You," I said, "shoont have started this conversation."

We should all be sprachgefuhl

It's a mouthful of a word, but palpable.

sprachgefuhl / shprahk-gê-ful / noun

feeling or sensitivity for language and the correct use of gramma

"Shakespeare's plays reflect not only a profound understanding of the human condition but a sprachgefuhl for phrasing and word selection."

Yeah, me too.

Dr. Goodword gives us the history: Sprachgefuhl was plucked by linguists part and parcel from Modern German, where Sprache means "language" and Gefühl, "feeling" from the verb fühlen "to feel". Sprache and English speech share the same origin, as do fühlen andfeel. Since the Germanic [f] comes from Proto-Indo-European [p], we find in Latin, as expected, a related verb, palpare "to feel, stroke gently", from which English palpable comes. Since we feel first and foremost with our fingers, the Russian used this stem for their word, palec "finger".

A whole new strain of bad writing

Ben Yagoda, professor of English at the University of Delaware, dissects this hypothetical bit of writing, which illustrates errors that are all too common these days:

For our one year anniversary, my girlfriend and myself are going to a Yankees game, with whomever amongst our friends can go. But, the Weather Channel just changed their forecast and the skies are grey, so we might go with the girl that lives next door to see the movie, "Iron Man 2".

Here's what's wrong.

1. There should be no comma after "But."
2. The period after "Iron Man 2" should be inside the quotation marks around the title (which would be italicized in most publications, including The Chronicle).
3. No comma is needed after "movie."
4. "Its," not "their," is needed with "Weather Channel."
5. "Whomever" should be "whoever."
6. "Myself" should be "I."
7. "Girl that" should be "girl who"
8. "Gray" is the correct spelling, not "grey."
9. "Amongst" should be "among."
10. "One year anniversary" should be written as "one-year anniversary," but, really, "first anniversary."
11. It's a "Yankee," not "Yankees," game.

Read it all.

Your call is very important to us

Right.

The Economist's language blog, Johnson, has an amusing look at this all too familiar phrase.

NEAL WHITMAN of Literal-Minded:

“Your call is very important to us. Please stay on the line and your call will be answered in the order it was received.”
I stayed on the line, cleaning up the kitchen one-handed while I waited. By the time I was speaking to a real person, I had listened long enough to have heard the message at least five more times... It was really starting to get to me …

Did you get what was starting to get to Mr Whitman?  I'd have said the absurd lie that "your call is very important to us" repeated over and over while you are inconvenienced by being kept on hold. But he noticed something else that I missed the first time:

You’re missing the final in!, I kept thinking... you have more than one option for what to do with the in. You can leave it stranded at the end, the same way as you’d leave it at the end of the house I grew up in. Or you can take the in along with order, and put them both at the front of the relative clause.

But you shouldn't just abandon it. This phenomenon was noticed as far back as Ernest Gowers, the usage-book writer who called it preposition "cannibalism" in 1954. Mr Whitman notices that the preposition is more likely to get cannibalised by its exact likeness: the in in "in the order" eats the in that should be found in "in which it was received". It sounds wrong to our ears, it seems, to hear in twice so close together, so much so that some people don't notice the preposition sitting there cleaning its teeth after devouring its twin.

Fun with plurals

A learned reader corrected me on a recent post on another blog, which I titled "The amazing story of a bacteria." Bacteria is plural, he wrote, and bacterium is singular.

I knew that, and all the dictionaries will tell you that. However, my ear told me that using the singular would sound like a reference to just one of the little buggers, and I was referring to a species. So it sounded right to use the plural. Technically speaking, I suppose my friend was right.

However, I did find a few references that suggest otherwise. Here's a question posed at a place called Physics Forums.

When you say species of cat, you say exactly that, cat, not cats, the singular, don't you? There seems to be a mixture when it comes to bacteria. Some sources say species of bacteria, others speices of bacterium. Would you say "How many species of cats are there?" or "How many species of cat are there?" It seems, when it comes to bacteria, the plural is used in this case.... Peculiar! Anybody got any ideas??? 

Here's one answer.

I suppose it's because Bacteria is the name of the family (or in this case domain) which is normally given as a plural. So you would say - how many species of the family Felidae are there. But bacteria is also used as a singular in everyday speech anyway. Plus this is English - there aren't any rules, well there are but you are allowed to make up your own anyway. 

Another:

Species is both singular and plural, so it depends. If you are asking about a species of cat, then you're talking about one species. If you ask about species of cats, then you're asking about more than one species. Though, biologists are more typically going to ask about species of felids.

And here's something I found on the pages of John Lindquist, who is on the instructional Laboratory Staff, Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Bear with me. I'll never post on this again. Lindquist:

To refer to members of a given genus in the plural sense, using Bacillus, Micrococcus and Mycobacterium as examples, one cannot change the genus name directly to a plural form. Bacilli, Micrococci and Mycobacteria would be improper. To get around the problem, one can write such as the following: "species of Bacillus," "isolates of Micrococcus," "strains of Mycobacterium." If the genus names were to be reduced to common forms (made into conventional English words, not capitalized, italicized or underlined), then plural alteration would be valid, as follows: bacilli, micrococci, mycobacteria. Use the term "bacilli" with caution; this term (depending on context) can mean rod-shaped cells in general or members of the genus Bacillus more specifically. [Emphasis mine.]

I have no idea what that means, so I'm going with the guy who wrote, "This is English - there aren't any rules, well there are but you are allowed to make up your own anyway."

I'll also go with Samuel Clemens, my final arbiter on everything, who said:

"I like the exact word, and clarity of statement, and here and there a touch of good grammar for picturesqueness."

And added for good measure:

"I am almost sure by witness of my ear, but cannot be positive, for I know grammar by ear only, not by note, not by the rules. A generation ago I knew the rules--knew them by heart, word for word, though not their meanings--and I still know one of them: the one which says--but never mind, it will come back to me presently."

That's me. The rules were drilled into me in the eighth grade by Miss Schindler (who had taught my father) and in the 12th grade by Miss Whitton (who had taught my father), and somehow I know them but not by name, and like Mr. Clemens, I can't remember how I got into all this in the first place.

The power of parallelism

Here is an easy way to add strength to you writing. Your readers will bless you for it, because it makes it easier on them.

Parallel construction, in the words of William Strunk, "requires that expressions of similar content and function should be outwardly similar. The likeness of form enables the reader to recognize more readily the likeness of content and function."

Wrong: Formerly, science was taught by the textbook method, while now the laboratory method is employed.
Right: Formerly, science was taught by the textbook method; now it is taught by the laboratory method.

Strunk: "The first version gives the impression that the writer is undecided or timid; he seems unable or afraid to choose one form of expression and hold to it. The second version shows that the writer has at least made his choice and abided by it."

By this principle, an article or a preposition applying to all the members of a series must either be used only before the first term or else be repeated before each term.

Wrong: In spring, summer, or in winter
Right: In spring, summer, or winter (In spring, in summer, or in winter)

Red flags: Correlative expressions (both, and; not, but; not only, but also; either, or; first, second, third; and the like) should be followed by the same grammatical construction.

Wrong: It was both a long ceremony and very tedious.
Right: The ceremony was both long and tedious.

I would've if I could've

Reader Elaine, The Grammar Lady, notes in a comment:

Avoid the use of "would have" in "if clauses" expressing the earlier of two past actions. Use the past perfect.

Wrong: If he would have worked harder, he would have made the honor roll.

Right: If he had worked harder, he would have made the honor roll.

Wrong: If I would have thought of it, I'd have called you.

Right: I'd never dream of calling you, you shmuck. (Sorry, editor's license.)

--Warriner's Grammar: The Complete Course

Solecism sweepstakes

A solecism is something perceived as a grammatical mistake or absurdity, or even a simply non-standard usage. The word was originally used by the Greeks for what they perceived as mistakes in their language. Ancient Athenians considered the dialect of the inhabitants of their colony Soli in Cilicia to be a corrupted form of their own pure Attic dialect, full of "solecisms."

Here are some common solecisms.

• "This is just between you and I" for "This is just between you and me" (hypercorrection to avoid the common, nonstandard "you and me" form in the predicate of copulative sentences, despite the fact that "me" is the standard pronoun for the object of a preposition)
• "He ain't going nowhere" for "He isn't [or "he's not"] going anywhere" (dialectal usage; see "ain't")
• "He's the person whom I believe is the fastest" for "He's the person who I believe is the fastest" (hypercorrection resulting from the perception that "whom" is a formal version of "who" or that the relative pronoun is functioning as an object in the dependent clause when, in fact, it is a subject, with the predicate "is the fastest"; contrast "whom I believe to be the fastest," in which "whom" is the object of "I believe")
• "Irregardless" for "regardless" (nonstandard usage from analogy with constructions like "irreverent," "irrespective," and "irrevocable," where the negative prefix "in-" changes to "ir-")
• "The woman, she is here" for "The woman is here" (nonstandard usage with the double subject "she")

Score yourself one point for each one you hear today. Give yourself two points for each one you catch yourself using. Score 100 points for correcting your boss when he utters one.

Good luck with your job search!

How to not sound dumb

Jean Rupp, author of Grammar Gremlins: An Instant Guide to Perfect Grammar for Everybody in Business, lists some common grammatical mistakes:


David Doberman and me will meet at 8:00 a.m. Thursday.
Confusing I and me is a sure way to demonstrate your lack of grammatical skills. Use I when you do something ( I do the job); use me when something is done to or for you ( The job was done for me). Correct: David Doberman and I will meet at 8:00 a.m. Thursday.

If you have any questions, please call John, David, or myself. Never, never use  myself as a substitute for me. Use  myself reflexively (I thought of it  myself), or use it if you do something to yourself (I cut  myself). Correct: If you have any questions, please call John, David, or me.

I like the suggestion which Jack submitted.
That introduces a restrictive (defining) clause or phrase -- it is essential to the meaning of the sentence. Which introduces a non-restrictive (non- defining) clause or phrase. It is non-essential information. (Example:  I like Jack's suggestion, which everyone already knows). Generally, you will use commas with which. Correct: I like the suggestion that Jack submitted.

Who did you select to conduct the seminar?
Who or Whom? Follow these simple guidelines. Use  who when  he, she, they, I, or  we could replace the who. They are all nominative case. Use whom when  him, her, them, me, or  us could replace the  whom. They are all objective case. Still confused? An easy way to ensure (or is it  assure or maybe  insure?) that you are using the right form is to rearrange the sentence like this:

 Whom did you select to conduct the seminar? (objective case) I selected  him to conduct the seminar. (objective case)

Correct: Whom did you select to conduct the seminar?

I feel badly about not getting the speaking engagement.
Use  bad (the adjective) after feel or after verbs dealing with the senses — taste, touch, sight, sound, smell. (Example: Yuk! This food smells bad and tastes bad.) Use  badly (the adverb) with action verbs. Therefore, if you are wearing gloves, you will hinder your sense of touch and you will  feel badly. Look at it this way. If my dog, Fred, smells  bad, I need to give him a bath. If my dog, Fred, smells  badly, he has a defective nose.  Correct: I feel bad about not getting the speaking engagement.

Marv Ellis is the more competent of the five speakers we interviewed.

Use the comparative form  more when referring to two persons, places or things. Use the superlative form  most when referring to three or more. Correct: Marv Ellis is the more competent of the five speakers we interviewed.
   
The new series of management classes look interesting.
The verb  look must agree in number with the subject, which is  series. More often than not, writers mistake  classes for the subject. Classes is a part of a prepositional phrase;  series is the simple subject—a singular, collective noun that requires a singular verb. Don't let modifying words that come between the subject and the predicate confuse you. Correct: The new series of management classes looks interesting.

Sometimes a person gives up on an exercise program because they don't have time for it.
Even careful writers sometimes allow this naughty Grammar Gremlin to encroach upon their messages. A pronoun must agree in number, person, and gender with its antecedent (the word for which the pronoun stands). Correct: Sometimes a person gives up on an exercise program because he or she doesn't have time for it. Correct: Sometimes people give up on exercise programs because they don't have time for them.

The general manager will introduce himself to the new employees on Tuesday, December 12th.
Don't let this troublesome Grammar Gremlin slip onto your page. When the day follows the month, use a numerical (  1, 2, 3, 4, etc.). Don't add  -st, -nd, or -th to the number. However, when they day precedes the month, you can write it in either a numerical ( 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.) or as a word ( first, second, third, fourth, etc.) Correct: The general manager will introduce himself to the new employees on Tuesday, December 12.

We need to schedule the conference room, write an agenda, and it must be sent to all employees.

The parallel structure in this sentence is off balance. Careful writers must use similar grammatical structures for similar ideas. Correct: We need to schedule the conference room, write an agenda, and send it to all employees.

Five quick rules

From Stan Hoffer at Playing in The Word Farm:

1. If it “goes without saying” then don’t say it. If it doesn’t, in fact, go without saying, then don’t say it does.

“Obviously, the sky is blue.” Putting the “obviously” doesn’t suddenly make the statement insightful.

2. True or false: a comma must precede any use of the word “and”?

FALSE. Commas should only precede and, but, for, or, nor, so, or yet when they introduce an independent clause. For example, “We laid out our music and snacks, and began to study.” Placing a comma after “snacks” is incorrect. The subject of the sentence has not changed, “we” still “began to study.”

An example of correct comma use: “The game was over, and the crowd began to leave.” The game and the crowd are different subjects and the clauses are independent. The crowd could still be leaving regardless of what is happening with the game.

A comma can also precede “and” when it is used in a list of three or more items. However, in a list it is entirely optional and called an “oxford comma”.

3. Once upon a time, the English language had a way to modify both nouns and verbs. Adjectives did the trick on the former and adverbs on the latter. You didn’t just have to walk, you could walk quickly!

Adverbs modify verbs. For example, you accomplish a task with ease. What do you say?

WRONG: I can do that easy!
RIGHT: I can do that easily!

You accomplish a task with more ease than your colleagues. What do you say?

WRONG: I can do that easier than they can.
RIGHT: I can do that more easily than they can.

4. Et cetera: a useful Latin-derived tool for shortening lists. However, unless you are a lawyer, using it (and especially overusing it) can make you sound unprofessional.

If you must, use it once. A second or third occurrence in the same document essentially says, “I really don’t know what I’m talking about, so I’ll just jam etc. on the end and try to pretend I do!”

Another et cetera mistake is using it when you should use “et al.” Listing a set of objects? Use etc. Listing a group of people? Use et al. It also is derived from Latin and means “and others.”

5. Some people seem to think that throwing an “i.e.” into a paragraph makes them look smarter. Unfortunately, most of those people are using i.e. to mean “for example.”

WRONG: “I have sold many products, i.e. washing machines.” This doesn’t make any sense.

i.e. is an abbreviation of the Latin words id est, literally translated as “that is.” In English, i.e. is used synonymously with “namely.” It specifies and limits.

e.g. is also a Latin abbreviation but of the words exempli gratia, meaning “for example.” E.g. implies, “This is one of several possible options.”