– Grammar

Posts related to Grammatical issues

Dependent Clauses and Commas

by

We’ve had so many questions regarding grammar that we’ve brought the topic back for another go around. This year we will begin with some of the rules that are pretty much set in stone. Later, we may come back to touch on some rules that are still in flux, but first we need to warn you about rules that aren’t really rules.

Don’t Follow the “Rules”

Before we get started going over some of the good rules, we want to discuss a few “rules” that you may have been taught in school but don’t really need to follow. The reason we still have those rules seems to be one of “teach what you’ve been taught”. You’ll even find that the folks who provide the software that you use to write your book have been following those useless rules, often suggesting that you change perfectly valid sentences into something that sounds vague, stiff, or inappropriate.

The whole difficulty started way back in the Victorian times when those teaching and codifying English thought that Latin was the be all and end all of languages. They did their best to transfer some rules from Latin into English. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), English isn’t Latin, so those “borrowed” rules just didn’t fit.

The sad thing is that for the past 200 years or so, English has been taught with those rules as if they were useful—they aren’t, and they just get in the way of effective communication. After all, isn’t that what languages are used for? If they don’t communicate the proper message, then they aren’t worth the time to learn.

We’ve mentioned a few of those “rules” over the past few years: Split Infinitives, Prepositions at the ends of sentences, Singular They, and we even touched on the use of punctuation around quotes. If you come across any other rules that don’t seem right, please let us know, so we can research, analyse, and report back.

When to Use a Comma with Dependent Clauses

Dependent clauses are wonderful things. They help us connect ideas to show relationships. In the examples below, we have two sentences that are both true individually, but they work better when the connection between the ideas is expressed. That is done by using a Subordinating Conjunction, making one clause dependent on the other.

  • Don arrives. I will jump.
    • When Don arrives, I will jump.
    • I will jump when Don arrives.
  • Fred trips. Fred will fall
    • If Fred trips, he will fall.
    • Fred will fall if he trips.
  • It will be warm. The sun shines.
    • It will be warm because the sun shines.
    • Because the sun shines, it will be warm.
  • You go. I will follow.
    • Wherever you go, I will follow.
    • I will follow wherever you go.

You’ll notice that the clauses can be put in either order…depending on your focus. You typically want the more important idea to be the last part the reader encounters. The key here is that when the clause with the subordinating conjunction comes first, we need a comma to show where that clause ends, so the next one can begin. If the clause with the conjunction comes last, then the conjunction acts as the separator between them. In class, you’ll often see the rule written on the board like this:

DC,IC or ICDC

Dependent clause first, use a comma.
Independent clause first, no comma.

Remember that, and you’ll be well on your way.

End of Sentence Prepositions

by

For the end of year posting, our topic is the end of something else: sentences. This is the third of our sticky ‘rules’ in English grammar, having already covered Singular They and Split Infinitives. When a sentence ends in a preposition (also known as Preposition Stranding), some folks get in an uproar, BUT we need to note a couple things before going overboard.

Let’s step back and figure out what all the fuss is about. Just by looking at the word, we can tell that a pre-position must come before something. (Some languages have post-positions that have to come after something, as well as circum-positions that go around something.) So, if it is supposed to go before something, how can it end up at the end of something…with nothing behind it? It can happen three ways: questions, relative clauses, and passives. Here are some examples:

  • What are you talking about? (You are talking about what?)
  • This is the book I told you about. (I told you about a book—and this is it.)
  • This bed looks as if it has been slept in. (It looks as if someone has slept in this bed.)

Some of those rearrangements sound pretty unnatural, so why do we think we aren’t supposed to end with a preposition? Let’s check out the background.

History

Preposition Stranding was perfectly natural in English long before anyone commented on it. Since early Anglo-Saxon times, terminal prepositions have appeared in the writings of Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare—they even show up in the King James Bible. It wasn’t until 1672 that we find disapproval. That was when John Dryden complained about the phrase “the bodies that those souls were frighted from” in one of Ben Johnson’s writings. He didn’t explain why he didn’t like it, but he was known for following many Latin rules in his writing—and as Latin doesn’t allow prepositions to be moved from their object, he may have been trying to apply that rule to English as well. Others followed and passed on the ‘rule’ including Robert Lowth who admitted that it was common in English…but not suited for formal writing.

“This is an Idiom which our language is strongly inclined to; it prevails in common conversation, and suits very well with the familiar style in writing; but the placing of the Preposition before the Relative is more graceful, as well as more perspicuous; and agrees much better with the solemn and elevated Style.”—Robert Lowth in A Short Introduction to English Grammar published in 1762

I suppose if we wanted to be more ‘graceful’ or ‘perspicuous’, if we were trying to write in a more ‘solemn and elevated style’, if we thought Latin was the best thing ever, then we should front the preposition whenever possible—BUT I prefer to write what I like to read, so by being more colloquial, I’ll probably have more readers (who buy my books!), and that would be my goal.

Modern Usage

Currently you won’t find many grammarians who agree with this constraint, yet this ‘rule’ is still being taught in schools. According to many, this is one of the most persistent myths in grammar. Fortunately, the Grammar Police won’t arrest you if you end a sentence with a preposition…at least not all the time. On the other hand, when the preposition is extraneous, then we should remove it. Contemporary vernacular is sadly full of unnecessary prepositions. Consider the following:

  • Where is he at?
  • Where is he?

They mean the same thing, so the irrelevant preposition shouldn’t be there. How about:

  • He slid off of the roof.
  • He slid off the roof.

Same situation, and not even at the end of a sentence! Even in the middle of sentences, any unneeded prepositions need to go. Just try dropping the preposition, and if it still makes sense, still means the same thing, then leave it out!

Can we split infinitives?

by

Along with Singular They and End of Sentence Prepositions, this is one of the ‘rules’ of English Grammar that needs some discussion. As we’ve discovered, many grammar ‘rules’ aren’t just invalid, they are also misleading to new writers. Many began as misinformation and just got passed on—this time we’re going to take close look at one of them: Split Infinitives.

So, what is a split infinitive? An infinitive is a verb of the form ‘to go’, and splitting it involves adding words between the ‘to’ and the verb in question. A famous example is “To boldly go…” where the word ‘boldly’ splits the infinitive ‘to go’. Some infinitives are split by more than one word: “We expect the population to more than double in the next ten years.”

History

Many claim that Robert Lowth mentioned it in A Short Introduction to English Grammar in 1762, but no such comment can be found in any of his writing. In fact, there is nothing in print until 1803, when John Comly said, “An adverb should not be placed between the verb of the infinitive mood and the preposition to, which governs it; as Patiently to wait—not To patiently wait.” Others echoed this new ‘rule’ throughout the rest of the 1800s and into the early 1900s as part of a movement to transfer Latin rules to English. (In Latin, infinitives can’t be split because they are single words e.g., “amare, cantare, audire”.)

Is English Latin?

Some linguists disagreed with this Latinisation of English. (Even Robert Lowth objected to “forcing the English under the rules of a foreign Language.”) Otto Jespersen said “‘To’ is no more an essential part of an infinitive than the definite article is an essential part of a nominative, and no one would think of calling ‘the good man’ a split nominative.” Unfortunately, the 1907 edition of The King’s English concluded: “The ‘split’ infinitive has taken such hold upon the consciences of journalists that, instead of warning the novice against splitting his infinitives, we must warn him against the curious superstition that the splitting or not splitting makes the difference between a good and a bad writer.”

Things might have been easier if English had had a controlling body…akin to the:

  • Euskaltzaindia for Basque
  • Académie française for French
  • Foras na Gaeilge for Irish
  • Pontificia Academia Latinitatis for Latin
  • Ve’e Tu’un Sávi for Mixtec
  • Rada Języka Polskiego for Polish
  • Bwrdd yr Iaith Gymraeg for Welsh
  • or even the Logical Language Group for Loglan.

Unfortunately, English has never had any kind of regulation, so we just have to do with authorities who often disagree.

Currently

Most modern English usage guides have stopped objecting to the split infinitive.

  • Oxford Guide: “no such rule” and “never wrong to split.”
  • Phillip Howard: “most remembered rule from school” and “great Shibboleth of English.”
  • University of Chicago Writing Program: “linguists snickering at it for decades, yet still this false ‘rule’ is taught.”

Our only conclusion can be that this problem is a part of the English language and arguments will continue. As long as you present your ideas clearly, we feel that there is no need to change.

Singular They

by

This is going to be a touchy topic, so hang in there, and we’ll see what we can do with it. Agreement in count is important in English. We don’t say, “He are there,” because ‘he’ is singular and ‘are’ is a plural verb. For the same reason, we don’t say, “Friends is good.” Again, one is plural (‘friends’), the other singular (‘is’).

Agreement between nouns and verbs is good, but nouns and the pronouns referring back to those nouns need to agree as well. In “Lisa is happy because she won the prize,” ‘she’ is referring back to Lisa, so the pronoun agrees with the noun in count (and it also happens to agree in gender, but we don’t care about that now).

The problem is that English doesn’t have a non-gender singular pronoun referring to a person. (The word ‘it’ usually refers to non-people…unless used in a derogatory manner, such as referring to an ex-spouse.)

History:

Part of the problem is that English is such a mishmash of other languages. We took many of our content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.) from Latin, but grammatical words (pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, etc.) came from other sources, one being Old Norse. The Old Norse pronouns their, theira, theim can be traced back to about 1200, where they replaced the existing words hīe, hīora, him (which could have been confused for the remaining pronouns of ‘he’, ‘her’, and ‘him’).

The plural form of ‘they’ was around for about 100 years before being used to refer to singular subjects, and all was well with the world. For example, in 1375, singular ‘they’ appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Here’s the Middle English version: ‘Hastely hiȝed eche…þei neyȝþed so neiȝh…þere william & his worþi lef were liand i-fere.’ In modern English, that’s: ‘Each man hurried…till they drew near…where William and his darling were lying together.’

It wasn’t until the Prescriptivists of the 18th century got a hold of English that it was frowned upon “because a plural pronoun can’t take a singular antecedent” (along with a few other ‘rules’ that no longer apply: End of Sentence prepositions and Split Infinitives for example). The Prescriptivists proposed to avoid using plural ‘they’, encompassing singular as well, by using ‘he’, which encompasses females as well—trade one globally misused word for another. They clearly forgot that singular ‘you’ used to be exclusively a plural pronoun. If they had noticed, we would probably still be using ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ for singular second person instead of ‘you’. No one complains about using ‘you’ to refer to a singular subject, so why worry about ‘they’?

Modern:

All right then, enough history. Consider these modern sentences:

  • “One of your girlfriends phoned, but she didn’t leave a message.”
  • “One of your boyfriends phoned, but he didn’t leave a message.
  • “One of your friends phoned, but they didn’t leave a message.”

Any problem with ‘they’ referring to a singular subject? Not if you’re speaking, but written English is a bit more formal…though it is not so formal as to require “he or she” all the time, so relax and converse with your readers.

Punctuation and Quotes, Logical or Not?

by

This topic falls just shy of the Oxford Comma in raising intense discussion amongst editors: Where does the punctuation go relative to quote marks? Yet another issue where the US and the rest of the world differ. Fortunately, it only affects commas and full stops (periods). Everyone agrees with how colons, semi-colons, and dashes are placed, and question and exclamation marks are fine, so we’re going to only touch on those, then tackle the tough stuff.

Everything Except Commas and Periods

As rare as colons, semi-colons, and dashes are, they always* go outside the quotes:

  • Alan loved to quote from the TV show “Star Trek”: “That’s not logical.”
  • Betty’s favourite poem was “The Jabberwocky”; she spent weeks memorising it.
  • Carolyn leaned out of the treehouse and said, “It’s sturdy enough”—right before the branch creaked.

Question and exclamation marks go where they belong—if part of the quote, then inside. If part of the whole sentence and not the quote, then outside:

  • David whined, “Can I have an ice cream now?”
  • Mom waved her wooden spoon at him. “Not right before dinner!”
  • The professor opened the lecture with a question: Who said, “I came, I saw, I conquered”?
  • You have got to see the show “Alien Artefacts”!
  • You actually like the show “Mystery Hunter”?

Fairly straightforward—no problems here.

Logical Punctuation

In the US style, commas and periods always goes inside—a simple rule but less logical. In the British style (also known as Logical Quotation), they go where they belong (same as question and exclamation marks)—inside if part, outside if not, similar to many other languages.

It’s that simple.

Of course, there’s a big exception to the US style: If the quoted material is technical, then the punctuation goes outside (same as the Logical style).

  • My user name is “All.for.it”. (final period not part)
  • Did you use the password “it,is.a;BIG!1”? (question mark not part)
  • To put a non-breaking space in HTML, use “ ”. (period not part)

So Why Do We Do It?

Some of the arguments for why we’d want punctuation inside the quote mark are based on a quote from The Elements of Style: “typographical usage dictates the comma be inside the marks, though logically it seems not to belong there”—to avoid an unsightly gap? These days, with digital fonts, it isn’t needed.

Another contention, also based on typographic issues but a physical one, says that the small pieces of metal were delicate and could break. That may have been true at one time, but the British switched over when they wanted to make it more logical and less mechanical.

Either way, the typographic reasons no longer apply, so we are free to put punctuation in the logical place.

*When I say “always”, please keep in mind that there are exceptions to every rule, but the exceptions in this case are so rare, that I can’t think of any, so I feel justified in using that term. As we’ve noted, there are two words you should always remember to never use: always and never.

Correlative Conjunctions

by

As we have seen before, conjunctions connect things (con=with, junction=to join). We had previously discussed Coordinating and Subordinating Conjunctions, but now we are going to address a third conjunction: Correlative (co=together, relative=connected). Very similar to Coordinating conjunctions connecting ideas that are equal in emphasis, but whereas Coordinating conjunctions are a single word, Correlative ones come in pairs, and one part of each pair goes with each idea being considered.

As with Coordinating Conjunctions the ideas being connected can be as simple as a single word (noun, verb, etc.), as involved as a phrase, or as complicated as a whole clause (sentence). As complicated as conjunctions can be, we really want to use them to connect ideas, establishing relationships between them.

Examples

  • Both/and
    • Both Amy and Bill are going to the store. (connecting subjects)
    • Amy is going to both the store and the library. (connecting objects)
  • Either/or
    • You are going to either do your homework, or fail maths. (connecting phrases)
    • Either you are going to stop singing or I am going to go insane. (connecting clauses)
  • Neither/nor
    • I will neither join your group nor follow you on FB. (connecting phrases)
    • You will neither have your cake, nor eat it, too. (connecting phrases)
  • Not only/but also
    • Not only will I play chess, but I will also eat crisps all day. (connecting clauses, note the inverted sub/verb and split “but also”)
    • You are not only dumb, but also (connecting objects)
  • Whether/or
    • Whether it is raining or snowing, I care not. (connecting complete clause to incomplete)
    • I will care for you whether you care for me or not. (connecting complete clause to incomplete)

As you can see, using conjunctions makes it clear how ideas are connected, and it improves the flow, one idea leading into another with a specific relationship.

Subordinating Conjunctions

by

From the name, you can guess that conjunctions connect things (con=with, junction=to join). We had previously discussed Coordinating Conjunctions, and we’ll take on Correlative Conjunctions later, but for now we’ll focus on just Subordinating Conjunctions. As with coordinating conjunctions, the name says it all, but in this case the connection is between ideas that are unequal in importance or focus, one idea is above and the other below (sub=below, ordinate=put in order), so in making the connection one of the ideas is put into a lower priority. You’ll see examples of that to follow.

There are different ways to connect ideas (or in this case clauses) depending on the reason for the connection. Linguists group those ways into a variety of categories, and, as with much in the way of language, you’ll find all kinds of differences in the lists depending on who makes them.

Subordinating conjunction examples:

  • Time:
    • after, as, as long as, as soon as, before, ere, now that, once, since, still, until, when, whenever, while
    • Amy will sit and read until Bill gets here.
      • It is more important that we know that Amy will be reading and less important that she’s waiting for Bill.
  • Place
    • whence, where, whereto, wherever, whither, whithersoever
    • Wherever you go in the world, you’ll always find someone who speaks English.
      • The fact that there are English speakers all over is more important than where you’ll travel.
  • Reason
    • as, because, in order that, seeing as, since, so, so that, that, whereas
    • The team lost because they had a beer party last night.
      • Why they lost isn’t as important as the fact that they did.
  • Condition
    • although even if, except, if, in case, on condition that, provided that, so, though, unless
    • Even if you have already paid for your lunch, you will still need to wait for them to cook it.
      • Waiting for the cook is more important and is going to happen—with or without payment.
  • Concession
    • although, as though, even though, in contrast to, just as, though, whereas
    • Though it was raining, she went out.
      • The rain was a minor point and irrelevant to her going out.
  • Comparison
    • as much as, as, rather than, than, whereas, whether
    • Dave is tall, dark, and handsome whereas his friend is short, pale, and ugly.
      • Dave’s friend isn’t important except as a comparison object.
  • Manner
    • as, as if, as though, how, however, howsoever
    • They talk as though they’re heading for divorce.
      • The fact that they talk is important…and indicates a possible future.

One point to remember: if the Main Clause comes first, then you don’t need any punctuation as the conjunction serves to separate the two clauses—but if the Subordinate clause comes first, then you need a comma to show where it ends and the second clause begins.

As you can see, using conjunctions to connect ideas improves the flow, one idea leading into another with a specific relationship.

Adjective Order

by

This is a basic level post because there isn’t much we can teach you about it…you already know how to do it, whether you realise it or not. Adjective order is one of those things that we all absorb as we are learning and using language. In fact, the only time linguists discuss it is in upper level classes as they analyse grammar. They study it, but mostly out of curiosity. There are no firm rules, so there’s nothing to get wrong…but if you do it incorrectly, everyone will know.

In English, we have ‘little old ladies’ but not ‘old little ladies’. We also have ‘old white hankies’ not ‘white old hankies’. Also consider ‘the big new square blue wooden house’ as opposed to ‘the wooden blue square new big house’. The jumbled ones aren’t necessarily wrong, they just sound strange. So, what is the correct order? Most linguists agree that it is opinion, size, condition, age, shape, colour, pattern, origin, material, and purpose.

Adjectives in order with examples

  • Opinion
    • Limiting
      • a real hero, a perfect idiot
    • Subjective measure
      • beautiful, ugly, interesting, silly, horrible, difficult, nice
    • Value
      • good, bad, costly
  • Size
    • tiny, big, extensive, large, enormous, little
  • Condition
    • broken, cold, hot, wet, hungry, rich, easy, difficult, dirty, tattered, rusted
  • Age
    • young, old, new, ancient, six-year-old
  • Shape
    • square, round, sharp, swollen, flat, rectangular, long
  • Colour
    • white, black, pale, blue, pink, reddish, grey
  • Pattern
    • striped, spotted, checked, flowery
  • Origin
    • American, French, Greek, eastern, volcanic, extraterrestrial, lunar
  • Material
    • woollen, cotton, metallic, brick, linen, wooden, paper, cloth, silk
  • Purpose (sometimes forms part of a compound noun, often -ing)
    • rocking chair, hunting cabin, sleeping bag, frying pan, curling iron, book cover, passenger car

So you could put a bunch together and sound like this:

  • A nice, little, old, round, white, brick house
  • The beautiful, big, wet, new, flat, blue, checked, French, linen, writing papers
  • The ugly, small, rusted, ancient, long, grey, spotted, eastern, metal, curling iron

Keep in mind though, if you do use such a long string of adjectives in front of any noun, you’re likely to be accused of Purple Prose, so don’t do it. Just remember that when you have two or three adjectives, they need to be in the right order…UNLESS you intend to put them out of order.

Fronting adjectives

One of the nice things about knowing the rules is that when you break them, you do so with purpose. It won’t be an accidental mistake, rather an intentional contravention. For example, if you need to add emphasis, you could use a different order. Let’s say that there are several dogs running around the yard, some large and some small, and you wanted to point out a specific one, so instead of saying, “the large, brown dog”, you could say, “the brown, large dog”, as opposed to the black one or the white one.

You may also have a situation where your character isn’t a native English speaker, so he might not have noticed the subtleties of English adjective order—when he uses a slightly different order, what he says might sound awkward, but it will just serve to reinforce his individuality.

Comparatives and Superlatives

by

Some things are good and some are bad. But some things are even better than that…and others worse. Then there are the ones that are the best…or the worst. How do we know the difference? We use Comparatives and Superlatives. English has two ways to relate objects, ranking them according to some (often unspecified) scale in quality, quantity, or degree. The Comparative balances one item against only one other. The Superlative evaluates one item against a bunch of others. Remember to use the Comparative if you have only two things to compare.

Two Ways to Form Comparisons

There are two constructions for comparing: Morphological and Syntactic. In the morphological system, we morph (or change) a word. In the Syntactic, we use syntax (the rules of sentence construction) to show the level of comparison. The morphological comparison is usually used with short words of Anglo-Saxon derivation by adding ‘er’ for the comparative and ‘est’ for the superlative, but there are some irregular forms to consider as well. The positive word ‘good’ becomes ‘better’ or ‘best’ and the negative word ‘bad’ becomes ‘worse’ and ‘worst’, so it still seems to follow a pattern.

Using the syntactical technique, we would add words instead of changing them to make the comparison, and the words we usually add are ‘more’ and ‘most’ for an increasing attribute (or ‘less’ and ‘least’ for a decreasing one). This method is often used for longer words, or words of French or Latin origin. For example, when ‘beautiful’ grows, it becomes ‘more beautiful’ and ‘most beautiful’. On the other side, when ‘wide-awake’ is reduced, it becomes ‘less wide-awake’ and ‘least wide-awake’.

Null Comparatives

You’ll sometimes see a Comparative used with only ONE item…often in adverts or political comments. What is being compared isn’t always clear…and that seems to be the intention. Consider these statements:

  • Our bread is softer.
  • The display is sharper.
  • We give you more.
  • More doctors recommend it.

The bread is softer than what? A rock? Of course it is, and the display is sharper than what? Last year’s model? Probably. They give you more than…the other guys? Maybe so. It is recommended by more doctors than sewer workers? I would hope so, whatever it is!

These Null Comparatives are intentionally used to convince us that something is better, trying to get us to buy (or buy into) whatever it is that they are selling. Be careful to avoid such empty comparisons in your writing…even if you are writing advert copy.

Comparing Absolutes

Another thing to watch out for is trying to compare absolutes—something that is either all the way on or all the way off. If one of the buckets is full, it can’t be fuller. If another one is empty, it can’t be the emptiest. There is only one unique gem, so there can’t be a more unique gem. And a funny one is trying to consider one lady to be less pregnant than another—it just doesn’t work.

Coordinating Conjunctions

by

From the name, you can guess that conjunctions connect things (con=with, junction=to join). There are a few different kinds of conjunctions—we will discuss Subordinating and Correlative Conjunctions in later posts. For now, let’s look at how Coordinating conjunctions connect ideas that are equal with each other (co=together with, ordinate=put in order). There are seven basic Coordinating Conjunctions in English: For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So. You can remember them by their initials: Fanboys. The things that are connected together can be as simple as a single word (noun, verb, etc.), as involved as a phrase, or as complicated as a whole clause (sentence). Why do we want to use conjunctions? To connect ideas, to establish a relationship between them.

Coordinating conjunction examples:

  • Words: “Dick and Jane ate the sweet but spicy soup.” In this example, we connect two nouns (the children) as doing the same thing together, but we also connect two adjectives (the flavours of the soup) in a contradictory manner.
  • Phrases: “The rabbit had to pick to run into the bush or down the hole, so he could escape.” Here we present two prepositional phrases as alternate options, either of which is valid. We also have a clause added on describing the result of the action.
  • Predicates: “The crook ran around the corner yet was caught by the police.” Now we have two predicates detailing the crook’s fate with an unexpected connection.
  • Clauses: “A violent gust of wind swept up the street, for it is in London that our scene lies.” Here we tie two full sentences together in an explanatory manner, attaching additional information.
  • Clauses: “The commotion did not cease, nor did it decrease in the slightest bit.” This one has two more full sentences connected in a negative sense, similar to ‘or’ but backwards.

One point to remember: if the items that are being connected are clauses (full sentences), then there needs to be a comma just before the conjunction—if not, then no comma should be there.

As you can see, using conjunctions to connect ideas improves the flow, one idea leading into another with a specific relationship.