How to Write...

[Wryan]

Hullo all.

Wait, wait. Don't sniff your nose at the title. It's partially (but only partially) meant in good-natured fun. If you have any fibers in your body akin to mine, you may bristle at the writhing, torturous labor pains that often count for "writing" in today's world. The worst culprits are sometimes found on permanent signage displayed prominently across many countries' landscapes. But here, we have a humble interweb message board forum. Surely not the place to get Grammar Nazi on people dashing off a missive about Renoir or Altman, yes? Well, yes and no.

To get the caveats out, I'm not a perfect writer. I try as hard as I can to communicate effectively, but I make mistakes aplenty, something I'm noticing more and more as an editor. Wherever I err, I note it (often literally) and keep it in sight/mind so as to avoid the mistakes in the future. Even then, it can take several mistakes to remember not to do the goddamn thing. But we live and learn. Additionally, this thread is not meant to say you all need help. Thankfully, blissfully, most of you are great communicators. But we can all learn new things, yes?

Lastly, this thread will absolutely, and with all hilarity intact, not be for those who have ever uttered something like "Don't be a Grammar Nazi. It's not that important." Obviously, I don't give a shit how I write when I'm saying something quick to someone on IM programs. But effective communication is one of our legacies to the rest of the world. One of our cornerstones. This thread is for people who like (maybe fluttering to "love") the intricacies of the English language. How it works the way it does and why. Why such and such is this way instead of that. Where did that word come from and how has it changed in meaning? If you have ever become slightly giddy about learning some new fact about the English language or have ever wondered about the difference between "less" and "fewer," by Odin this thread is for you.

This thread is open for any response in any format. I have a nice, well-worn, officious--ahem, "official"; sorry about that--copy of the Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition with me, necessary for writing formally about history specifically and most other educational/professional topics in general, and I have a copy of Webster's New World Dictionary, which is excellent for providing word origins. It goes without saying that just about any field has its own style of writing. Journalism has a different set of concerns and responsibilities than do scientific journals, and so on. I will try to keep what I say/answer here broad enough to work in just about any field that you want to look good writing in.

Sometimes I'll post about the strange and the weird in our language, and I'll try my level best to field questions about how and what. I didn't go to school for philology or writing theory (history here), so I can't often go on for paragraphs about why Socrates started this idea and why we still use it today. This will often be more basic than that. Things that people take for granted about the language that drive me (and hopefully you) a little batty.

So ask away, if you want. I'll start off with a few things to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

~~~

Less is to be used for metaphorical, abstract, non-countable things.
Fewer is to be used for tangible, measureable, countable objects.

"I have less courage than Jason, but he has fewer logged hours as a security guard."

Yes, folks, this means that those "12 Items or Less" signs at your grocery store are fucking wrong.

~~~

Farther is to be used for measureable distances, even when considering time itself.
Further is purely a matter of abstract degree.

"We traveled farther back in time, to Lincoln's assassination, but we couldn't pursue the conspiracy plot any further."

~~~

The following are correct cases of hyphenating age:

"She is three years old."
"That cute little three-year-old girl."
"That cute little three-year-old."

~~~

Apposition: when a part of a name is used more like a descriptor and not literally as part of the person's official title. Comes in many, and sometimes odd, forms. Note the chancellors in the following:

"Senator, I want you to meet German chancellor Otto B. Studebaker. He has served as chancellor for three years and took over for Chancellor Heineken in 1937."

"United States president Gerald Ford" is technically correct due to the description provided by the combination of "U.S." and "president." However..."President Gerald Ford" is also correct because of the absence of that apposition. Some people do not care for appositional rules, however, so "United States President Gerald Ford" is often used and basically acceptable though formally incorrect.

~~~

Acquiesce in a decision, but acquiesce to pressure.
Adept at an activity, but adept in an artform.
Ban from a place, not from an activity (place a ban on the activity if you need to).
Enamored of, but not enamored with.
Independent of your mother and father, but not independent from them.
Mastery of a skill, but mastery over people.
Oblivious of a danger or opportunity, but not oblivious to them.
Shiver from cold, but shiver at something frightening.
Skillful at/in an activity, but skillful with tools.
Vexed with someone, but vexed about/at something.

~~~

Generics: even when referring silently to a proper name, a generic word is lowercased.

"Captain Hayes fought the enemy tooth and nail, but at last the captain had to throw in the towel."

But: "...not bitter; Captain, can you explain something to me?" In that case, it's a direct address and substitutes for the person's name.

"I started at the University of Alabama in 1971 but left the university in 1972 due to financial difficulties."

"Grange Courthouse is under construction; the courthouse should be ready next summer."

"My aunt is always baking things for me; Uncle Andy doesn't like sweets, but my aunt just tells him to stuff it."

~~~

Cap/LC Regions: Abbreviated by a whopping margin, but here's one case. Regions of states are lowercase (northeast Georgia) but regions of most nations are capped (the Northeast [of the United States]).

But, "Southern California" because it's a very well-known cultural and geographic region and can stand its own capital. Can get tough given the intricacies of regional dialect and preference.

~~~

If you are quoting from other/older material, don't take their style considerations into account. ("Well, they capitalized 'captain' here inside the quote, so I'll do it outside in my text.") Wrong. Outside of quoted material, you return to the world of your style responsibilities. Inside, you preserve pretty much everything, including spelling, grammar and style errors or inconsistencies.

~~~

People are who, never that.

"Paul is a man who can't stand cold weather."

Organizations are its, never they/their.

"The historical society organized its third annual reenactment."

Common exception: American Indian tribes often take they/their in similar situations.

~~~

Please, people who use English language, for my sanity...

"My mother found me taller than she expected...then she chopped my feet off at the ankles."

~~~

Towards, afterwards, upwards and other wards are Britishisms. If you are not British, chop the last "s" off. Same with fibres and calibres and the like: reverse the latter "r" and "e" pair for Americans.

~~~

Time: A big-assed problem that no one ever gets right.

"Ten o'clock at night." (in this case, spell out the number, always include "o'clock" and always include when during the day you're talking about)

"10:00 p.m." (in this case, use the numeral with the colon and extra zeroes and the "p.m.")

Don't mix and match. Ain't proper.

~~~

There's oh-so-fucking-much more to come, and I'll try to post something every once in a while. And I'll answer whatever I can. But feel free to razz or inquire at your leisure.

Wryan

P.S. Did you know that an older variant of "devilry" was actually "deviltry"? Bizarre but true. The more you know...

P.P.S. In the spirit of things...

http://wondermark.com/c/2008-08-15-434language.gif

[Sven]

Such an awesome thread.

[Derek]

Obviously, I don't give a shit how I write when I'm saying something quick to someone on IM programs.

Pronoun confusion - someone is singular whereas IM programs is plural. Unless you are speaking to the same individual on multiple programs at the same time, "IM programs" should be changed to "IM" or "an IM program" or "someone" changed to "people" or "friends."

Just messing with you. :) This thread should come in handy.

[D_Davis]

Common errors in English:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html

This website rules.

[Duncan]

Jeopardy! had a funny category yesterday. Words that sound weird without a prefix, I think it was. Gruntled was one of the questions. If you are gruntled you are pleased. I really want to tell someone I'm gruntled to see them.

edit: I guess "satisfied" is a better definition.

[Wryan]

Pronoun confusion - someone is singular whereas IM programs is plural. Unless you are speaking to the same individual on multiple programs at the same time, "IM programs" should be changed to "IM" or "an IM program" or "someone" changed to "people" or "friends."

Just messing with you. :) This thread should come in handy.

See! I make mistakes too. I'm human...not an animal! ARRRGGGH!!!

[Wryan]

Common errors in English:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html

This website rules.

Nice. :P

[Wryan]

If you are writing folksy dialect for a novel or something...

When you chop off a word at the end (fixin'), you use the regular apostrophe. When you chop off a word at the beginning ('til), you still use the same apostrophe. Commonly, when people type without thinking about it, this initial apostrophe (often automatically) gets turned around into a single opening quotation mark. Not the same thing. This website only allows for primes, so you'll have to test it in your own word processor. One curves one way, and the other curves 'tother.

[Wryan]

Despite what most of us were taught growing up, the "new" mandated rule is as follows:

Save for rare exceptions, always slap an "s" at the end of that possessive. Even for words that end in "s."

Jesus' is no longer correct. It's Jesus's now.
"Palmers's weight is reaching epic proportions."

~~~

So what are those exceptions?

"For...sake" expressions don't take the extra "s."

"For righteousness' sake."
"For goodness' sake."

~~~

Words that end in "es" and are pronounced as "eez" do not take the extra "s." If you aren't sure about the pronunciation, use an extra "s" to be certain.

Ganges'
Xerxes'

~~~

Plural possessive family names that end in "s." Crazy, huh?

Singular: Mr. Roberts
Plural: the Robertses
Singular possessive: Mr. Roberts's barn.
Plural possessive: The Robertses' barn.

Yes, that can get ridiculously sticky sometimes. But the above is correct.

[Wryan]

"Toadie," a servile or sycophantic person, or the adjective of such, derives from "toad eater," an assistant who would travel with a quack doctor and swallow "poisonous" toads and then the "cure" to prove that the cure worked miracles.

[Wryan]

Famous, and famously hilarious, quote from Churchill about the devils of not being allowed to end on prepositions:

"This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put!"

[Wryan]

New York City (the city, the proper name)
the city of New York (the people, usually)
the City of New York (the government in control)

Applies to all cities, town, townships, villages, counties, etc.

[number8]

Despite what most of us were taught growing up, the "new" mandated rule is as follows:

Save for rare exceptions, always slap an "s" at the end of that possessive. Even for words that end in "s."

Jesus' is no longer correct. It's Jesus's now.
"Palmers's weight is reaching epic proportions."

~~~

So what are those exceptions?

"For...sake" expressions don't take the extra "s."

"For righteousness' sake."
"For goodness' sake."

~~~

Words that end in "es" and are pronounced as "eez" do not take the extra "s." If you aren't sure about the pronunciation, use an extra "s" to be certain.

Ganges'
Xerxes'

~~~

Plural possessive family names that end in "s." Crazy, huh?

Singular: Mr. Roberts
Plural: the Robertses
Singular possessive: Mr. Roberts's barn.
Plural possessive: The Robertses' barn.

Yes, that can get ridiculously sticky sometimes. But the above is correct.

WHO THE FUCK MANDATED THIS? FUCK YOU.

[Wryan]

"None" is, technically, a smashup of "no" and "one" and, hence, is considered singular.

Although "None were ready at the dinner bell" is commonly used in speaking and sounds "comfortable," it's wrong.

"None was ready at the dinner bell" sounds a bit more awkward but it is correct because it really means "Not one individual was ready at the dinner bell."

[Wryan]

WHO THE FUCK MANDATED THIS? FUCK YOU.

Dogs...cats...hysteria!

[Wryan]

In all seriousness, though, of course this could turn into a theoretical argument about how all issues of style theory and decorum are decided by us (typically by older, whiter versions of us) and are changed as time and habit and context dictate. Sure, it's annoying to say, "Well, the way you used to do it was right then, but it's wrong now, so stop it." I agree that it can be irritating and, some will feel, pointless. But them's the breaks. We progress and change and evolve or we stagnate and die. Or something like that.

[Lasse]

I'll read this thread through more thoroughly later (that sentence sounded weird. What's wrong with it?), because I think I make some of those mistakes, with English being only my second language.

[Wryan]

Don't put quotes around "so-called" (except, hehe, in that exact context). The phrase itself already indicates irony or doubt. Quotes would mean a double emphasis.

"Her so-called mentor asked her to embezzle money from the company."

[Wryan]

I'll read this thread through more thoroughly later (that sentence sounded weird. What's wrong with it?), because I think I make some of those mistakes, with English being only my second language.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that sentence, but you could put the "through" before "this" instead of after "thread." But things like that are often just subjective, as are many things in any language.

English as a nonnative language is another thing. I realized that many posters here had other languages as their primary language, so I'm not pointing them out as the major problem children. :)

[number8]

At this point, English is my first language. It's second in terms of it being the second language that I learned, but since I use it way, waaaaaaay more often than my native tongue, I consider it my primary language.

[Wryan]

Indicating the plural of a word or phrase already in quotation marks:

Yes: How many more "To be continued's" can we expect in this series?
No: How many more "To be continued"s can we expect in this series?

Yeah, I know. That's awkward. A lot of things that are technically correct are strange and seem alien to us sometimes. I've gotten accustomed to some, while I still can't handle others.

[Wryan]

"When they were together, my aunt and uncle's house was a warm and loving place."

"Now that they are separated, my aunt's and uncle's houses seem distant in more ways than one."

[D_Davis]

"Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice."

[Wryan]

"Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice."

Very wry, but that's a different thread. :P

[Wryan]

A big one: That/Which

That indicates further specificity/clarification within a general idea.
Which merely indicates additional, non-essential information.

"We are going to the house that my father built with his bare hands."
"We are going to the house, which my father finished building sometime in, oh, July, I suppose."

Also, 99.9 percent of the time, these thats are not preceded by commas, as above. These whichs are, also as above.

EDIT: If you're ever not sure, imagine someone interrupting you and asking for further clarification...

"We are going to the house--"
"I'm sorry, what house?"
"...the house that my father built with his bare hands."

[Raiders]

EDIT: If you're ever not sure, imagine someone interrupting you and asking for further clarification...

"We are going to the house--"
"I'm sorry, what house?"
"...the house that my father built with his bare hands."

Hmmm... in this case I would have just left out the word "that" altogether.

I guess my English is teh suck.

[Wryan]

Hmmm... in this case I would have just left out the word "that" altogether.

I guess my English is teh suck.

That's fairly common. People leave out clarifying thats all the time. Sometimes it's ok. Sometimes it leaves the sentence feeling a little off. For the most part, you're ok as long as you don't use which where a that is supposed to be.

[Melville]

Just to expand on number8's all-capitalized response, I'll note that most of these rules are arbitrary and not at all agreed upon. For example, I personally think that Wryan's usage guidelines for "that" versus "who" and "that" versus "which" are overly restrictive, and The American Heritage® Book of English Usage agrees with me (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/062.html). I'm sure I could find many other style guides that say the same.

Also, we Canadians are allowed to switch willy-nilly between American and British conventions.

Still, cool thread.

[number8]

I'll see your note and raise you in saying that I believe language should evolve with cultural trend. I know the school of thought that this would lead to a bastardized language like the one shown in Idiocracy, but language (written or verbal) is a form of communication, and an acceptable use of communicating is an acceptable way of writing.

I'm not saying it's okie-dokie for people to spell "their" as "there" or the like--that's just incorrect spelling--but I believe that words like "irregardless" and "ginormous", though extremely annoying, should be acceptable under the mantle of them being portmanteaus. And grammar should rightly adapt along with modern speech patterns.

[D_Davis]

I'll see your note and raise you in saying that I believe language should evolve with cultural trend. I know the school of thought that this would lead to a bastardized language like the one shown in Idiocracy, but language (written or verbal) is a form of communication, and an acceptable use of communicating is an acceptable way of writing.

I'm not saying it's okie-dokie for people to spell "their" as "there" or the like--that's just incorrect spelling--but I believe that words like "irregardless" and "ginormous", though extremely annoying, should be acceptable under the mantle of them being portmanteaus. And grammar should rightly adapt along with modern speech patterns.

Tru dat dawg.

[number8]

Tru dat dawg.

w00t.

[chrisnu]

I'm sorry, but adding an "s" to possessives ending with the letter "s" is always going to appear incorrect to me. For Jesus' sake, has the whole world gone CRAZY!?!?

[Wryan]

Just to expand on number8's all-capitalized response, I'll note that most of these rules are arbitrary and not at all agreed upon. For example, I personally think that Wryan's usage guidelines for "that" versus "who" and "that" versus "which" are overly restrictive, and The American Heritage® Book of English Usage agrees with me (http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/062.html). I'm sure I could find many other style guides that say the same.

Also, we Canadians are allowed to switch willy-nilly between American and British conventions.

Still, cool thread.

I disagree that most of these rules are arbitrary, but of course most of them are not agreed upon. That is why I did indeed say at the beginning what stylebook most of this was coming from and that, yes indeedy, other fields use other styles. Again, style is what we make of it, I agree, and in 50 years some or all of what I've posted here may have changed.

Besides, all your link says, in addition to exactly what I said about that/which, is that it's "basically" ok to do/say it in a technically incorrect way since so many people already do it and have done it for centuries. That argument doesn't hold water for some people, perhaps many people, perhaps many more than you'd think.

What it comes down to is this: would you agree that someone following these suggestions and rules would have a better grasp of communicating in the English language than someone who ignored all of them? I say yes. If you say no, then that's fine.

Also, damn Canadians. :)

[Wryan]

Words that end in "ly" don't need a hyphen after them, in most cases, when creating adjective/adverb phrases.

"Well, that battle was easily won."
"Well, that was an easily won battle."

"Well, that battle was easily-won." (buzzzzz)
"Well, that was an easily-won battle." (buzzzzz)

[Wryan]

Et al. is used for people, not things, because it is an abbreviation of et alii ("and others"). Given that it is an abbreviation, the period is obviously necessary. Given that et already means and, "and et al." is not correct.

Etc. is for things, not people. It's also an abbreviation (of "et cetera," or "and other things") and the period is required. Same rule for the et above concerning and.

[Wryan]

Flounder means to struggle awkwardly, physically or mentally or otherwise.

Founder means to sink or fall to the ground; also used metaphorically when speaking of organizations/businesses that crap out.

"The business floundered before it foundered."

[Wryan]

Okay: "The nation marched through nineteenth- and twentieth-century wars, but it held firm to its principles."

Not okay: "John had five overfed and -worked mules."

You can break up two compounds like that when the second word is the same, but not when the first word is the same. In the latter case, just repeat the first word twice...

"John had five overfed and overworked mules."

[Wryan]

a second-floor window
a narrow-minded reactionary
a forward-looking person
a heavily weighted barbell
an angry-faced man
an angrily hurt heart

but...

a dry goods store
a real estate market
a birth control method
a Civil War narration

Why? Because in the four examples above, the two words are so familiar together (or flat-out proper) that they count as their own one, holistic unit. No one will confuse "dry goods store" as "a goods store that happens to be dry and not wet."

[Wryan]

You immigrate to a new nation.

You emigrate from a nation you previously lived in.

You migrate within the borders of a nation.

"My family immigrated to New York in 1925."

"My family emigrated from Ireland in 1925."

"My family migrated from New York to Virginia in 1925."

If to or from are not present, or it's hard to tell, you have to either check the context carefully or change the sentence.

"My family immigrated to New York from Ireland in 1925."

The above is tricky and has too much information to use "immigrated," so you can just change it to "My family traveled to New York from Ireland in 1925."

[Wryan]

Fiance is the man in the equation. Accent over the "e."
Fiancee is the woman. Accent over the first "e."

Get it right or you'll have some 'splaining to do. :eek:

Most dictionaries don't know/make the distinction.

[Wryan]

A smith is a person, i.e. a blacksmith.
A smithy is the workshop of said smith.

For (usually older) American usage, smithy also means blacksmith, hence the confusion, and hence George Clooney's line in O Brother, Where Art Thou?:

"Any of you boys.....smithies?"

[Wryan]

City/state combinations take double commas almost 99.9% of the time.

"We lived in Charlotte, North Carolina, before we moved to Charleston, South Carolina, in 1917."

Even when the second comma seems to break up the flow of the sentence a lot, it still needs to be there.

Only when the city/state combo is itself an adjective is no comma required.

"That Charleston, South Carolina newspaper is yellow journalism of the worst order."

[Wryan]

I'm sorry, but adding an s to possessives ending with the letter "s" is always going to appear incorrect to me. For Jesus' sake, has the whole world gone CRAZY!?!?

That is exactly the likely reason why it used to be that way. "God that looks so horrible; let's just not have that last 's,' ok? Looks better without it." The reason why it's "changed" today is because it more accurately reflects how we pronounce the word.

We pronounce it as Jesuses, right? Well, to some people, Jesus' doesn't communicate that correctly.

[Melville]

I'm not saying it's okie-dokie for people to spell "their" as "there" or the like--that's just incorrect spelling--but I believe that words like "irregardless" and "ginormous", though extremely annoying, should be acceptable under the mantle of them being portmanteaus. And grammar should rightly adapt along with modern speech patterns.
The problem with "irregardless" is that it doesn't make any sense. How can "irregardless" and "regardless" mean the same thing? That's just flaunting the whole meaning of the prefix "ir." "Ginormous," however, does seem like a perfectly fine portmanteau.


Besides, all your link says, in addition to exactly what I said about that/which, is that it's "basically" ok to do/say it in a technically incorrect way since so many people already do it and have done it for centuries. That argument doesn't hold water for some people, perhaps many people, perhaps many more than you'd think.
But that's not what the link says. It says that "some" people insist that "which" should only be used in nonrestrictive clauses, but that in some cases it is actually preferable to use "which" rather than "that" in a restrictive clause. And it says that "it is entirely acceptable" to use "that" in place of "who." The only writing reference I have at home agrees with both points, though it says that using "which" in a restrictive clause is typically only considered correct in British writing.

And if most people have always used a word in a certain way, and they continue to do so, then of course it is "correct" to use it in that way, in the sense that such usage will unambiguously communicate one's desired meaning. Obviously certain fields of study (and specific publications within each field) will choose a narrower set of rules in order to achieve a uniform style, but that really only affects people writing in those fields (or for those specific publications).


What it comes down to is this: would you agree that someone following these suggestions and rules would have a better grasp of communicating in the English language than someone who ignored all of them? I say yes. If you say no, then that's fine.
I'd certainly agree. But a lot of these rules are really specific, and they frequently seem like arbitrary conventions (e.g. the "to be continued's" and "Jesus's" examples), and while each publication should definitely pick a set of conventions and stick with them, I don't think knowledge of those conventions necessarily implies a better grasp of the English language. Also, speaking of the "Jesus's" example, I hear people say Jesus just as often as Jesuses. I think it depends on the name. People are more likely to say Jeff Daniels new movie than Jeff Danielses new movie, aren't they?

Anyway, here's a serious question for you: if I write an appositive phrase after a noun phrase that ends in another noun, does the appositive apply to the entire noun phrase or just to the final noun? For example, in the sentence "The woman in the fur coat, a fine specimen, ran to the door," which thing is said to be a fine specimen? Is it the woman, or is it her coat?

[DavidSeven]

Are you taking all of these directly out of the Chicago Manual of Style or just using that as a reference? I didn't major in English, so you will have to clarify for me why one source should be considered the authority over another (say Stunk & White's Elements of Style). I'm pretty sure these two books have opposing views on some conventions. For example, it was either in Stunk's or some other style book where I read that adding an "s" to possessives ending with the letter "s" only applied when referring to singular objects (John Ross's vs. the Ross'). Is there some sort of Supreme Court of grammar to settle these matters? There should be.

Also, what are your thoughts on "however" to begin a sentence?

[D_Davis]

Anyway, here's a serious question for you: if I write an appositive phrase after a noun phrase that ends in another noun, does the appositive apply to the entire noun phrase or just to the final noun? For example, in the sentence "The woman in the fur coat, a fine specimen, ran to the door," which thing is said to be a fine specimen? Is it the woman, or is it her coat?

That depends. Is it cold outside?

[Wryan]

But that's not what the link says. It says that "some" people insist that "which" should only be used in nonrestrictive clauses, but that in some cases it is actually preferable to use "which" rather than "that" in a restrictive clause. And it says that "it is entirely acceptable" to use "that" in place of "who." The only writing reference I have at home agrees with both points, though it says that using "which" in a restrictive clause is typically only considered correct in British writing.

Yes, I left out using which as in "The time at which we are scheduled to appear" because I consider it a minor footnote to the overall point I was making. I'm mostly writing these in a way that anyone can understand, and including such specifics could confuse some people. I just wanted to get the overall point across. And using that in place of who is only "entirely acceptable" to that source; again, sources disagree and I already mentioned that. For my part, I don't think it's really acceptable and hence posted that "rule."


And if most people have always used a word in a certain way, and they continue to do so, then of course it is "correct" to use it in that way, in the sense that such usage will unambiguously communicate one's desired meaning. Obviously certain fields of study (and specific publications within each field) will choose a narrower set of rules in order to achieve a uniform style, but that really only affects people writing in those fields (or for those specific publications).

I agree and said as much about the latter. I agree that it will be unambiguous, but if a student learned that 2+2=5 for fifteen years of schooling, they will be unambiguous about what 2+2 equals, but that doesn't mean they will be correct. ;) But yes, of course fields and publications choose their style. I laid out my terms at the beginning, but I stick to the idea that these rules are exceptional for knowing across-the-board basics of acceptable grammar, syntax, etc.


I'd certainly agree. But a lot of these rules are really specific, and they frequently seem like arbitrary conventions (e.g. the "to be continued's" and "Jesus's" examples), and while each publication should definitely pick a set of conventions and stick with them, I don't think knowledge of those conventions necessarily implies a better grasp of the English language. Also, speaking of the "Jesus's" example, I hear people say Jesus just as often as Jesuses. I think it depends on the name. People are more likely to say Jeff Daniels new movie than Jeff Danielses new movie, aren't they?

Again, I disagree about a "lot" of them. Some certainly are (and I rail against what seems arbitrary in CMS frequently), but I think "most" are worthy of remembering and following, primarily because they seem the most logical answer to the dilemma. And "Jeff Daniels new movie"? That's...wrong. People are more likely to say it probably because they don't realize that it's technically wrong to say it. If they knew, I think many would say the extra "es." The average person, in America at least, is quite bad at basics of grammar. Dunno how it is up there. Or would that be basics of French...


Anyway, here's a serious question for you: if I write an appositive phrase after a noun phrase that ends in another noun, does the appositive apply to the entire noun phrase or just to the final noun? For example, in the sentence "The woman in the fur coat, a fine specimen, ran to the door," which thing is said to be a fine specimen? Is it the woman, or is it her coat?

In that example, I wouldn't write the sentence that way at all because it's already going to be confusing. The only "rule" in such cases is to rewrite for clarity. Or perhaps, "The woman in the fur coat, itself a fine specimen, ran to the door." Or "herself" if you meant the woman. Such extra "selves" are usually discouraged ("He landed the plane himself.") but they can be used if they are required for clarity.

[Wryan]

Are you taking all of these directly out of the Chicago Manual of Style or just using that as a reference? I didn't major in English, so you will have to clarify for me why one source should be considered the authority over another (say Stunk & White's Elements of Style). I'm pretty sure these two books have opposing views on some conventions. For example, it was either in Stunk's or some other style book where I read that adding an "s" to possessives ending with the letter "s" only applied when referring to singular objects (John Ross's vs. the Ross'). Is there some sort of Supreme Court of grammar to settle these matters? There should be.

Also, what are your thoughts on "however" to begin a sentence?

A little of both. It's my reference, as I stated in the beginning, and I agree that one source is not the authority over others (as I also alluded to in the beginning), although by God CMS would surely want you to think so. I use it mostly because I'm fairly familiar with the conventions of other styles and, frankly, I've written in Chicago the longest and I consider it one of the best and clearest and most rational. Chicago would say that the Ross' would more correctly be the Rosses' because the plural of the Ross family is the Rosses. It plays a lot by ear, literally. What we pronounce is often not contained in what we write, so CMS aims to correct that. There's no Supreme Court to settle this because many fields use their own (hopefully consistent) jargon and style and considerations. Again, though, I think most of these rules are perfectly acceptable for knowing and following if you seek to write well.

However, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with starting a sentence with "however."

[Wryan]

Genitive:

"Three months' service."

It implies "three months of service."

"Five hours' delay"
"in three days' time"

[Wryan]

Warning...due to the questions posed so far in this thread, great ones that encourage what I consider interesting discussions, I want to say that the following is heavily debated and susceptible to vagaries of preference.

Basic Comma Use:

"I walked my dog and my cat today."
"I walked my dog on Thursday, and Susan walked her dog on Friday." (two independent clauses)

"I did this and then that."
"I did this, and then later I did that." (two independent clauses)

Commas are strange things. Many people scatter too many commas. Some use the "breath" system (did you take a breath there? Put a comma, then; etc.). Commas are one of the things that I will indeed say are extremely arbitrary and flexible. Basic comprehension of a sentence will often not be impeded by a technically incorrect comma or two. However, in extreme cases, wrong comma useage can be hilarious or confusing.

"She recognized the man who entered the room and gasped."

Who's doing the gasping?

"We will agree, to the proposal, if you accept our conditions."

Not horribly incorrect, acceptable to some, but both commas are basically unnecessary. You wouldn't really "say" the sentence that way, would you?

[Wryan]

I won't post the rules for numbers because they are quite likely very particular to CMS. However, be consistent within paragraphs or over the course of a single text.

Don't use "thirteen" and "17" in the same paragraph. Either spell both out or use numerals for both. If you write 4,500 at the beginning somewhere, write all such numbers that way (3,700, 1,800, 2,300), instead of writing "thirty-seven hundred" later. Basic rule of thumb: if it takes more than three words to write a number out, use a numeral. No one wants to read "We spent one thousand three hundred and forty-five days in research." Blech.

[Wryan]

"Thank you for the compliment. I appreciated it."
"Our troop complemented yours quite nicely."

[Wryan]

"hanger" is a person who hangs things; or, archaically, an executioner.
"hangar" is a shelter to house, repair or store airplanes.

[Melville]

Yes, I left out using which as in "The time at which we are scheduled to appear" because I consider it a minor footnote to the overall point I was making. I'm mostly writing these in a way that anyone can understand, and including such specifics could confuse some people. I just wanted to get the overall point across.
I'm not thinking of "in which" or "at which," but simply replacing "that" with "which," as in the two examples in the link I posted: "It is a philosophy...which many have found reason to praise" and "We want to assign only that book which will be most helpful."


And using that in place of who is only "entirely acceptable" to that source; again, sources disagree and I already mentioned that. For my part, I don't think it's really acceptable and hence posted that "rule."
I guess I find it disingenuous to simultaneously say "these rules are not agreed upon" and "following these rules will make you a better writer and give you a better understanding of the English language." In other words, for the rules that are not agreed upon, I think it's important to note the disagreement and argue why one rule is better than another. Just saying that you don't think something is acceptable doesn't really suffice.

Also, as I noted before, using "that" in place of "who" is also acceptable according to the source I have at home (Grammatically Correct by Anne Stilman).


I agree and said as much about the latter. I agree that it will be unambiguous, but if a student learned that 2+2=5 for fifteen years of schooling, they will be unambiguous about what 2+2 equals, but that doesn't mean they will be correct. ;)
But if almost everybody learned that 2+2=5, then the meaning of "5" would be equivalent to what we think of as "4." The symbols are defined according to how they are used.


Again, I disagree about a "lot" of them. Some certainly are (and I rail against what seems arbitrary in CMS frequently), but I think "most" are worthy of remembering and following, primarily because they seem the most logical answer to the dilemma. And "Jeff Daniels new movie"? That's...wrong. People are more likely to say it probably because they don't realize that it's technically wrong to say it. If they knew, I think many would say the extra "es."
Bah. Those extra "es's" are unwieldly. I say ditch 'em.


In that example, I wouldn't write the sentence that way at all because it's already going to be confusing. The only "rule" in such cases is to rewrite for clarity. Or perhaps, "The woman in the fur coat, itself a fine specimen, ran to the door." Or "herself" if you meant the woman. Such extra "selves" are usually discouraged ("He landed the plane himself.") but they can be used if they are required for clarity.
Damn. I was hoping there was a hard and fast rule. Earlier this year, I was editing somebody's writing, and it contained a sentence of that form. I thought it was ambiguous, but I wasn't sure if it was outright wrong. What's irritating is that the sentence was based on a completely unambiguous one that I had written a year earlier.


Commas are one of the things that I will indeed say are extremely arbitrary and flexible.
I'm of the opposite opinion. Commas are essential in defining the structure of a sentence. Returning to the "that" versus "which" issue, I think the meaning of the following is unambiguous:
"He picked up the watch that was ticking."
But if I read the following, I wouldn't be sure of exactly what the writer meant:
"He picked up the watch, that was ticking."

However, I will admit that the conventions for comma usage seem to have changed more than almost any others over the last few centuries.

Speaking of "however," I've never heard anybody say that it shouldn't be used at the beginning of a sentence. What could be wrong with it? If it's used as a conjunction, as above, then it should be followed by a comma. If it's used as part of an introductory phrase, as in the sentence "However he picked up the watch, it was still ticking," then the comma comes at the end of the introductory phrase.

[Wryan]

I guess I find it disingenuous to simultaneously say "these rules are not agreed upon" and "following these rules will make you a better writer and give you a better understanding of the English language." In other words, for the rules that are not agreed upon, I think it's important to note the disagreement and argue why one rule is better than another. Just saying that you don't think something is acceptable doesn't really suffice.

Also, as I noted before, using "that" in place of "who" is also acceptable according to the source I have at home (Grammatically Correct by Anne Stilman).

I don't really think it is so disingenuous. "These rules are debated. Following these rules will make you a good writer. Following these rules will make you a better one." That's really all I'm saying. And explaining each argued-over rule would very nearly end up with me frequently saying, "I find this explanation and method more rational." That is really the only fundamental answer, isn't it? And one that is easily argued over if someone thinks, just as strongly, that another method is the more rational. I realized the problem with posting a thread like this well before I posted it. But I don't think it's a pointless thread (yet). If nothing else, it encourages questions about meaning.


But if almost everybody learned that 2+2=5, then the meaning of "5" would be equivalent to what we think of as "4." The symbols are defined according to how they are used.

A fine point, sure. Does someone somewhere have to be "right" in order for us to know that we're "wrong"? I think some people are lost without order and not just in a flimsy way, but in a serious, philosophical "I can't function!" way. That's why I think people feel the need to declare what is right and wrong. I hope you don't think that's what I'm doing. The title of the thread is more winking fun than anything. People can take these as mere suggestions if they truly wish. Language is an odd, fun, crazy thing.


Bah. Those extra "es's" are unwieldly. I say ditch 'em.

:P


Damn. I was hoping there was a hard and fast rule. Earlier this year, I was editing somebody's writing, and it contained a sentence of that form. I thought it was ambiguous, but I wasn't sure if it was outright wrong. What's irritating is that the sentence was based on a completely unambiguous one that I had written a year earlier.

You mean they "borrowed" your writing?


I'm of the opposite opinion. Commas are essential in defining the structure of a sentence. Returning to the "that" versus "which" issue, I think the meaning of the following is unambiguous:
"He picked up the watch that was ticking."
But if I read the following, I wouldn't be sure of exactly what the writer meant:
"He picked up the watch, that was ticking."

However, I will admit that the conventions for comma usage seem to have changed more than almost any others over the last few centuries.

I agree with you on the extreme cases. But I'm thinking more in terms of:

"On Saturday we all went to the zoo."
vs.
"On Saturday, we all went to the zoo."

That's what I'm talking about when I say flexible and arbitrary. In this case, is the comma "essential in defining the structure of the sentence"?

[Wryan]

"She is the principal member of the board."
"The principal of Horace Green Prep was a little icy."
"Before the duel, the principals and their seconds stood silently and watched each other with great care."

"The principle of the fire was due to the old gas lines."
"My moral principles are steadfast, and you cannot influence them with money."
"The principle of cell division is confusing, people, so pay attention!"
"In principle, we should be able to thread this needle with our eyes closed, I don't care how many beers we've had!"

[Wryan]

"The abortion affected my views on the pro-life/pro-choice debate."

"My effects, please...I'm getting on the train now."
"I pleaded with her not to go, but the attempt had no effect."
"The senator can effect true change as long as he is willing to back up that change."

[Duncan]

Now you're just writing random sentences.

[Wryan]

Now you're just writing random sentences.

I know you're not an ignorant person, so I expect that you realize perfectly fine why I wrote them. Besides, I wrote "random" sentences earlier, just under a banner explaining why I was writing them (i.e. to point out some grammatical or vocab-related issue).

Do the above sentences not make sense? Or are you funning me?

DON'T FUN ME! :eek:

[Melville]

And explaining each argued-over rule would very nearly end up with me frequently saying, "I find this explanation and method more rational."
Well, that's usually the case in any discussion. I just like to have reasons to go along with rules.


You mean they "borrowed" your writing?
Heh. No, they were updating a poster that summarized the topics of study in our research group. Apparently that "update" involved bastardizing some of what had already been written.


I agree with you on the extreme cases. But I'm thinking more in terms of:

"On Saturday we all went to the zoo."
vs.
"On Saturday, we all went to the zoo."

That's what I'm talking about when I say flexible and arbitrary. In this case, is the comma "essential in defining the structure of the sentence"?
OK, I agree with "flexible," but not with "arbitrary." The comma in that sentence has a clear structural role: it separates the introductory prepositional phrase from the main clause. Since the introductory phrase is so short, one can safely drop the comma without losing any clarity, but the purpose of the comma would be clear if it were used.

It's unfortunate that a lot of people have no idea what basic role commas play in a sentence. Saying that commas separate structural elements in a sentence—specifically, by separating independent clauses, setting off dependent clauses, etc.—makes a lot more sense than saying that you should put a comma wherever you would pause while speaking, which seems to be the rule that most people know. Do people learn a lot of grammar in school in the U.S.? Most people here don't seem to learn any at all. I wish that I had been taught this stuff at some point.

[Duncan]

I've been taught grammar multiple times by multiple people and everytime I ended up with an entirely different understanding. Now I have no real standard and just go with whatever feels right. It's probably one of my weakest areas of elementary level knowledge.

My AP English teacher gave her students a C+ on papers if we had something called a "comma splice." I don't remember what that is, but I had one once and afterwards I just stopped using commas almost entirely. I've since dropped that habit.

[Melville]

I've been taught grammar multiple times by multiple people and everytime I ended up with an entirely different understanding. Now I have no real standard and just go with whatever feels right. It's probably one of my weakest areas of elementary level knowledge.

My AP English teacher gave her students a C+ on papers if we had something called a "comma splice." I don't remember what that is, but I had one once and afterwards I just stopped using commas almost entirely. I've since dropped that habit.
A comma splice is a construction in which two independent clauses are separated by a comma but not joined by a conjunction. For example, if you had written "I just stopped using commas almost entirely, I've since dropped that habit," that would be a comma splice.

[Wryan]

It's unfortunate that a lot of people have no idea what basic role commas play in a sentence. Saying that commas separate structural elements in a sentence—specifically, by separating independent clauses, setting off dependent clauses, etc.—makes a lot more sense than saying that you should put a comma wherever you would pause while speaking, which seems to be the rule that most people know. Do people learn a lot of grammar in school in the U.S.? Most people here don't seem to learn any at all. I wish that I had been taught this stuff at some point.

My memory of exactly what and when I was taught basic grammar is hazy. I even ran through a private Catholic school system all the way up to and including high school. It was well-run for the most part, so I can't speak to how others learned about grammar and vocab and more.

I'm not sure where the breath system got started. Maybe out of [bad] habit. But now it's one of those things that has gone on for so long that people can't get around it to learn the technicals. I dunno sometimes...

[Hugh_Grant]

My degree is in linguistics, and I teach English composition for a living, so I dig this thread.

Early on in the semester, I have my students tell me a rule that they have learned about grammar. Invariably, I get these responses:

Use a comma when you pause
Don't start a sentence with "because"
Don't start a sentence with "but"


I guess I can understand how these "rules" came about, but I still am annoyed by them. If someone starts a sentence with "because" and just writes one subordinate clause, then a fragment will result. However, does that mean starting a sentence with "because" will always result in a fragment? Absolutely not.

I always teach my students grammar terminology. This is a clause. This is a dependent clause. This is an independent clause. This is a phrase. Heck, most of them can't locate the verb in a sentence. If they can't locate a verb, how are they going to fix a subject-verb agreement error? To me, it's so much easier than these silly "rules" like the infamous pause.

My favorite "rule"? A student once told me that a high school English teacher told him that a noun is something you can throw. I responded, "Can you throw democracy?"

[Melville]

My favorite "rule"?
My girlfriend's elementary school teacher taught her that not only should no sentence ever start with an "and," but that no sentence should ever contain more than one "and." Apparently starting a sentence with "and" always creates a sentence fragment, and having more than one "and" always creates a run-on sentence.

If I were prone to be irritated by things that happened years ago and which have no effect on me, and I am, then the mere existence of such a teacher would irritate me something fierce.

[Wryan]

My favorite "rule"? A student once told me that a high school English teacher told him that a noun is something you can throw. I responded, "Can you throw democracy?"

That is awesome.