Archive for category Grammar Commentary
An ellipsis (with an i) is a punctuation mark consisting of 3 dots used either to indicate that words or phrases are omitted in a sentence (usually a quote) or, in common usage, to pause in thought or allow a thought to trail off without completing it. Examples:
Thoreau notes: “I learned . . . that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, . . . he will meet with . . . success. . . .” [thepunctuationguide.com/ellipses.html]
Well . . . what do you think?
I thought we were in agreement, but . . . ?
Most word processing programs have an automatic replacement feature that inserts unspaced dots and calls it an ellipsis. You can change the settings, however, to make it correctly spaced.
When you wish to end a quote with the ellipsis, you must add the period as the fourth dot, spacing before it. Example: President Kennedy said, “Ask not what you can do for your country . . . .”
The plural word “ellipses” (with an e) refers to the dots themselves, not the combined punctuation mark.
The correct use of an apostrophe is either to form a possessive or a contraction.
- Possessive: the teacher’s sign, a person’s signature, your foot’s toe
*The only possessives that do NOT use the apostrophe are pronouns:
his, hers, its, theirs, whose, theirs, yours, ours
- Contraction: don’t, isn’t, can’t
You will also find the apostrophe used when letters have been removed: rock ‘n’ roll, or when a plural would be misread: do’s and don’ts (It would be awkward to read “dos” and don’ts.).
For common acronyms or abbreviations that are typically capitalized, do not use an apostrophe to form the plural. Just add an s: DVDs, CDs.
Please, I’m begging here, do NOT use the apostrophe to form the plurals of nouns:
If you can find other examples of incorrect apostrophe use, and they’re everywhere so this should be an easy assignment, please post them here for our pleasure (or pain).
A necessary point of clarification here: Its is the possessive pronoun (Example: “The apostrophe is losing its meaning.”). It’s means it is (Example: “It’s not that hard!”).
Do you bring something or take something? These days, all I ever hear is bring! It seems that take is in danger of being lost as a verb of transport. There is a difference, and basically, it is that you bring something toward or with yourself and take something away from yourself. Examples:
Would you bring that book to me when you’re through reading it? (to yourself)
I’ll be happy to bring a salad with me to the party. (with you, speaking to the host, who is not with you)
Will you take this report to the meeting? (away from yourself)
I’ll take the car to the shop to get the tires aligned. (away from where you and the listener are)
The difference between some of these is subtle, but it used to be natural for a native speaker and only difficult for a non-native speaker. Now it seems difficult for all speakers because of the ubiquitous use of bring. Nearly everyone is losing the distinction and natural understanding of that distinction, so it is harder and harder to explain.
Here is an excellent source that offers a more detailed explanation: http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/grammar/practical-english-usage/bring-and-take
Listen for yourself. What do you hear people saying? I’ll bet you hear bring most of the time. In fact, if you hear take at all, I’d be surprised. I could count on one hand the number of times I’ve heard it in the past month, in personal conversation or on television. I’m not the only one who cares, judging by the number of sites I see discussing this online (about 27,000,000 Google results). Plenty of people have opinions, but the experts all agree: Bring it here and take it there, unless you’re bringing it with you (as above).
Bring back take!
I hope I am not a pedant, but even those who are must enjoy this artful commentary:
Language should be enjoyable. There are circumstances that call for correctness and others that call for pleasure. Being grammatically wrong can be fun if it is intentional. So what’s “wrong”? There are basic grammatical rules for communication that should be adhered to in order to be understood and that keep one from being thought of as illiterate or unintelligent. Then there are more specific rules that keep writing or speaking from being unclear or unpleasant as a result of confusion. These are the “rights” and “wrongs” of grammar.
It is important to know the difference between grammar and style, but that’s another post. Stay tuned, and meanwhile, enjoy your language.
Interviewer: How did you come up with this amazing invention?
Inventor: So I put two paperclips together and . . . .
How many sentences do you hear beginning with the conjunction “so”? Far too many. As Geoff Nunberg of NPR writes, this little word usually ” introduces some background qualification that the question calls out for . . . ,” the backstory the speaker or writer feels compelled to give in order to answer the question. Another post on NPR in reply to a reader question speculates “that the word ‘so’ generally functions as a better verbal pause than ‘um’ while an interviewee may be considering how to phrase their response to a question.”
While I do not think that “um” is an effective (not to say useful) verbal pause, I disagree that “so” functions better. In what way? How is “so” better? It has no more meaning than “um.” Nevertheless, it does have some usefulness: “So is not being used just to fill a pause, it seems, but as a tool for conversation management” (Dictionary.com). I will concede that it is useful for bringing the conversation back to a previous direction. Otherwise, it is an irritating verbal tic picked up from all the usages one hears without discerning whether to perpetuate them.
“So” can be properly used as a conjunction within a sentence to connect thoughts that need connecting, but I highly dislike its use as a sentence starter, and I sincerely hope this trend doesn’t stick.
grammarNOW! Tip of the Week: The importance of proofing your writing . . . and the significance of a comma
In his blog of Feb. 15, regarding the novel Tribulation Force, Slacktivist bemoans absent editing. In particular, one example of a comma in this novel suggests a meaning completely opposite the author’s intent. Slactivist quotes:
Rayford watched the news and was certain Chloe had been correct. It had indeed been Buck Williams, not more than 30 feet from the witnesses and even closer to the gunman, who was now little more than charred bones on the pavement.
And then he goes on to comment:
Commas can be tricky. The sentences that follow the ones above make it clear that Jerry Jenkins didn’t mean to say, “It had indeed been Buck Williams . . . who was now little more than charred bones on the pavement.” What he meant to say was pretty much the opposite—that Rayford realized Buck hadn’t gotten charred:
Israeli television stayed with the images longer, and after watching the drama a few times, Rayford was able to take his eyes from the fire-breathing witnesses and watch the edge of the screen. Buck rose quickly and helped the dark-suited man next to him. Neither appeared hurt.
This is why re-reading what one has written, and then rewriting to clear up ambiguities, is part of most novelists’ approach. But Jenkins isn’t like most novelists and Tyndale House isn’t like most publishers. Jenkins first draft is his final draft, and Tyndale is happy to forward that manuscript along to readers. Other books arrive in stores and libraries pre-read, but not this one. When you read Tribulation Force all the way through, you get to experience the thrill of knowing that you’ve just accomplished something the authors themselves have never done.
The downside of this, unfortunately, is that you also have to supply the work of mentally rewriting the sentences Jenkins never bothered to revisit himself. “It had indeed been Buck Williams, not more than 30 feet from the witnesses and even closer to the charred bones on the pavement where the gunman had stood.” Much better. (But then again if the authors had re-read this passage, or if it had been read by a capable editor, then someone likely would have crossed out the whole page seeing as it only rehashes a bunch of stuff readers just finished reading.)
Everyone needs a copyeditor. The best writers—the best coyeditors—need copyeditors. In a shameless plug for my own service, see what I offer at grammarnow.com. Let me help you avoid being the subject of a critical blogger.
Not at the end of a sentence that starts with Where, I hope!
Where are you at? is redundant. Both where and at ask the same location information, so the question should just be Where are you?
I know this usage is ubiquitous, among all ages and any other group distinctions you care to make. That doesn’t make it grammatical. I’m also aware that it has a long history. That still doesn’t make it grammatical.
Yes, we use informal grammar all the time (I won’t criticize your ain’t), but if you’re going to use wrong constructions, do so intentionally, not accidentally.
Of course, my criticism of at ending a sentence that begins with Where does not apply to one that begins with What.
What are you looking at? is just fine and should not be awkwardly manipulated to read At what are you looking? just to satisfy some pedant’s misinformed “rule” about not ending a sentence with a preposition. (See my Tip on that eventually.)
The next time you’re tempted to ask Where are you at?—please don’t! Just ask Where are you? instead.
If I’ve managed to stop just one usage, I’ll consider this a successful post. Maybe it will catch on.
First, the common misspelling “alot” is not a word. When you mean a great deal or much, the correct spelling is “a lot”: two words. Examples:
Valentine’s Day is coming, and I plan to eat a lot of chocolate.
A lot of the time, I prefer to use “most” rather than “a lot.”
It shouldn’t take a lot of examples for you to get this right.
The word that is spelled with two lls is allot. It means “to give out, set aside, assign, or distribute”:
The rules allot each of the debaters 5 minutes per topic.
The judges will allot $500 to each winner.
“Allot” is NOT what you mean when you write a lot.
The phrase a lot is overused and should be reserved for informal writing or speech. Try for a more specific word choice in formal writing.
Stephen Fry is widely known for his kinetic typography. I particularly enjoy this piece on language, in which he discusses the “rightness” and “wrongness” of grammatical usages and attitudes toward language use. It’s thought provoking and entertaining—fun to watch.
First read the cartoon Candorville: Scare Quotes.
What are “scare quotes?” you ask. They’re the quotation marks people use to call attention to a word or phrase. Unfortunately, 99 times out of 100 they’re misused, causing the writer to look foolish or worse (stupid) or causing the message to become funny rather than achieve its probably serious intent. For some laughs, visit these sites, whose collections of misused quotation marks are just a few great examples of unintentional grammatical humor: