Arlene Miller's Blog, page 45

No, I Haven’t Got Any!

“Hello, Sir. May I help you?”

“Yes. I am looking for a pair of green socks.”

“We don’t got any of those.”

“We don’t got any of those”?????

You have probably heard such statements, and many of you have written to me about got and have. They are two separate verbs with two different meanings.

To have means “to possess.” The present tense is have. The past tense is had. The past participle is have (or has) had.

I have a new blue dress.
I had a blue dress that I gave away.
I have had many dresses that I later gave away.

To get means “to obtain.” If you say I don’t got any, that is incorrect because you are using got in the present tense. The present tense is get. The past tense is got. The past participle is have (or has) gotten.

I am getting a new computer today.
I got a new computer last week.
I have gotten a new computer every three years.

Both have and got (not get) can be used as helping, or auxiliary verbs, so maybe that is where some of the confusion lies.

Have is used as a helping verb with the past participle form of a verb: have eaten, have gone, have walked, etc.
Got is used less often, and more informally, as a helping verb: I have got to clean up this mess (meaning must.)

Keep those pet peeves and other strange things you see and hear coming in!

 

No Problem: Ten More Peeves from You!

Thank you, thank you for continuing to send me your grammar/punctuation/word usage pet peeves. Here are ten more to discuss:

If you don’t like the word snuck as the past tense of sneak, sorry. It is a word and a legitimate past tense of sneak. However, sneaked is also good and probably preferred.
You can converse with someone. If you do, you have a conversation. However, you do not conversate. Conversate is not a word, fancy as it might sound.
Someone sent me a video of an Australian politician (I believe she was a politician) who made up a word: utteration. The verb is to utter. The noun is utterance, not utteration.
Less and fewer are still used incorrectly everywhere to the point that the distinction is fading away from the English language. People tend to use less pretty much all the time, even when fewer is correct. The rule is simple: Use fewer for plural nouns or things that can be counted: I have fewer dresses since I cleaned my closet.  Use less for singular nouns and things that cannot be counted: There is less sugar in these cookies than in the ones I made. There. Simple!
We often hear people use the phrase “graduate high school.” There should be a preposition in there: “graduate from high school.” You are not graduating the high school. Graduate is usually an intransitive verb (no direct object). However, you can use graduate with an object: The college graduated 300 students last week. You can see the difference in usage between the two examples.
Many people have a problem with the phrase “no problem.”  When someone thanks you for doing something, you can say, “You’re welcome” rather than “No problem.” Even worse: “No problemo.”
Someone asked me why those meetings that citizens are now having with their representatives are called “town halls” rather than “town hall meetings.” I don’t know, but that seems to be the phrase that is used. I would assume the reason is that one is shorter than the other.
Apparently the non-word brung is still around. The correct word is, of course, brought: bring, brought, have brought.
Do you know Chester Drawers? Well, neither do I, but many people (probably including me many, many years ago) refer to him when talking about that large piece of furniture that holds your clothes. The correct term is chest of drawers, which is exactly what it is.
I was suppose to go to the bank today, but I forgot. The correct phrase is supposed to. Same with use to: it is used to.

Keep your annoyances coming; I love to hear about them, and I learn new things!

Next week: By request, a couple of words often misused these days.

Grammar Diva News

I am finishing up my latest book, The Best Little Dictionary of Confused Words and Malapropisms. It will be out this summer.

You’re Too There!

You have been sending in your grammar/punctuation/word usage pet peeves, which is always good fodder for posts! Please keep them coming. Along with the pet peeves, I have received several requests for posts on some of the issues. Today, I have chosen some words that mess people up. But these are the easy ones, so I hope I don’t bore you (or is it boar you?) with your/you’re, to/too/two, and there/their/they’re. 

Your/You’re: I see your instead of you’re all the time, and I cannot believe that it isn’t just a typo or laziness. It is a lot easier to type your rather than you’re. However, whichever way you look at it, it’s you’re welcome, not your welcome. but it is Yours truly.

Your – Possessive (yours also). No apostrophe in any of the possessive pronouns, right? (ours, yours, his, theirs): Here is your jacket.
You’re – Contraction meaning you are. All contractions have an apostrophe in place of missing letters: You’re going to love this post!

To/Too/Two : I think most people have two straight. However, I sometimes see to instead of too.

To – This one is a preposition: I am going to the store. 
Too – This one is an adverb and has two meanings: (1) also and (2) to a large extent: I, too, ate too much. By the way, when too (meaning also) falls at the end of the sentence, you do not need a comma before it: I would like to go too.
Two – The number after one: I have two sisters.

There/Their/They’re: I do see there and their mixed up sometimes. And maybe they’re and their, since those both refer to people. 

There – An adverb referring to a place: There is nothing there.
Their – Another possessive pronoun like your (so theirs has no apostrophe): That is their house.
They’re – And this one is the contraction meaning they are. All contractions have an apostrophe in place of missing letters: Do you know whether or not they’re coming with us?

Please share this post so everyone knows the differences among these words! Next week: More pet peeves?Maybe . . .

“I Could Care Less” and Other Such Things

Thank you for your continuing submissions of your pet peeves and other weird things you see and hear! Today, I present ten more of them. Please keep them coming for future posts (and my amusement). But don’t worry. Next week, we will get back to more instructional/informational posts. But the peeves will be back soon.

Here are ten for this week:

On BBC (don’t know if it was radio or television): ” . . . sit moments away from . . .”  You can sit feet away from, and you can be moments away from — but can you sit moments away from? I think not.
The old “I could care less” is apparently still around. Let’s think this through. If you could care less, that means you do care some. If you care some, you wouldn’t be saying this in the first place. I couldn’t care less emphasizes that you don’t care at all and is the correct idiom.
There is often confusion between different than and different from. Which is it? Which preposition to use is a common issue in English, especially to those who are not native speakers. It is different from. Than implies comparison (taller than . . .) and different does not really imply a comparison.
Momentarily is a tricky word. I am quite sure I have used it incorrectly. It certainly sounds as if it should mean “soon” or “in a moment.” However, its actual meaning is “for a very short time”: She momentarily forget her speech.
Same goes for presently. It seems as if it should mean “now” or “at present.” However, it means soon: I am sure she will arrive presently.
This one is likely regional: pronouncing  didn’t as did-dent (I have heard it pronounced dint, which is a peeve of mine) and important as impor-dent.
Sit and set are a verb duo much like lay and lie, in that one verb is transitive (takes a direct object) and one is intransitive (does not take a direct object). Lay takes a direct object; lie does not. Set takes a direct object; sit does not. However, sit and set, because of the conjugations  in other tenses, is not as complicated as lay and lie (thank goodness): I sit on the chair. Please set the salad on the table. Not I was setting there.
Like could of, should of, and would of, someone wrote to me about must of, also written as must’ve. It is must have.
None. Is is singular or plural? According to what I have read, it is either, but usually singular. It is singular, when it means “not one of.” However, I cannot think of an example when it either (1) doesn’t mean “not one of” or (2) it isn’t obviously singular anyway.  So, I don’t know when I would use a plural verb with it.  Perhaps it  can be plural (and take a plural verb) when there is a plural noun in a prepositional phrase following it. However, it still means “not one of”: None of the babies was crying during the movie OR None of the babies were crying during the movie. I would say was: Not one of the babies was crying during the movie.  In a sentence like None of the cake is left, it is obviously singular because cake is singular and none doesn’t mean “not one of” here. Your thoughts?
Anyways is not a word. Same for anywheres, somewheres, nowheres, etc. Take off the s.

As an aside, last night I was watching the news and I heard the commentator say, “But that is a whole nother story.” We all say it. Since when did nother become a word?  Can we call it a split word — rather than a split infinitive? The word another is split and a whole is put in the middle. Like a doughnut.

Happy Earth Day! And keep those grammar, punctuation, pronunciation, usage, and  oddities coming in!

 

And Now . . . For Some of YOUR Pet Peeves

A couple of blog posts ago, I gave you a top-ten list of mistakes that bug me. At that time I asked for things that bug you. So this post — is  about you. Please keep the peeves coming in because I am not done yet! Send them as post comments or in an e-mail to me: info@bigwords101.com.

In no particular order, here are just some of things that bother you:

Bring and Take: These two words, like imply and infer, go in different directions. You take things away, but you bring things back.

Please take these suits to the dry cleaner.
If you are going to the ice cream shop, please bring me a chocolate cone.

Its/It’s/Its’: Yes, it seems as if now there is yet a third variation, the nonexistent its’. So don’t ever use that one; it will be incorrect! As far as the other two options, it’s easy. If it means it is, use it’s because all contractions have an apostrophe. If it is possessive, use its, because possessive pronouns (like ours, hers, theirs, etc.) don’t have apostrophes. 

It’s raining again today.
My dog likes to wear its boots in the rain.

Here is the keys: Keys is plural, and is is singular. They need to match. Here are the keys. When you have the” to be” verb, like is, you should be able to turn the sentence around: The keys is here. Nope.The keys are here. There is is the same: There’s plenty of toys here. (The ‘s means the same as is). Plenty of toys is here. Nope. Plenty of toys are here. Watch that one. It can definitely get away with you in speech.

Apostrophes in Plurals: You’ve all seen it: “Apple’s on sale” at the grocery store. “Served with a side of vegetable’s: on the menu. “Have you seen my photo’s?” on Facebook. Wrong. Save those apostrophes for when you really need them: possessives and contractions. The only time you use an apostrophe in a plural is for letters and numbers, and you don’t even need the apostrophe for those unless it would be confusing without one: a’s, i‘s, o’s, u’s, abc’s.  Not ABCs, HMOs, 1960s.

Then and Than: The difference between these two words is pretty easy, and I think most of the time the mistake is just a typo or brain slip. I think of the time I found a then in a book of mine where there should have been a than. I certainly know the difference between the two, and I was appalled at my mistake! 

Than is used for comparisons: This cake is better than the one I baked.
Then is an adverb used to express time: We are eating lunch, and then we are going out.
NOTE: Please keep in mind that then is NOT a conjunction and should not really be used to separate sentences with just a comma: We are eating lunch, then we are going out. (incorrect)

So, used at the beginning of the answer to a question: It is becoming common to hear peopoe begin a sentence with So. Even though it is now okay to begin a sentence with a conjunction — sometimes (usually and or but), there is no good reason to begin a sentence with so. As a conjunction it  generally talks about a result from the earlier part of the sentence: It is raining, so we won’t go. Therefore, starting a sentence with so does’t make a whole lot of sense, and so seems more like a placeholder — like uh or um.

What did you just say to my friend? So, I said that she couldn’t come with us. So, you see that SO is really a nonword there.

Irregardless: Yes, we know. It is in the dictionary. But it is nonstandard, so why not just use regardless, which is shorter anyway. Irregardless is a double negative. Ir- is a negative prefix meaning not, and less is a negative suffix. 

More Than and Over: Many grammarians and other language authorities have advised us not to use over with numerals: There are over 100 accidents on this road every year. They would prefer: There are more than 100 accidents on this road every year. The two terms, however, are now thought to be interchangeable. However, sometimes one does sound better than the other, so use whichever sounds better.

She must be over 50 sounds better than she must be more than 50 to some people.
I am inviting more than 50 people to the party sounds better than I am inviting over 50 people to the party to some people.

Dangling Participles: How we all love these nonsensical turns of phrases! 

While still wearing diapers, my mother remarried. Mother is near the participle wearing, so it sounds as if it goes with mother, which is  obviously not true. The word that the phrase while still wearing diapers goes with is I, which isn’t even in the sentence, so the participle is dangling.
I heard about the meeting in the men’s room. Meeting is near in the men’s room, so it sounds as if they must go together, but they likely don’t. The phrase in the men’s room modifies heard (where I heard about the meeting), so the prepositional phase in the men’s room is in the wrong place. This is called a misplaced modifier.

Lead and Led: Lead is a present tense verb (to lead), and it can also be a noun for the stuff that is in your pencil or perhaps even your drinking water. As a verb the ea is pronounced like a long E. In the noun, the ea is pronounced like a short E. The past tense of lead (the verb) is led without an a.

Yes, there are more, and they will be coming your way, along with a few posts that you have requested as a result of the peeves.

Grammar Diva News:

Thank you to the Novato Sunrise Rotary for hosting me as guest speaker this past week! Fun was had by all.

Please keep your eyes and ears tuned to conversations, radio, and TV to report any other flagrant mistakes you hear, and let me know! Pet peeves wanted!

A plea: If you have any of my books that you have not reviewed, I would so appreciate a short Amazon (or Goodreads) review. Amazon has some weird policies about putting up reviews, it seems, and I have spoken to them multiple times and cannot figure it out. Reviews sell books, so I would appreciate your honest review of any of  my books. Thank you!!!!!!!!

Amazon

Goodreads

A Little Lay-and-Lie Lesson

I received a question in response to  last week’s post asking when I was “going to have the courage to tackle” the lay/lie situation. Well, I have talked about it before, but bring it on . . . and here we go . . .

To lie and to lay are present tense verb forms. Let’s forget about the definition of lie that means not telling the truth. We are talking about the reclining kind here. 

Grammatically speaking, lie is an intransitive verb, meaning it takes no direct object after it. A direct object is a noun (person, place, thing, or idea) or pronoun (takes the place of a noun, e.g., him, her, me, it, them) that receives the action of the verb. Lay, on the other hand is transitive and does take a direct object. 

What does this mean in “regular” terms? You must lay something or someone down. Now, most people don’t use lie and lay at all for present tense because it sounds odd; instead they use a variation of the present tense (progressive present tense, using the present participle form). Here are some examples of using lay and lie and of using the more common progressive tense (-ing).

I lie on my hammock. (present tense; lie is correct because there is no noun or pronoun directly after lie) 
I lay my book on the hammock. (present tense; lay is correct because you are laying something: book)
I am lying on my hammock while I talk on the phone. (More common present tense using -ing)
I am laying my book on the hammock while I get my lunch in the house.  (More common present tense)

Things can also lie, not just people:

A pile of rocks is lying on the side of the road.
They are laying a pile of rocks on the side of the road. (Laying a pile: has a direct object)
The dog is lying in the sun.
The dog is laying his bone in the doghouse. (Laying his bone: has a direct object)

Now, that is easy enough. So let’s go to the past tense. What did I do maybe yesterday? The past tense of lie is lay. Yup. Confusing. The past tense of lay is laid. Not so confusing. 

Yesterday, I lay in my hammock all day.  (Past tense of lie)
Yesterday, I laid tile in my bathroom (Past tense of lay because there is a direct object: tile)

Now, let’s go to the past participle. That is the form we use with have, had or will have in front of it. Actually, many people don’t use these tenses at all, especially in speech, where things are often more casual. However, here we go. The past participle of lie is lain, even thought many people have never heard of it. I am not sure I have ever used it. And the past participle of lay is laid, which is a lot easier to remember.

I have lain on this hammock for three hours.
She has lain in the sun too long!
She will have lain in the sun for three hours by the time we need to leave for dinner.
I have never laid tile before.

Okay. I am going to give you a trick you can use. Subsitute the word “place” for your lay or lie. If place works, you use lay or its variations: is laying, was laying, have been laying, had been laying, laid, have laid, had laid, etc. If place doesn’t work, it is the lie verb you need.

I lie down.

I am lying down. (present participle: lying)

Yesterday I lay down.

Every day this week I have lain down.

I had just lain down when the doorbell rang.

Got it? But wait, there is more. And this “more” is never written about for some reason. It is a rule I never thought about before because is doesn’t usually come up — but it does with lie.

What about the past tenses that use -ing (past progressive)? Was I laying down yesterday or was I lying down yesterday? It is simple past tense (although progressive using the -ing) so should it be was laying? But obviously that isn’t right because was laying belongs to lay. Argh!!!!! Well, if you think about it, we always use the present participle for those tenses: I was running, not I was ranning; I was swimming, not I was swamming. And I was lying down, not I was laying down.

Back to the trick I gave you above: I was placing down yesterday. The trick doesn’t work. So with the verb lie, in the tenses that use -ing, it is always still lie.

I am lying down.
I was lying down.
I have been lying down.
I had been lying down.
I will have been lying down.

Versus

I am laying my books down.
I was laying my books down.
I have been laying my books down.
I had been laying my books down.
I will have been laying my books down.

So that is apparently why most people never use or need the past tense of lie (lay) or the past participle of lie (lain): we usually speak in the past using an -ing tense. 

Whew! That wasn’t easy. Kudos to my favorite reference book, The Gregg Reference Manual, for the trick about substituting the word “place.”

Two more important things to add:

Please keep your comments about your grammar pet peeves coming; I am compiling them for another blog post. You can e-mail them to me at info@bigwords101.com or you can still leave a comment on last week’s post,  or you can comment about your pet peeves in this post.
Welcome to our new subscribers! We hope you enjoy the weekly posts and the free mini-book download!

 

 

I Want a Top-Ten List Too!

Over the past couple of weeks, I have seen more than one “Top Grammar Mistakes” list, one by Microsoft and one, I believe, by a blogger. I didn’t agree with Microsoft’s, but I thought the blogger was on the mark. I don’t remember exactly what the list was, but I thought about it and came up with my ten. 

Well, actually, being an overachiever, I came up with more than ten, but I whittled it down to ten for this post. I am sure many of you (and I know I am preaching to the choir with these) will comment with your own additions to the list.

So (drumroll), here is my list of the Top Ten “Grammar” mistakes I see and hear. I put quotation marks around grammar because some may not be exactly grammar, but fall into the broad category of “good writing and speaking.” 

 Confusion of I and me. Usually, I goes at the beginning of a sentence, and me goes at the end, but that is a non-grammatical explanation. I is the subject of a sentence; me is some type of object. The mistake generally occurs at the end of a sentence when there is another person mentioned: He told my brother and I. No. Just take out the other person. He told I?  Obviously, it is me, with or without my brother.
Using myself in the wrong places. Ugh! Using myself in the wrong place does not make you sound smart! Myself is reserved for just a couple of occasions, and is usually used when the subject of the sentence is I: I did it myself. I myself did that. Not My friend and myself are going. Or, The book is about my brother and myself.
The ubiquitous mispronunciation of mischievous! It is not pronounced mis-chee-vious with the accent on the chee! The accent is on the first syllable; the second syllable is pronounced cha, and the last syllable vus.
Using the wrong past participle verb form. It is not I have went, I have ate, I have wrote, I have saw, etc. It is I have gone, I have eaten, I have written, I have seen, etc.
Confusing your and you’re. Yes, it is still a common mistake (or a lazy typo?). Easy to correct. All contractions have an apostrophe. You’re means “you are” and is a contraction. It follows the rule. Your or yours is possessive. None of the possessive pronouns has an apostrophe (ours, his, hers, theirs). That follows the rule too.
Confusing its and it’s. See number 5. Same rule. Same thing.
Confusing less and fewer. I heard that the distinction is going away, but you know how I feel about that. Less is used for singular nouns and things that cannot be counted.  There is less sugar in this cookie than in that one. Fewer is used for plurals. There are fewer tablespoons of sugar in that cookie recipe.
Confusing number and amount. Similar to number 7. Amount is used for singulars and things that cannot be counted. The amount of salt in my diet is ridiculous! Number is used for plurals: The number of accidents on this road has decreased.
Flat adverbs. Many adverbs end in -ly, and if you take the -ly off you are left with an adjective. Adverbs describe verbs, and adjectives describe nouns. I drive slowly. Slowly is an adverb describing drive. That is a slow rabbit. Slow is an adjective describing rabbit. If you say, I drive slow, you have used what is called a flat adverb. It isn’t technically wrong, but flat adverbs are not considered good English. They actually used to be more common way back when.
The singular they. Before you shout at me that it is now okay to use the singular they, just be aware that some of us still don’t like it and would prefer to “write around it,” meaning rewrite to avoid it. The whole purpose of using the singular they is that we don’t have a singular pronoun that is not gender specific: we have he and we have she. What if we don’t know the gender of the person we are talking about? Okay. But what if we do, and we still use they. The girl brought their costume. Huh? Now that is just confusing and sounds as if she brought some other people’s costumes. And maybe she did, but if she brought her own, just use her.

I would love to hear any common grammar mistakes you think I have left off the list!

Commas and the Law

Last week the Oxford comma made big news: a Maine trucking company was forced to pay overtime after the lack of a comma in a law was interpreted in favor of the truckers. Here is the blog post that talks about that article.

I researched a bit and found that there are several famous stories where punctuation has been crucial to interpretation of a law.

First, there is the “comma defense.” Was it going to be life in prison or the death penalty for Clifford L. Robinson? The federal sentencing code reads, “. . . death or life in prison, or a fine or both . . .” A fine for murder?  Read more about this case here.

Then there is the case of the comma versus the hyphen that cost America about $40 million in an 1872 tariff act. This was one item in a list of items that were exempt from taxes:

Fruit, plants tropical and semi-tropical for the purpose of propagation or cultivation

The way the item is written seems to say that fruits are free of tariff. Not so. The comma should have been a hyphen! 

Fruit-plants, tropical and semi-tropical . . .” 

Aha! So fruit is not free! Here is the rest of the story.

The next comma story concerns the always controversial Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That second comma (the one I have put in red) caused the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down DC’s ban on handguns.  They said that the comma divided the amendment into clauses. I personally have some problems with the whole thing: Where is the hyphen in well-regulated? Why are militia, state, and arms initial capped? And I don’t really understand the two-clauses bit. The whole thing makes no sense to me as written. It isn’t even a correct sentence. I would use just one comma, the one in red. Then, at least the sentence makes some sense! What do you think? Here is the article.

The final story here is one that cost a Canadian company about a million bucks. The story is about a dispute between Rogers Communications of Toronto, a cable television provider, and Bell Aliant, a telephone company. The dispute concerns a contract that runs for five years and automatically renews for another five years until a telephone company cancels the agreement before the start of the final 12 months. Here is the sentence in question:

“This agreement shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year notice in writing by either party.” 

It was concluded that the second comma meant that the part of the sentence describing the one-year notice for cancellation applied to both the first and second sections of the sentence. That seems pretty obvious. Here is the article.

Warning: Watch your punctuation — or write more clearly and avoid legalese!

 

Grammar Diva News

I am in the middle of writing my next book, The Best Little Dictionary of Confused Words and Malapropisms. It should be out by May or June. It is the third and final book in the series with The Best Little Grammar Book Ever (second edition) and The Best Little Grammar Workbook Ever. Each book can be purchased and used separately, but I may also package them as a set.
I will be speaking to the Novato Sunrise chapter of the Rotary club in April.
Both the Mt. Diablo and Fremont chapters of California Writers Club have invited me to speak. I will be speaking to Mt. Diablo in November (I think) and Fremont in 2018. Seems so far away! (because it is)

If you have any ideas for blog posts or questions or comments, please contact me!

 

Oxford Comma Makes the News!

Well, there is one company in Maine that now cares about the Oxford comma! I had a related topic in mind for today’s post anyway, so when I saw this article (and several people sent it to me) I knew I had to write about it. 

The Oxford, otherwise known as the “series” comma, is one of the more controversial grammar topics. A 2014 survey (who would think anyone would survey people’s opinions about the Oxford comma!) showed that 57 percent of  Americans surveyed were in favor of the comma, and 43 percent were opposed.

So, if you haven’t read the story, a Maine company was faced with a class-action lawsuit about overtime pay for their truck drivers due to the interpretation of a written law. These drivers distribute perishable food items. Here is the sentence (it isn’t even a complete sentence ) in question — to which overtime pay does NOT apply: 

“The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment or distribution of…”

The only thing the drivers do as part of their regular job is distribute.  If the comma were there, the law reads, “The canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing for shipment, or distribution…” Aha! Here we see that with the comma, distribution is a separate thing, and there is no overtime. But when we leave the comma out (as it is in the official law), the last item in the series is packing for shipment or distribution. Clarified, this item would be packing for shipment or packing for distribution. There is no overtime for packing, but they don’t pack; they distribute. So all is good and they receive overtime.

Another thing to notice in the series is that all the items end in -ing (gerunds, we call them). If distribution were the last item in the series, it would not be parallel with all the other items: canning, processing, preserving, freezing, drying, marketing, storing, packing (for shipment), distribution. While sometimes mistakenly written in a nonparallel way, the items  in the series should all be parallel; therefore, there is yet another grounds to interpret the last item as packing for shipment or distribution, since this preserves the parallelism in the writing.

The appeals court reversed a lower court decision. The appeals court said that the lack of a comma raised sufficient uncertainty to take the side of the drivers.

David G. Webbert, a lawyer who represented the drivers, said, “That comma would have sunk our ship.” That simple little Oxford comma would have made distribution a separate item in the series and disqualified them from overtime pay for distribution, which is their job.

The Maine Legislative Drafting Manual specifically instructs lawmakers to NOT use the Oxford comma. So it is really unclear as to whether “packing for shipment or distribution of” is one item or two. We can assume either that the words are two items with no Oxford comma (no overtime pay), or one item where no comma would be used anyway (overtime pay). Either way, the series follows the Manual’s rule of no Oxford comma, and the Oakhurst Dairy could be out $10 million!

I personally am pro Oxford comma, and I don’t understand what the big deal about using it is. I know there are people who overuse commas, sprinkling them over their writing like salt . . . however, the Oxford comma, in my opinion, is not an overuse. It often clarifies: I would like to thank my parents, Steve Martin and Jimmy Fallon. (??) See?

Grammar Diva News

Please check out the guest blog post I wrote for The Language Lab in Toronto.

Yes, it is free! The Kindle edition of my first book!

 

 

 

“Exception”al Verbs- Part 2

Two weeks ago I posted the first part of this topic — verbs that are exceptions to the rule in forming the past tense and the past participle. This post is the conclusion of the two-part series.

Verbs have several forms. Three of them are

The base, or what we use for the present tense — walk 
The past tense, or what we use for simple past tense — walked
The past participle, or what we use for the perfect tenses — (have, had, will have) walked

The verb walk is regular. It simply adds -ed for the past tense and the past participle. 

Obviously, if a verb already ends in e, we simply add the d — bake/baked. Still considered a regular verb.

If a verb ends in y, we change the y to an i before adding ed — study/studied. Still considered a regular verb.

Irregular verbs break those rules. Some irregular verbs have two different spellings for those three forms. The past tense and the past participle are the same:

build/built/have built
lend/lent/have lent
lay/laid/have laid

Other irregular verbs have three different spellings for those three forms. Those are the irregular verbs that cause the most problems and that were the focus of Part 1 of this blog post. 

go/went/have gone
swim, swam, have swum
drink/drank/have drunk
write/wrote/have written

This post talks about the other category of irregular verbs: those that don’t change at all from present tense to past tense to present participle.  Here are some of those verbs:

bet – I bet today/ I bet yesterday/I have bet every day.
burst – The boy bursts his balloon/An hour ago the boy burst his balloon/The boy said he has burst his balloon.
cost – It costs a dollar/Yesterday it cost a dollar/Every day it has cost a dollar.
cut – He cuts his hair/Yesterday he cut his hair/Every month he has cut his hair.
fit – I fit into a size 10/Yesterday I fit into a size 10/Every summer I have fit into a size 10. (But if your suit comes in at the waist, it is fitted. Go figure.)
hit – She hits a home run/Yesterday she hit a home run/Every game this season she has hit a home run.
hurt – She hurt my feelings/Yesterday she hurt my feelings/Every time we argue she has hurt my feelings.
let – Let the cat in/Yesterday I let the cat in/Every night this week I have let the cat in.
put -Put lemon in the cake/Yesterday I put lemon in the cake/I have always put lemon in the cake.
shut – I shut my eyes/A minute ago I shut my eyes/I have shut my eyes and fallen asleep every evening.
set – Set the flowers on the table/She set the flowers on the table/She has set the flowers on the table for you.
shed – My dog sheds/This morning my dog shed all over my coat/My dog has shed all over the carpet since I got her.
slit – Slit the top of the bag off/Yesterday she slit the top of the bag/Mistakenly she has slit the top of the bag.
split – Split the donut in two/This morning I split the donut in two/Every morning I have split my donut in two.
spread – I spread jam on my toast/A few minutes ago I spread jam on my toast/Every morning for as long as I can remember,  I have spread jam on my toast.

Yes, some of those sample sentences sound a little odd, especially the present tense. We generally use the progressive present tense: I am letting the cat in. I am splitting the donut in two. Some of those present tense sentences actually sound like past tense. They are just examples to show the forms that do not change. 

Then there are these verbs:

knit — The past and past participle forms can be knit or knitted.
rid — The past participle form can be either rid or ridded
spit — The past  tense and past participle can be either spit or spat.
read — The spelling is the same for all three forms, but the pronunciation changes; in the past tense and past participle, the ea sounds like a short e (unlike lead, where the past tense spelling changes to led).

The difference in usage between the past tense and the present perfect tense (the second the third sentences in each example) has been covered in a previous post about tenses.