7 Ways to Improve Your Grammar and Impress Readers.

Cover via Amazon
Some aspects of Englishgrammar create more confusion and resultant errors than others. I get far toohet up about them. But, there you are; I guess I care a little too much aboutthe way writer's constantly break rules they often don't appear to know exist. However,in common with George Orwell, I'd rather all the rules were broken than have toendure an ugly sentence. But, in order to break rules effectively, you have toknow what they are.So, here's a list of sevenof the most common errors and some suggested solutions.
1.      Contractions.
We all speak using contractions. But when we write them down, they seem tocause problems. Here are some of the common pitfalls.
They're, you're, we're; all contractions of the pronoun used with 'are'. So, they are becomes they're, etc. The most common error occurs when your, the possessive pronoun, issubstituted for you're, thecontraction. The only sensible way to avoid the error is to write out themeaning in full and then apply the contraction if it's appropriate.Example:  This is a chance to improve your writing. Here, your refers to the writing and thecontext makes it plain that it is the writing that belongs to you. Thepossessive pronoun is therefore the correct usage. However; If you're going to improve the way youwrite, you need to be aware of how grammar works. Here, you're can be replaced by you are, so the contraction is thecorrect form. If your were used, itwould make no sense, since there's nothing belonging to anyone in the sentence.

2.      Homonyms.
This leads quite naturally onto the homonyms, those words that sound alike buthave different spellings and/or different meanings. We've looked at your and you're but there are many examples in English and they confuse eventhose raised with the language, so it's hardly a surprise if foreign languagespeakers have problems.
They're, their, there; we're, wear, where, were; bow(bend from the waist),bough; buy, by, bye; row (a boat), roe; tyre, tire; tear (cry), tier; peer,pier; pear, pair; stare, stair. A non-comprehensive list of some commonhomonyms. These won't be picked up by your spell-checker, because the spellingis correct. Only you, as the writer, can determine whether you've used theright word, though. And, if in doubt, please resort to that invaluable tool ofthe author; a reference book called a 'dictionary'. And, as a means of gettingthose of you who rarely open this writers' bible to do just that, I'm not goingto provide further help here on this one.

3.      Apostrophe's'.
Lynn Truss wrote a wonderful short book on this, and other, grammaticalpitfalls. If you haven't read 'Eats Shoots and Leaves', shame on you.
The apostrophe 's' identifies the word as a possessive and is often confusedwith the plural form. So we have the field-side signs inviting the driver to 'Stop and Pick Your Own Potatoe's'.Generally, it's not clear which of the potatoe'sbelongings we're being invited to choose. That's because it's a simpleplural and the apostrophe is redundant, incorrect, wrong, unnecessary andgenerally no more than the product of a confused and ill-educated mind.
It's not helpful that such worthy stores as Waterstone's, a chain of shopsselling books for heaven's sake, decided to ditch the apostrophe in their name.Why? It hardly causes confusion or extra work for the sign-writer.
Please remember to ask yourself the question, when unsure about the insertionof an apostrophe: 'Does this word indicate the ownership of something(apostrophe) or is it simply stating the plural case (no apostrophe). Reallyquite simple, you see?

4.      Tenses.
I can get quite tense about tenses. Even journalists, particularly TVreporters, can mix these up and it really sets my teeth on edge. Reports tellus that '…the injured player was took offthe pitch.' We all know, don't we, that it's '...the injured player was taken off…'? It's not difficult; or,perhaps it is, is it? And then there's the wonderful, '…all thought the boy done good.' What? Surely, even the most basicEnglish education explains that we should say, '…all thought the boy had done well.' or, '…all thought the boy did well,' or, perhaps, '…the boy did a good job.' doesn't it? And then there's theconfusion that persists about the use of such forms as 'spun/span, swum/swam, and hung/hang'. 'The spider had spun a web across the corner.' 'The car span out ofcontrol.' 'Beryl swam across the current to reach the other side.' 'Georginahas swum the Channel on three occasions.' 'I hung up my coat.' 'Will you hangup my coat, please?' But, 'The killerwas hanged for murder.'
English is noted for its irregular forms. I could go on for a very long timehere, but I don't wish to bore you. If in doubt about these things, buy, borrowor steal a copy of one of the many 'English Usage' guides. I use Fowler's, the OxfordGuide and Partridge's Usage and Abusage. All worth the few quid/dollars youneed to spend to get it right, don't you think?

5.      Pluralor Singular?
There is often some uncertainty about whether a plural or singular verb iscorrect usage in sentences where there appears to be more than one subject.e.g. Bread and water is too good for thatprisoner. I suspect most people would agree with the singular 'is' rather than the plural 'are' here, even though we have twosubjects; 'bread' and 'water'. The 'and' here engages both subjects and combines them into a singleentity that is understood by readers to be a combined subject. Therefore, thesingular form is correct. In any case, it sounds better. If you don't believeme, try reading both versions aloud and you'll see how the plural effort makesyou squirm with discomfort.
The above is one example of a long list of similar combined subjects, where twoor more terms that form the subject are, or may be, understood to be expressedas a single entity. 'Cheese and wine','short back and sides', 'rape and murder', 'love and kisses' and 'apple pie and custard' are all examplesof such combinations. When in doubt about usage, it is the meaning that shouldtake precedence over the form. Read it aloud and hear it; the correct versionshould be clear that way.
English, however, being the complex language it is, has another trick up itssleeve regarding plural and singular forms. When we write about collective orgroup nouns, the decision about whether to use them as plural or singular formsagain arises. And the solution depends on meaning. So, you might write, The gang were all at the crime scene. Whendescribing the actions of the individuals making up the group. But you'd write,The gang was first to arrive. When examiningthe action of the group as a whole.
Meaning is the paramount determiner here. I hope I've cleared rather thanmuddied the waters. But, if you're still unsure, let me recommend an excellentpiece on this in Thomas Parrish's TheGrouchy Grammarian.

6.      DanglingModifiers.What? A 'danglingmodifier' is a phrase that's intended to explain about one subject butactually relates to another entirely, or even to none at all. We've all comeacross, though hopefully not written, such sentences as; Walking into the library, Karen's list of books befuddled the girl atthe counter. Hardly surprising! The poor girl could rarely have witnessed alist of books walking at any other time. It was, of course, Karen who waswalking, not her list of books. The sentence needs to be re-writtendifferently; Walking into the library,Karen approached the girl at the counter and befuddled her with her list ofbooks. Not brilliant, but it says what it means. The opening phrase nowrelates to the rest of the sentence.
Another? Having less knowledge thanneeded, the teacher sent Jones on a course designed to increase his awarenessof the subject. One wonders why the teacher should have less knowledge thannecessary and then send the pupil away for improvement. But, of course, thewriter meant that the pupil had less knowledge and that the teacher was intenton increasing it by sending him on a course. So, the sentence would have beenbetter written as; Having less knowledgethan needed, Jones was sent on a course designed to increase his awareness ofthe subject. Of course, this sentence doesn't tell us that it was theteacher who sent Jones. But I'll leave it to you to modify the sentence or addanother, to include that aspect.
Please don't leave your modifiers dangling; someone might come along and cutthem off!

7.      Which,That or Who?
There has been, is, and will be much debate on this issue. When to use which, that or who, because, it seems, it isn't as straightforward as it mayappear. The common belief is that who isused for people and that for thingsand never vice-versa. The which questionis not commonly held to be so clear cut.
Please note; I said 'the common belief'. That doesn't make it the right one, ofcourse.
The fact is that that can be used forpeople, under certain circumstances. For instance, it's perfectly correct tosay, Of those members that were inattendance, all were in favour of the amendment. Similarly, it is fine tosay, Are you the one that said it was myfault?
However, who should be reserved onlyfor people. It's true that certain journals have, of late, allowed the use of who when referring to an animal, whose gender is known. But this isn'tgenerally accepted usage and is probably best avoided.Most commentators will agree with the above, but some willnot. Because of this, it's probably best for you to decide for yourself whichyou will use; be consistent, though. Personally, I'd avoid using who for an animal, except in the casewhere I was deliberately anthropomorphising the creature referred to. I wouldalso not use that for people, asillustrated in the sentences above. Although such usage isn't incorrect, I findit awkward and impersonal and would use whoor whom in preference.
So, to the which issue. I'll make abald statement, with which you can agree or not. Which is never, under any circumstances, used for people. The only which that refers to people is witch, which is an entirely differentaffair. Depending on the witch in question, I'd avoid the affair, unless ofcourse, the witch has placed you undera spell. Which is used exclusivelyfor inanimate objects and qualities. So, you might say, The tree, which blew down in the storm, is now dead. But you would,hopefully, never say, The robber, whichtook all your clothes, is a foul asset stripper. regardless of how youmight feel about him. You would, of course, always use who when referring to said brigand.
I could go on at length about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, relativepronouns and other grammatical niceties, but it isn't my purpose here to gointo great depth. I'll leave that to Fowler and his ilk, to whom I refer you for such depth oftreatment. My purpose is merely to raise awareness of the issues, to point outthat there are issues and that it is incumbent on the writer who wishes to impressand learn the trade that such issues should be examined and taken seriously.

So, hopefully, I've provided you with food for thoughtand whetted your appetite for further research. If you don't own any of thegrammar guides I've mentioned, I urge you to add them to your referencelibrary.