Language & Grammar discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Grammar Central
>
Ask Our Grammar "Experts"
Mod
Mod
Everyman wrote: "Newengland wrote: "I never do the s's bit. Why would you, when s' does as much with less? "Because Stunk and White say to -- isn't that good enough? [g]
The Chicago Manual of Style agrees with you, though."
Actually the Chicago Manual of Style now advocates 's to mark the possessive of just about every singular noun or proper noun. Charles's, Descartes's, Moses's, Jesus's, etc.
But a possessive PLURAL form takes just the apostrophe (Presidents'). This includes nouns plural in form but singular in meaning: politics', United States'.
I love S&W, though when I read E. B. White's The Trumpet of the Swan to my kids, I was amused to see that he blithely ignored his own guidelines regarding "which" versus "that."
As a Brit, I'd never heard of the hallowed Strunk and White till I started frequenting grammar-related groups with American members, and even now I have only occasionally dipped into an old version available on Bartleby.com. However, I have read Prof Pullum's damning comments about it and I wonder how its loyal fans rebut his specific criticisms (some of his more general ones can more easily be dismissed as subjective).
Here's his article: http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years...
Cecily wrote: "However, I have read Prof Pullum's damning comments about it and I wonder how its loyal fans rebut his specific criticisms (some of his more general ones can more easily be dismissed as subjective)."He starts out with a basic error. The book is not called "The Elements of Grammar," but "The Elements of Style." Pullum is formalist grammarian, not a writer or stylist.
If he has any thoughts that high school and college students would become better writers by reading his $215, 1860 page tome "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" than they would by reading S&W, he's free to think so. However, just taking the first sentence that showed up in a "Surprise Me" look on Amazon at his book gleans us this gem: "What this [a set of examples he gives] indicates is not that except licenses complements of all the different phrasal categories in the grammar, but rather that it takes as its complement something licensed by features of the clause containing it." Pg 642, if you want to go look it up and enjoy the other gems on the same page.
Well, er, if you say so. But it is pretty clear to me why the person who could write that sentence would turn up their nose at Strunk and White. (The subtitle of his book should be "The book to read in bed when nothing else will put you to sleep.")
However, the review did remind me to go revisit the truly hilarious (and much more skewering) review in the New Yorker of Truss's "Eats, Shoots & Leaves;" most of you here probably know both the book and the review, but if not, do read this:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004...
Mod
Mod
Mod
The dear hub gave me Eats, Shoots and Leaves a few years ago. I thought it was awful.
You wouldn't think the market for people who have a knee-jerk reaction to bad grammar would be so big as to much such a thing a bestseller.
So you all love S&W, but is no one prepared to defend the specific criticisms that Pullum makes?(Everyman, note that what he explicitly objects to incorrect grammar advice, not the vaguer style advice.)
Mod
Surely claiming that "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" uses the passive voice is "incorrect" by almost any definition, isn't it?As I said, I've never seen a copy, but I'm curious as to why it is so revered when, even allowing for Pullum cherry-picking the worst examples, it appears to contain major errors.
Cecily wrote: "As I said, I've never seen a copy, but..."I've read it and gave a copy to my daughter. I am a bit of a curmudgeon myself and found it amusing. Not perfect, and I think the errors themselves are what made it so. Perhaps she, too, is a "venial cat'?
Newengland wrote: "Sometimes, though, there is no "incorrect grammar advice" -- there's just different camps."Also, one has to ask whether any of his contentions are the result of differences between English and American grammar, which do differ in a number of cases. He is veddy veddy English (Cambridge linguistics prof), S&W were American to the core.
Cecily wrote: "Surely claiming that "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground" uses the passive voice is "incorrect" by almost any definition, isn't it?"Grammatically, maybe yes. Stylistically, no. The dead leaves were indeed lying passively. There is no action in that sentence, no actor acting, nothing happening, which is the essence of the active voice stylistically. Again, it's a manual of style, not one of grammar, so it's fair to talk about a sentence which is passive vs. one which is active.
Everyman wrote: "Also, one has to ask whether any of his contentions are the result of differences between English and American grammar, which do differ in a number of cases. He is veddy veddy English (Cambridge linguistics prof), S&W were American to the core. "He may not be "American to the core", but he's not English at all. He is an American citizen, who lived and worked in the US for a quarter of a century, before returning to his native Scotland a few years ago. (He has written for Cambridge University Press, but is actually at Edinburgh University.)
Everyman wrote: "The dead leaves were indeed lying passively. There is no action in that sentence, no actor acting, nothing happening, which is the essence of the active voice stylistically. Again, it's a manual of style, not one of grammar, so it's fair to talk about a sentence which is passive vs. one which is active. "That's an interesting point, and at one level it's unarguable, but for a style guide to use grammatical terms in a colloquial way is, at the very least, unhelpful, I think.
Mod
(Everyman, note that what he explicitly objects to incorrect grammar advice, not the vaguer style a..."
As I said in message 1237, I hated ES&L. Thought it was boring and poorly written itself. I tossed it.
Mod
I'm not on the warpath (as I said, I've never seen a copy of S&W), but I am puzzled at the strong hold it appears to have over many Americans; there is nothing equivalent over here. I've read criticism of it, but never a detailed defence.
Mod
Never heard of it when I went to school.
Mod
Mod
Honest I have never heard of the book.
Cecily wrote: "That's an interesting point, and at one level it's unarguable, but for a style guide to use grammatical terms in a colloquial way is, at the very least, unhelpful, I think. "Doesn't it depend to a significant degree on what one's purpose is?
Cecily wrote: "I'm not on the warpath (as I said, I've never seen a copy of S&W), but I am puzzled at the strong hold it appears to have over many Americans; there is nothing equivalent over here. I've read criti..."Its initial purpose was to improve the writing styles of American college students. Essentially, if one followed their rules and recommendations, one might not necessarily write something good, but one would be very unlikely to write something bad. It was short enough to assign to students on top of their other assignment; there was no other equivalent work that I'm aware of. And let's remember that it was originally written nearly 100 years ago, privately printed by Dr. Strunk for his students to use in his courses. It was only after he died, as I recall, that it was revised by E.B. White and published commercially.
I spent a decade sitting through college courses in English, and I can think of one person besides me who swears by Strunk and White, and very few who have bothered to read it. Outside of academe, no one's heard of it. To say that it has some sort of hold over Americans is to say that Americans are concerned about how they write. In my everyday life, I know hardly anyone who cares enough about writing ever to consult a dictionary, much less The Elements of Style.
M wrote: "...To say that it has some sort of hold over Americans is to say that Americans are concerned about how they writ ..."Sorry, when I said "I am puzzled at the strong hold it appears to have over many Americans" I should perhaps have reiterated my earlier post that I was referring to Americans I encounter in online groups concerned with language and grammar etc (as opposed to all Americans, or even Americans in general).
Mod
File under "red-letter" days.
Sonali wrote: "Its 'an hotel' but 'a hospital' and I cant explain clearly to my students(who take english as a second language)why this is so.Help."Words with a silent 'h' such as 'honest' take 'an' instead of 'a': an honest man.
Unless your style book insists, don't use 'an' before such words as 'hotel', 'historian' and 'horrific', as in: It was an horrific example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Sonali wrote: "Ruth wrote: "What is RP English?"Received Prounciation, the way the English Monarch is supposed to speak the language, though I read in the papers once that the Queen's pronunciation has become..."
Recieved Pronounciation basically is spoken English without a percieved regional accent, or crudely put 'posh'..
In the early days of radio in Britain, it was the manner in which continuity announcers or newsreaders were advised to speak on air.
As Sonali suggests it is most associated with Queen's English and how she is spoken. However, nowadays, most British people would consider the manner of the younger royals such as William, Harry, or Zara, (or Hugh Grant, Hugh Laurie or Stephen Fry as Recieved Pronounciation) rather than the manner of the Queen, the Duke, Charles or Anne, which is a rather old-fashioned form of RP to most people's ears.
Stereotypically recieved pronounciation would be Noel Coward, Jeremy Irons, Tim Curry, and the chap who acts in the X-Men and Star Trek.
Non RP would be the Beatles Liverpudlian, the Rolling Stones cockney, and the Susan Boyle Scottish and everyone else :o)
I've been having some trouble differentiating adverbs from prepositions. Can someone tell me if "at midnight" in this sentence is an adverbial phrase or a prepositional phrase?We had Noche Buena at midnight.
Noche Buena is a Spanish term for Good Night or Holy Night. In the context of this sentence, it is a meal taken at midnight.
I did a bit of research. There's this classification called adverbial prepositional phrases-a phrase that takes the form of a prepositional phrase but functions as an adverb. So does this mean that the sentence above is an example of this?
Malcolm wrote: "Sonali wrote: "Ruth wrote: "What is RP English?"Received Prounciation, the way the English Monarch is supposed to speak the language, though I read in the papers once that the Queen's pronuncia..."
Malcolm,Thank you so much for clarifying everything.And ofcourse thanks to the www that I get information from a native speaker who also knows so much.
Mod
"Adverbial prepositional phrases that modify the verb can appear anywhere in a sentence... Adverbial word groups usually answer one of these questions: When? Where? How? Why? Under what conditions?"
Note that, in your example, "at midnight" answers the question "when?" and modifies the verb "had."
Newengland wrote: "Erika -- Yes, it's both. From Rules for Writers by Diana Hacker:"Adverbial prepositional phrases that modify the verb can appear anywhere in a sentence... Adverbial word groups usually answer on..."
OK, thank you. I was confused because of the verb had. I searched for the meaning of had in this sentence and it means to partake of (Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary). When does the meal take place? (at midnight) Then I got more confused because prepositions indicate time. Also, they usually have an object and is followed by a noun or a pronoun (at=preposition and midnight=object).
So to sum up, the phrase at midnight is a prepositional phrase because of its form. However,it functions as an adverbial phrase in this sentence. I hope I got it right. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. :)
Hi!I have a question for you.
Which one is correct: "every time when you log in" or "every time that you log in"?
Thanks much!
Nita wrote: "Which one is correct: "every time when you log in" or "every time that you log in?"Ruth's answer is correct in a way. It avoids the issue. I'd say "that" is generally more correct.
Thanks, Ruth and Stephen! I'll use "every time you log in."
This isn't a direct grammar question, either. But it's about grammar. So, anyway, I've turned twenty and I only really took reading and writing seriously two years ago (surprise, surprise, I haven't finish any of my short stories yet). Anyway, any tips on how to improve on my grammar. Is it really just a case of write, write, and write?I love reading Poe and Hardy and all those clowns. What exercises could I do (grammar-wise) to improve and hopefully compete with the likes later in life? Does this makes any sense? So it's still grammar-related.
Mod
Hi! I'm here again with another question. I've seen "outputs" used as the plural of "output". For example, "Output ABC is a combination of outputs." This means that Ouput ABC is a combination of outputA, outputB, and outputC. I don't want to rephrase this, but I do want to know if I should replace "outputs" with "output." Thanks!
Mod
Garry -- Yeah, reading's good, the problem being that many writers break grammar rules left and (you guessed it) right. Books are littered with sentence fragments and comma splices committed in the name of art, for example, and they have their place.
Truth be told, my grammar has improved just by being forced to teach it both in one-on-one conferences with student-writers and in mini-lessons before the entire class (for ubiquitous problems like the aforementioned comma splice and sentence fragments).
This means I've hit a few teacher books on grammar, which in turn have sharpened my own skills tremendously. Also, having a good usage book as a reference is a good idea -- not to read, but to consult as each question comes up.
Here's an example of a teacher-written grammar text that will improve your writing:
It's true what they say: you learn best what you have to teach, which is why I often have my students "teach" manageable concepts I know they can master.
Newengland wrote: "Nita -- I would look for an alternative word for "outputs" because it's repetitive (after "output" in the singular) and also sounds like jargon from the business field, though you don't indicate th..."Double thanks. :)
I'm taking it all in.
I added the book to my to read.
Nita--"outputs" in this plural form is acceptable in a tech context. It's not pretty, though, so in writing for a general audience I would reword. :-)
Garry wrote: "... So, anyway, I've turned twenty and I only really took reading and writing seriously two years ago...any tips on how to improve on my grammar?"I checked out your profile and read a few of your reviews. I think that reading tip mentioned above was good but I'd ask to consider what makes good writing. It's NOT strictly grammar.
I see that you mentioned that The Great Gatsby was boring and you're not the first to say that. I'm actually a bigger fan of Fitzgerald's writing than I am of his storytelling. Writing and Storytelling are two very separate skills that when found in combination can spell genius.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Language & Grammar
Books mentioned in this topic
Little Women (other topics)A Tale of Two Cities (other topics)
Twilight (other topics)
The Associated Press Stylebook (other topics)
Someday This Pain Will Be Useful to You (other topics)
More...
Typo.
And I will go down fighting for S&W until the day they pry my copy of the Elements from my dead, cold hands. :)
Actually, when I was teaching English I assigned S&W as mandatory reading, and often when I was correcting papers I would just refer the student to the appropriate page in S&W. But of course that was 40 years ago. Today, insisting on adherence to S&W would probably be considered bullying.