Subscribe Feed (RSS)Tough Love Grammar!
Over and over again, philosophy instructors stress correct grammar in their essay requirements. And over and over again I encounter students who are resistant to having their grammar corrected.
I am not sure why this is.
Perhaps they are under the influence of the loons who say “grammar doesn’t matter, as long as people understand you”. The problem with that is that bad grammar leads to people misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
Perhaps they think it is insulting for us to suggest that their grammar is incorrect.
Well, insulting or not, you just have to face up to it and make sure your grammar is correct.
Grit your teeth, and press on.
Academic English.
Academic essays should be written in Academic English. This is a very formal type of English, intended to convey ideas with clarity and precision. (This guide is not written in Academic English.) Academic English should be written in such a way that it will still be intelligible to persons who will be reading it 200 years from now and for whom English is not their first language.
Close attention must be paid to correct grammar and to the correct usage of words. Slang, colloquialisms, and rhetorical flourishes are also to be avoided.
Contractions (isn’t, can’t, you’re, etc.) are not used.
(Maintain formality in your e-mails to your instructors as well. Bad grammar, poor spelling, zero punctuation, and the use of “i” for “I” may be acceptable to your idiot friends, but you should not inflict such horrors on your lecturers.
You do know, don’t you, that (e.g.) typing “i” for “I” creates the impression that you are a careless, lazy, ignorant teenage airhead? Since it isn’t true, do you really want people to think that? Is pressing the shift key really such hard work?)
In this guide, incorrect forms are indicated with an asterisk* and/or the word “wrong”.
(Bit by bit I am changing the colours, so that the wrong bit are red, and the right bits are blue. This is slow work.)
I’ll start with the really bad stuff.
1. If you want to avoid the impression that you are a semiliterate moron who failed fifth grade…
Never use “*off of“. (Except when the “off” is part of a phrasal verb, as in “the turning off of the light” .) This abomination can usually be replaced by “from” or “off”.
(The hideous construction “*based off of” shows a total lack of comprehension of the meaning of the word “based“. “To base” means “to put something on a base“, so it should be obvious to even the feeblest intellects that the correct construction is “based on“.)
Never replace “have” with “of”. “*Could of”, “*would of” “*might of“, etc., are only for slack-jawed yokels called Cletus.
Never use “*youse“, “*you all“, or “*y’all“. Leave these to bogans and hillbillies.
Never write “*different than*”, “*differently than*”, “*different to*”, “*differently to*”.
These should be “different from“, “differently from“.
(And “similar to“, “the same as“, “larger/smaller/heavier/more complicated than“)
Always use “there are” with plurals, and “there is” with singulars and uncountables.
There are cats on the fence.
There is a cat on the fence.
There is creosote on the fence.
Also remember that “less” is used with uncountables, and “fewer” with countables.
Wrong! Less than ten items.
(Some supermarket chains in Britain have finally surrendered to the grammarians on this one.)
Right! Fewer than ten items.
Never use “there” for “their” or vice versa. Similarly, do not confuse “it’s” with “its“, or “your” with “you’re“. ”It’s” and “you’re” are contractions, so you should not be using them anyway
Do not confuse “than” and “then“. They are pronounced differently, spelt differently, and have different functions, so there is no excuse for it. Even slow, messy, painful suicide would be insufficient expiation.
(I have been informed that there are, in fact, regions of the world in which “than” and “then” are not pronounced differently. If this is true, the use of nuclear weapons on such areas is clearly justified.)
Never write “I want for you to…” or “He intended for it to mean ..”. Omit the “for“.
”I want you to…”
”He intended it to …”
Never write “allow for …” if you mean “permit “. Use “allow” by itself, as in
”I will not allow you to do that.”
“Allow for” means “to make a special accommodation for” , as in
“One percent for each grammar mistake is a bit harsh. You have to allow for the fact that not one of these students has ever been taught English.”
Never write “All X are/do not Y“. This is both bad grammar and ambiguous. In English the rule is that the negative immediately precedes that which is negated. If you mean
”No X are/do Y“
then that is what you should write. If you want to deny that all X are/do Y, but maybe some X do Y, then
“Not all X are/do Y“
is the correct form.
Never write “It is not that big of a deal“ or “The DA members put up too good of a fight“
Wrong! “Why so much fuss over grammar? It’s not that big of a deal.”
Omit the “of“.
Right! “Why so much fuss over grammar? It’s not that big a deal“
Never confuse “lie” and “lay“.
Lie - lay - lain - Intransitive -to move into or be in a horizontal position.
She lies on the sofa when she watches TV.
He lay on the grass and waited.
The cat had never lain on that particular bed before.
Lay - laid - laid - Transitive - to put onto a surface, to put into a horizontal position.
Let’s lay the carpet in the hall.
We laid the other one in the study.
The hens have laid five eggs.
Neither of them should be confused with
”lie - lied - lied” - to say something which is not true.
(I will spare you the old jokes about lying in bed.)
2. Sentence Fragments.
(Much of this is adapted from the useful Purdue University Online Writing Lab. You will undoubtedly benefit from consulting it. Americans will also realise that I am not trying to impose British/Australian English on them.)
Academic English should be written in complete sentences. An English sentence must have a main verb, and, if it is not imperative, nearly always requires an explicitly stated subject. A sentence fragment lacks one or both of these, but is bounded by punctuation which implies it is a complete sentence.
Many sentence fragments can be converted into legitimate sentences by altering the punctuation or inserting a main verb.
Wrong! Some students like grammar hints. Such as these.
Right! Some students like grammar hints, such as these.
An “-ing” form cannot be a main verb by itself. It must be preceded by a form of the verb “to be”. (E.g. “is”, “am”, “was”, “were”, “[modal verb] be”, “have/had been”. Modal verbs include will/might/may/can/could/would/could/should)
Wrong! Some students use “-ing” forms as main verbs. Thus ignoring the rules of grammar. The reason being that they write the way they speak. These sentences being examples.
Right! Some students use “-ing” forms as main verbs, thus ignoring the rules of grammar. This is no longer (thank goodness!) an example.
Wrong! Some students use a relative clause as a full sentence. Which is also incorrect.
Right! Some students use a relative clause as a full sentence, which is also incorrect.
3. The dreaded comma splice
When two complete sentences are to be brought together into a single sentence, and one is not a subordinate clause of the other, they cannot simply be linked with a comma.
When it rains, the streets get wet.
In the preceding sentence “when it rains” is a subordinate clause to “the street gets wet”
Wrong! The rain falls heavily, the streets get wet.
In the preceding sentence, “the rain falls heavily” is not a subordinate clause of ” the streets get wet”, and nor is “the streets get wet” subordinate to “the rain falls heavily”. To connect the two sentences, a co-ordinating conjunction is required. In this case, “and” or “so” would be appropriate, depending on the relationship you require between the sentences.
The rain falls heavily, and the streets get wet.
The rain falls heavily, so the streets get wet.
If you feel really confident about your punctuation, you can connect sentences with a semicolon.
The rain falls heavily; the streets get wet.
(There are a few small differences between British/Australian punctuation and American punctuation, but only professional editors need to worry about them.)
Note that when a clause is used as the subject of a sentence, it is not followed by a comma.
Wrong! Knowing who this Christina Shelton was, seemed central to understanding the true motivation behind the publication.
Wrong! What now seems like a painfully overdue observation, must have been a real eye-opener for them somewhere in the recent past.
Wrong! I can imagine that recovering any bit of eyesight after having been completely blind, must feel like an absolute revelation.
Wrong! The insertion of a comma after a subject clause, reveals ignorance of correct punctuation.
Right! The insertion of a comma after a subject clause reveals ignorance of correct punctuation.
Wrong! Ignoring basic grammar, does nothing to enhance your credibility.
Right! Ignoring basic grammar does nothing to enhance your credibility.
4. “Because“ and “Since“
Look at these three sentences.
I love her.
*Because I kissed her.
She bit me.
This is not clear at all.
Why do I love her? Is it because I kissed her?
Why did she bite me? Is it because I kissed her?
The confusion stems from the fact that in English the explanation can either precede or follow the thing to be explained (explanandum), and so we can read it as
I love her because I kissed her.
She bit me.
And also as
I love her.
Because I kissed her, she bit me.
The moral of this little glimpse into my pathetic love-life is that when you use “because” the explanation and the explanandum must be in the same sentence. (And note the punctuation!)
Sometimes you will have to separate them. (Usually this is because you want to avoid long and unwieldy sentences.) When you have to do that you will use one of the following two structures.
Sometimes you will have to separate them. This is because you should avoid long and unwieldy sentences.
You should avoid long and unwieldy sentences. For this reason, sometimes you will have to separate the explanation and the explanandum.
In American speech we frequently hear “being that” used to introduce an explanatory clause.
Being that this is a conversation between friends, the colloquial usage is perfectly acceptable.
However, for formal purposes “since” should be used instead of “being that”.
Since it is a formal essay, colloquialisms should be eschewed.
5. Gender Neutral.
Colloquial English has two pronouns which are used as gender neutral pronouns. They are “you” and “they”.
The best thing to do is to pay close attention to the lectures. You have to make notes as well.
Every student wants to know when their assignment should be handed in.
These usages are perfectly acceptable colloquial forms, but are not acceptable in Academic English. When the noun referred to is singular, the appropriate usages require the “he/she”, “him/her”, “his/her” combinations or the formal gender neutral pronoun “one”.
The best thing to do is to pay close attention to the lectures. One has to make notes as well.
Every student wants to know when his/her next assignment should be handed in.
If you use “one“, make sure you use it in all pronoun positions.
Wrong! One must pay attention to their surroundings.
Right! One must pay attention to one‘s surroundings.
The “he/she” combinations can be avoided by making the nouns plural, when that is appropriate. When the nouns are plural, “they”, “them”, and “their” are perfectly correct.
Wrong! A student wants to know when their assignments should be handed in.
Right! All students want to know when their assignments should be handed in.
6. Conditionals.
There are four basic conditional forms in English. I have given them my own numbering here. I have also ignored mixed conditionals.
Conditional One.
If it gets hot, it explodes.
This conditional is for laws of nature and similar fundamental principles.
Conditional Two.
If it gets hot, it will explode.
This conditional is for specific occasions, but is sometimes used for general principles.
Conditional Three.
If it were to get hot, it would explode.
This conditional is used for events which have not happened, but which are possible. It has not yet got hot, but it is possible that it will.
Note the rare English subjective. “If I were to go, …”, “If they were to go, …”.
Using the simple past may be acceptable.
If I went, it would be a disaster.
“Was“ is not acceptable.
Conditional Four.
If it had got hot, it would have exploded.
This conditional is used for events which did not happen, and which are contrary to the facts. It did not get hot, and it did not explode.
Note that in the “if” clause the past perfect tense is used. There is NO “would” in that clause. Do not write:
*If it would have got hot, it would have exploded.*
It is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!!!
(This one was a particular irritant to New York Times columnist William Safire as well. The only times I ever agreed with him were when he was fulminating against bad grammar.)
IT’S WRONG!
This applies to wishes as well.
Wrong! I wish I would have read the Essay Guide.
Right! I wish I had read the Essay Guide.
(When the “if” introduces an embedded question, then it is correct to use “would” after the “if”.
He wondered if it would rain.
In this case the “if” does not introduce a conditional.)
7. Conjunctions at the beginning of sentences.
When you were in the fourth grade, your teacher, Ms Hardacre, told you not to begin a sentence with a conjunction.
(You remember Ms Hardacre, don‘t you? She was 107 years old, two metres tall, and had steel teeth. She ate broken glass and children for breakfast, and when she looked at you over her glasses she could read your grubby little schoolgirl/schoolboy mind.)
On the whole it is good advice, but there are occasions when it is stylistically appropriate to use a conjunction. When you feel the urge to begin a sentence with a co-ordinating conjunction, first ask yourself whether a co-ordinating adverb will do the job.
Conjunction Co-ordinating adverbs
And also, in addition, furthermore, moreover
So thus, therefore, as a result, consequently , hence
But however, on the contrary
Or alternatively, on the other hand,
Important note: Do not assume that the co-ordinating adverbs have exactly the same force as the coordinating conjunctions.
Important note: “On the contrary” suggests that the preceding claims are not true. “On the other hand” suggests only that there is an alternative.
Important note: Do not use “however” as a conjunction in the middle of a sentence.
Wrong! It seemed to be appropriate, however, it turned out to be unsuitable.
Right! It seemed to be appropriate, but it turned out to be unsuitable.
Important note: Do not begin sentences with “whereas“. It can usually be replaced with “on the other hand“.
Wrong! The Indians usually drink black tea. Whereas the Japanese prefer green tea.
Right! The Indians usually drink black tea, whereas the Japanese prefer green tea.
Right! The Indians usually drink black tea. On the other hand, the Japanese prefer green tea.
Important note: If you must begin a sentence with a conjunction, do not put a comma after the conjunction.
Wrong! But, it is commonly done.
Right! But it is commonly done.
8. Relative clauses.
Look at this sentence.
“The student has been strangled by the lecturer.”
Which student? To help us know we can include a defining relative clause.
“The student who made the grammar mistake has been strangled by the lecturer.”
A defining relative clause is one which defines who or what we are talking about. I now know which student met his well-deserved fate.
There are no commas in a defining relative clause.
A non-defining relative clause is one which simply gives additional information.
The dead student, who was found by the cleaning staff, had not paid sufficient attention to the essay guide.
A non-defining relative clause requires commas.
Make sure that you have got the correct punctuation. Omitting commas from a non-defining relative clause will give the incorrect impression that it is a defining relative clause. If I read
“The dead student who was found by the cleaning staff had not paid sufficient attention to the essay guide”
I am inclined to think that there was another dead student who was not found by the cleaning staff.
Similarly, inserting commas into a defining relative clause will give the incorrect impression that it is a non-defining relative clause. If I read
“The student, who made the grammar mistake, has been strangled by the lecturer”
I am still none the wiser as to which student was eliminated.
The distinction between defining and non-defining also affects the use of the relative pronouns.
“That” cannot be used in non-defining relative clauses.
For persons (and, depending on context, animals may be regarded as persons) “who”, “whom”, and “whose” are preferable to “that” in defining relative clauses.
“The student who made the grammar mistake has been strangled by the lecturer.”
“The student whom the lecturer strangled had made a grammar mistake.”
“The student whose throat was crushed by an enraged lecturer had made a grammar mistake.”
In written English, the use of “that” for persons is not advisable.
For things, “which”, and “whose” are usually preferable. “Of which” is also acceptable as a possessive, but can lead to some very clumsy constructions.
The sentence which preceded this one is correct.
The library whose books were stolen has been closed.
In written English, the use of “that” (rather than “which”) for things is less common than in spoken English, but is not as objectionable as the use of “that” for persons.
It is preferable to use “that” (not “which”) after the following words: all, any(thing), every (thing), few, little, many, much, no(thing), none, some(thing), and after superlatives.
When using the pronoun to refer to the object, the pronoun “that” may be omitted as long as the meaning is clear.
9. Greek and Latin Plurals.
This is a minefield for the unwary. Many English words are originally Greek or Latin, and retain the singular and plural forms from those languages. Some, however, have become so Anglicised that they take an English plural. The general rule that educated English speakers follow seems to be something like “if a word looks vaguely Greek or Latin, give it some sort of Greek or Latin plural”. Occasionally, that is the right thing to do.
Check the dictionary, and the site given below.
Words ending in “on“ or “um“ take “a“ in the plural.
Criterion - criteria
Phenomenon - phenomena
Medium - media
Bacterium - bacteria.
(But although I use “fora” as the plural of “forum”, I speak and write about “museums”. “Musea” seems too Latinate even for me.)
A tricky one.
Datum - data
The problem here is that a great deal of our information comes, not as a set of neat little bits, but as a large, amorphous, glob. That is why the English word “information” is uncountable. When the data is like that, my own inclination would be to treat “data” as an uncountable noun. (E.g. “There is too much data”.) However, when it does come in neat little bits, I think it should be plural. (E.g. “The data are ambiguous.”) You will have to use your own judgement.
Agendum - agenda - agendas
“Agendum” means “something to be done”, and “agenda” is the plural. However “agenda’ has become a singular English noun meaning “a plan/a list of things to be done” and as such becomes “agendas” in the plural.
Words ending in “ex“ or “ix“ take “ices“ in the plural.
Index - indices
Matrix - matrices
(But not “ox” Paradox - paradoxes)
Words ending in “a“ take “ae“ in the plural
Formula - formulae
Lacuna - lacunae
Words ending in “us“ take “I“ in the plural.
Terminus - termini
Incubus - incubi.
Genius - genii
But there are lots of traps here! “Octopuses” is just as good as “octopi”, and “viruses” (rather than “viri”) will elicit merely a mildly disapproving sniff from me.
Consult this site:
10. Some words to avoid.
The exact use of words is important to philosophers. When you use a word, make sure you know exactly what it means Avoid popular buzzwords.
“Authored“. A silly word. Replace it with “wrote”.
“Basically“. There is nothing wrong with this word in itself, but it is used as a filler and a buzzword so much (”I mean, like, basically, like, this is it, basically.”) that you should expunge it from your vocabulary for the next twenty years.
“Irregardless“. No such word! It seems to be some idiot’s compounding of “regardless” and “irrespective”.
Words to be careful with.
“Critique”. Acceptable as a noun, but superfluous as a verb. “Criticise” or “critically discuss” should be used instead.
“Impact“. Acceptable as a noun, but superfluous as a verb. I keep seeing students write such things as “This impacts (on) the victims….” and I start thinking of car crashes and impacted wisdom teeth, but in every case I see it means no more than “affect“. Use “affect”.
“Infringe”. This word has two meanings. One meaning is “to act contrary to”, and it is used in that meaning when we speak about infringing the law, sovereignty, or rights. Note that it is not followed by “on”.
Wrong! This decision infringes on the rights of the minority.
Right! This decision infringes the rights of the minority.
The other meaning is “to trespass”. When it is used in that sense, it can be followed by “on”.
“Refute“. This word means “prove wrong”, and not just “deny”. (Politicians claim to refute accusations when they merely deny them, but for a politician the fact that he has just said it is all the proof he needs. What he said last week is irrelevant.)
“Unique“. This word does not mean “strange” or “unusual”. Unless you are an identical twin or a clone, your genetic make-up is probably unique, but probably not strange.
“Unique“ means “the only one of its kind”.
It is absolute. You must not use qualifiers like “rather” or “very” with “unique”. “Very unique egg” is as nonsensical as “very twelve eggs”. Either there are twelve eggs or there is some other number (twelve and two thirds, perhaps) of eggs. Either it is the only egg of its kind or it isn’t.
“Gender“. The word “sex” used to refer to biology. Men were of the male sex, and women were of the female sex. “Gender” was a grammatical term for classes of nouns in most Indo-European and Semitic languages. However, sociologists began to use the term “gender” to refer to the social roles, stereotypes, etc., associated with the sexes. Fuddy-duddy grammarians (such as myself) grumbled a bit until we realised they were using the term to make an important distinction between the natural and the learned.
Now, however, that distinction is being lost. More and more I see the word “gender” being used to refer to biology. Application forms ask “Gender: M F”. They are not asking about social roles. They are simply asking what bits you have got. I always cross it out and write “sex” in its place. I urge you to do likewise. Similarly, I urge you to maintain the distinction between “sex” and “gender” in your speech and writing. It is too useful to lose without a struggle.
