This book covers syntax, punctuation, style, organization, and tone. A special feature of the book is a combined glossary/index, alphabetically arranged to give instant answers to the most commonly asked questions about misused words, phrases, and constructions, and cross-reference to the text if a longer explanation is required.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. THE HANDBOOK OF GOOD ENGLISH
6.
7. THE HANDBOOK OF GOOD ENGLISH REVISED AND UPDATED s Edward D. Johnson B EactsQnFik New York • Oxford
9. <* CONTENTS k> PREFACE vii 1 GRAMMAR 1 The Sentence 3 Case of Nouns and Pronouns: Subjective, Objective, and Possessive 20 Agreement 32 Verb Tenses: Past, Present, and Future 48 Verb Moods: Indicative, Imperative, and Subjunctive Verb Voices: Active and Passive Modifiers 65 2 PUNCTUATION 81 Sentence Structure 83 Comma 94 Semicolon 121 Colon 125 Dash 131 Parentheses and Brackets 136 Question Mark 143 Exclamation Point 149 Quotation Marks 151 Points of Ellipsis 166 Apostrophe 172 Hyphen 182 Diagonal 216
10. • Contents HOW TO STYLE WRITTEN ENGLISH: MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICS 219 Numbers 222 Dates 228 Abbreviations 229 Generic Terms 232 Titles of Officials and Names of Their Offices 234 Forms of Address 238 Place-names 241 Titles of Publications and Works of Literature, Works of Art, Musical Compositions, and Other Works 245 Foreign Words 256 BEYOND THE SENTENCE: DICTION www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com AND COMPOSITION 26i_ Occasion and Intent 262 Organization 267 Tone 271 Revision 278 GLOSSARY / INDEX 293
11. <^ PREFACE K> This book's first edition was published in 1982. Only seven years later I decided to revise it, but not because I thought it had so quickly become out of date. It was based on more than twenty years of experience as a book editor and more than half a life spent largely in well-spoken company and I didn't think either it or I was substantially dated. I was aware of some new uses and misuses of the language and wanted to comment on them, but my primary intent was to rectify shortcomings that had been exposed by seven years of testing the book against www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com writing I had edited or read for pleasure and speech I had heard. I wanted to expand my discussions of many details, modify my judgments on a few matters, increase the number of cross- references, and enlarge the Glossary/Index—all of which I have In the course of the revision, however, I discovered that English and attitudes toward it have changed more than I had thought, and that I have changed too. For one thing, the language has made adjustments to com- plaints that it is sexist, and it continues to adjust. I discuss this change and my accommodations to it under sexism in the Glossary/Index; it has affected the diction in this revision considerably. In 1982, I think, avoidance of sexist diction would have weakened my book for many readers, but now, sexist diction would weaken it, because genderless expressions that once were evasive and obtrusive have become straightfor- ward and unsurprising. Another change—perhaps it is partly an effect of the swift and broad acceptance of nonsexist alternatives to traditional diction, which has demonstrated the adaptability of English— is an increasing awareness among those interested in language and correct use of it that correct is not always easy to define. In the 1970s, several widely read writers on language came down vii
12. • Preface heavily on usages and constructions that they considered de- based, inane, despicable—and these writers' readers tended to accept such condemnations humbly, even guiltily As the 1980s began, so did an antithesis in popular writing on language. The best-selling "prescriptivists" of a few years before were rebuked for their bad temper and often jeered at for their bad schol- arship. The "permissivists" insisted that English was what it was and would change as it would. Now we are perhaps in a lull in the war between prescrip- tivists and permissivists—or in a battle of that war. The war has been going on for centuries, and the current battle may have been evident in the broad world of letters only in the past decade but has been in progress in smaller arenas for some time, certainly since the publication of Webster's Third New International Dictionary in 1961 (an event discussed under usage in the Glossary/Index). But if there is a lull, nevertheless consciousness has been raised. The broad writing, speaking, and reading public is now not so easily cowed. The first edition of this book—though ''strict," which is to say prescriptive—was considerably more genial in tone than many similar books of its time, and, unusual for prescriptive books, it did its best to explain its prescriptions or admitted www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com that there was no explanation but convention. However, it took it for granted that any reader consulting it would share its author's belief that there was such a thing as "good English" and that it was worth learning. The present edition is as strict as the first. It assumes that those who use it want to be protected from criticism—and there are still plenty of critics. The general culture may have become more permissive about language, but that does not mean there are no more critics; in fact, the polarizing effect of the prescriptivist-permissivist battle has probably both in- creased their number and hardened their opinions. And—in my view—a great many of their opinions remain right, if there is such a thing as good English. This edition does, however, take even more pains than the first to explain its rules and to distinguish logic from tradition, tradition from prejudice, prejudice from common sense, com- mon sense from nonsense. It is more thoughtful and, I hope, wiser; it has been through the battle. And as its author, I feel obliged, as I did not in 1982, to explain at some length what I mean by good English, why I feel qualified to expound on its strictures, and why I believe learning those strictures is worth- viii
13. Preface • Good English changes over the course of time, and at any given time there is some disagreement about what it is, both as a concept and as an accumulation of usage details. I begin my definition with a statement that may be self-evident but should make it clear that the advice in this book, though "strict," is not based on absolute truths: Good English is English that at present very rarely sparks the expressed or unexpressed reac- tion "That's not good English/' either from those who really do know better or from those who merely think they do. I say "very rarely" rather than "never" because usage arbiters don't always agree, and also because critical reactions of two kinds cannot be avoided. On the one hand, the reactions of those who know almost nothing can be entirely wrongheaded and must sometimes be ignored. For example, I have been criticized for saying between her and me on the ground that between she and 1 is more elegant—but elegant or not, and I say decidedly not, between she and I is wrong. On the other hand, the reactions of those who know almost everything, the true, and few, serious scholars of language and usage, can be excessively rightheaded. For example, careful avoidance of plural pronouns such as their after singular pronouns such as everyone is justly criticized by the truly knowledgeable as a rejection of a natural usage that has been common in the best literature for cen- turies. But a much larger minority, those who are not scholars but do in general "know better," reject the usage, so I think we must reject it too. To continue my definition, good English is a kind of snob- bery. It is not standard English but the English of a minority who are likely to consider themselves superior, and are also likely to be considered superior by others. English that is good enough in one context may not be good enough in another, and thus good English amounts to savoir faire, a touchstone of the snob. All of us fail to use it occasionally, and some of us fail to use it frequently. Those who fail infrequently look down on those who fail frequently; those who fail frequently either live in constant fear of embarrassing themselves or find some way of taking pride in their unvarnished expression. Those who fail infrequently make further distinctions among themselves; the famous grammarian H. W Fowler observed, "Almost every man is potentially a purist and a sloven at once to persons looking at him from a lower and a higher position . . . than his own." Grammar and usage are therefore touchy subjects, like class distinctions—they are class distinctions. We expect occasional correction from a parent or teacher, but any friend who cor- ix
14. • Preface rects us had better be a good friend indeed; he or she is im- plicitly criticizing our background, our education, our place in the world, our being. And though many of the strictures of good English promote clear expression and clear thought, many others are merely the prejudices of language snobs. Con- sequently, those of "good" background are frequently in a posi- tion to criticize a speaker or writer who has not snared their advantages but may have superior intelligence and superior overall command of English. Such criticism is unfair and un- democratic, but also far from uncommon; it is simply a fact of society. In this book I usually identify strictures that are preju- dices, and so readers who are not snobs and are immune to snobbery can choose to ignore them—but I think few of us are entirely unsnobbish or entirely immune to snobbery; I am not. Longtime editors like me are, however, at least relatively free of language snobbery. We spend our days and years correcting the written expression of others, some of whom we are forced to recognize as more intelligent, more highly educated, more sophisticated both socially and verbally, and more successful than we are, and unless we are unusually ill-natured we even- tually are led to admit to ourselves that our skill is a humble one and that those we correct often have much more to express www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com than we do and often express it with much more flair than we could. We allow superior writers many liberties. It is likely that every so often we have been slapped down by such writers for making ill-considered changes, and we have learned from our humiliations. We have a massive armament of arbitrary pre- scriptions and niceties, but we bring the big guns to bear chiefly on mediocre and bad writing—which improves mark- edly when so attacked, partly because editorial routines often expose faulty thought, which can then be attended to; our skills do have an important function in this wordy world. We find it difficult to explain our weathered, dispassionate, and sometimes permissive attitude to friends who think we should be "guardians" of the language, and who may use En- glish carefully and well but resist its natural evolutions and hold passionately to usage prejudices that they cannot justify. We do very often impose such prejudices on what we edit, since we want to protect those we edit from criticism both right- headed and wrongheaded, but we may not share them. We know the rules, we know the prejudices, but the responsibility we have assumed as professional meddlers, accountable for what we do, has made us respectful of the expression of others. x
15. Preface • We also, of course, have our private feelings about English and its proprieties, just as do all users of the language. Our professional experience entitles us, I think, to make public not just our understanding of generally accepted principles of En- glish but some of these private feelings and even private snob- beries. I occasionally do so in this book—always, I hope, mak- ing it apparent that that is what I am doing. If good English were merely snobbery, it would still be worth the attention of all except those who are immune to snobbery, but it is more. There are positive reasons for valuing it. Al- though readers may consult books like mine primarily to avert criticism and save themselves embarrassment, in the long run they are apt to find that they have also increased their pleasure in using language and given others more pleasure in their use of it. In a sense, a language is an art form; in a sense, it is a game. Those who appreciate or engage in painting or ballet are sen- sitive to technique; so are those who appreciate or engage in golf or tennis. Occasionally someone untrained in one of these activities does something startlingly unconventional and won- derful, just as a young child or a poorly educated or foreign- www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com born adult occasionally says something wonderful, makes some truly creative use of English. A very few untrained practi- tioners are even consistently remarkable—certainly this is true in painting. Natural talent and something like luck play an enormous role in art and in sports, and in language too. But amateurs, no matter how talented or lucky they are, do not generally experience or provide much pleasure at first—they do not consistently please themselves or others. It is only as they learn to respect conventions and techniques and begin to mas- ter them that they reliably experience and provide pleasure. Language is an artful game, sometimes casual and some- times competitive, and those who know its conventions, tech- niques, and finer points—those who have a command of good English—play it better than those who don't. They are consis- tent—and consistency, even in the details that are the subject of Chapter 3 of this book, is an important secret of their game. They can both please themselves and please others with their play; they give their listeners or readers a good game. They also win their way more frequently. Good English is not the best English. The best English fre- quently is good English, but the best users of English—the great writers and poets, the great public speakers and con- xi
16. • Preface versationalists—are often innovative and idiosyncratic and therefore often less respectful of the strictures of good English than most of us can dare to be if we want to avoid criticism. Good English is more than merely adequate or serviceable, however. It is English used well enough to give the user plea- sure and to give pleasure to those who hear or read it, and if it falls short of the beauty and grace of the best English, it still reaches for beauty and grace and avoids the unbeautiful and My définition of good English is as complete as I can make it here—all the rest is in the details. I hope that those who use this book and wrestle with its details not only will avoid criticism but will find that the pleasures of language increase for them and for those who listen to and read their words. There remain a few comments about the organization and coverage of the book and a suggestion on using it. Its four chapters are a series of rules, each rule followed by examples and explanations. The rules are for the most part the familiar ones taught in primary and secondary schools, but the discus- sions of them are extended unusually far—far enough to serve sophisticated adult users of the language, those whose thought www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com is complex and whose verbal dilemmas are correspondingly complex. Its coverage of punctuation and styling—that is, mat- ters such as use of capitals and italics—is, I believe, more comprehensive and more detailed than that of any other book intended for general rather than professional use. It includes some basic information on diction and composition. The Glossary/Index at the back of the book defines and illustrates grammatical terms and indexes the topics discussed in the preceding four chapters. Extending its glossary function, it also provides information and advice on many specific mat- ters of English usage, in the manner of entirely alphabetical handbooks, and thus it is quite long, unlike a typical glossary or index. I have included these items, which in some cases are brief versions of discussions in the preceding chapters and in other cases concern specific words and details that are not discussed or are discussed only glancingly elsewhere, so that the book can have the handiness of an alphabetical guide as well as the coherent structure of the topical guide it primarily When the Glossary/Index does not answer the reader's ques- tion directly or completely but refers to a rule, I advise reading the entire discussion of the rule, even though some discussions xii
17. Preface • are rather long. In such references I have often included the wording of the appropriate subheading within the discussion, which will make it easier to find the relevant passage, but reading, or at least skimming, the entire discussion should increase a reader's understanding of the general principles that underlie the answer to a specific question and thus make similar questions less troubling and less frequent in the future. The book is intended to clarify general principles and hence educate the reader, not just answer specific questions, though it does that too. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com xiii
18.
19. THE HANDBOOK OF GOOD ENGLISH
20.
21. GRAMMAR • We learn the basic grammar of our native language, along with its basic vocabulary, at a very early age and without www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com conscious effort. Then as we get older, the adults in our lives become increasingly insistent that we learn correct grammar, which seems to be made up of a lot of troublesome details that must be learned consciously. When we get to school, we study grammar more systematically and are exposed to special terms—conjunction, gerund, predicate, and so on—used to discuss it. We do learn quite a lot about grammar, but the special terms give many of us difficulty, and almost all of us let them fade from our minds when we leave school behind. This chapter is concerned with correct grammar. It uses the special terms, because there is no practical way to discuss grammar without using them. However, when I introduce a term that I think some readers may not understand, I define it or give a simple defining example of it, and all grammatical terms used in the book are explained in the Glossary/Index. A reader who has unpleasant memories of struggling with these terms as a child should find them quite easy to understand now and may even get some pleasure from vanquishing gerund and other bugbears of grammar school. One grammatical term is grammar itself, and my use of it requires some explanation. Throughout this chapter and this book, when I state that something is ungrammatical or is incorrect or faulty grammar, I am misusing the term grammar 1
22. • Grammar as it is understood by scholars of language. To them, grammar is not a set of rules that we should obey when using language but a set of observations of how we do use language. If they observe that many fluent native speakers of our language say between you and I, they must conclude that English grammar sometimes permits the preposition between to have the sub- jective pronoun J as its object, though they may label the usage in some way to indicate that it is not standard and is not in line with broader observations about fluent use of English, such as the observation that fluent users of the language generally use the objective case, not the subjective case, for pronouns that are the objects of prepositions. This chapter, however, is not a scholarly study of grammar but a guide to avoiding criticism for one's grammar. It assumes that every reader's grammar is fluent, and in that sense correct. Therefore I use the terms correct grammar and incorrect gram- mar in their grammar-school senses: Correct grammar em- ploys word relationships and form changes that are accepted as correct by educators and the well-educated, and incorrect grammar employs word relationships and form changes that are condemned by them. Thus I call between you and I incor- rect grammar, just as our schoolteachers did. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com The rules and explanations in this chapter do not amount to anything like a scholarly outline of English grammar. They are merely intended to help fluent writers and speakers of English avoid common errors—avoid faulty grammar—by making them conscious of broad principles of English grammar that they employ unconsciously whenever they use the language. Principles that are understood only on a very deep mental level are difficult to bring to bear on specific problems of expression that we address consciously; we may suspect that something is wrong but be unable to identify and correct the error unless we can bring the principle involved to consciousness. In addition, many errors in grammar do not violate deep principles at all— they merely violate convention. Those who are not aware of the principles and are therefore not aware of the difference between a violation of principles and a violation of convention must face every problem in expression in an almost super- stitious way, hoping the jumble of half-remembered and quite likely dubious precepts in their minds—Don't split infinitives; Don't end a sentence with a preposition—will see them The chapter includes some advice, such as on parallel con- struction, that is concerned with effective use of language 2
23. The Sentence • rather than strictly with grammar, because often it is the choice we make among grammatical structures rather than merely the Tightness or wrongness of those structures that determines the overall quality of our expression. Conversely, some matters that could be considered part of grammar are not covered here but in other chapters—especially Chapter 2, on punctuation, which reflects grammar and requires an under- standing of grammar if it is to be used well—and in the Glos- sary/Index. The Glossary/Index should be helpful to those who want quick answers to specific questions. Sometimes it an- swers a question directly, and sometimes it refers to the appro- priate rule in this chapter or one of the others. It is often difficult for those who do not know the name of the error they may be committing to find the discussion of that error in a reference book. I have done my best to reduce this difficulty by careful listings in the Glossary/Index, but the reader may have to do some skimming of the rules and their discussions. To help the skimming eye, I have subdivided the longer discussions, and when possible I have begun paragraphs with examples of specific constructions that may match the reader's problem. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com THE SENTENCE Most of us don't have to be told what a sentence is. This is fortunate, because it is possible to poke holes in any simple definition. We can say that a sentence is a word group that expresses a complete thought, but I said yes is a complete sentence, yet hardly a complete thought; like many sentences, it depends on its context to complete its meaning. We can say that a sentence is a word group that includes a subject and a verb, but Yes can be a complete sentence even though it has neither subject nor verb, and When I came to dinner can't be a sentence—at least out of context—even though it has both subject and verb. Either the complete-thought definition or the subject-and-verb definition could be expanded enough to make it valid for just about all sentences, but we'd no longer have a simple definition. Since the subject of this chapter is grammar, we might try the following definition: A sentence is a group of words that are grammatically dependent on one another but are not gram- matically dependent on any words outside the group. This definition is not perfect, and it does not uniquely describe 3
24. 1-1 Grammar sentences—it describes independent clauses too. However, it does emphasize one important property of a sentence: the grammatical dependence we expect the words within it to Grammatical dependence is what determines whether a group of words is a sentence, whether the group contains enough words, too few, or too many, and whether the rela- tionships among the words are easy or difficult for a listener or reader to understand. The following five rules are concerned with basic properties of good sentences—sentences that are both good grammar and good uses of good grammar. (For a discussion of types of sentences and clauses, see Rule 2-1.) II 1-1 Write in whole sentences, not in •I fragments. / discovered the overalls. When I was ladling out the chowder. The fragment is easy to see. The second "sentence" is merely a dependent clause of the first sentence. The word When makes www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com the clause dependent on something outside itself, so the word group When I was ladling out the chowder does not meet the definition proposed in the discussion just preceding this rule. It must be joined to the first sentence, on which it depends: I discovered the overalls when I was ladling out the chowder. It may seem unlikely that a writer of any sophistication would be guilty of fragments. Here is a more complicated example: The President, whose term in office had hardly be- gun when the opposition in Congress, which included mem- bers of his own party, capitulated to public opinion, changing the nature of his party leadership. The sentence is confusing, and it takes some study to reveal that the confusion results from a fragment. Was it the President or the opposition that capitulated? If it was the opposition, then the whole sentence is a fragment, because The President, which is obviously the subject of the sentence, has no verb to be the subject of. If it was the President that capitulated, then the opposition, just as obviously intended to be the subject of a dependent clause, has no verb, so the clause is a fragment. Such fragments are common, particularly in journalism. A hurried writer, or a hurried editor, may feel something is amiss but not see the error—after all, it's hard to see what isn't there, and often it's what isn't there that makes a sentence or clause a 4
25. The Sentence 1 -1 fragment. Whenever something seems wrong with a compli- cated sentence, it helps to make sure that neither the sentence as a whole nor any clause within it is a fragment. A proper sentence generally contains a subject and a predi- cate, but not every proper sentence does. And what of honor! and So much for noble sentiments can stand alone as sen- tences, though their meaning depends on the content of some preceding sentence or group of sentences. They are not frag- ments, because they are not grammatically dependent on any- thing outside themselves and they do not require added words. Fragments are sometimes deliberately employed to produce special effects: / said a year ago that this company was headed for trouble. Which is where we've arrived, as these figures will show. There should ordinarily be a comma after trouble rather than a period, but presenting the dependent clauses as if they constituted a separate sentence gives them an emphasis that may be desirable. The device should be used sparingly, and alternatives should be considered; a dash after trouble would give the clauses similar emphasis. Sentences beginning with and or some other www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com And, but, or, for, so, yet, and other so-called coordinating conjunctions are often used to begin sentences, despite an older rule, still sometimes heard, that a sentence should never begin with a conjunction because the conjunction makes the sentence a fragment. It is true that a sentence that begins with a conjunction—something joining its thought to the thought of the preceding sentence—can hardly be anything but a fragment of the complete thought, but that is no justification for such a rule. After all, in a well-written paragraph each sentence should add its thought to the thoughts of preceding sentences whether or not it begins with a conjunction. Sentences that begin with conjunctions are now accepted except in very for- mal writing; I use them frequently in this book. To avoid them we must either ( 1 ) actually connect the sentence to the preced- ing sentence, which may be undesirable for a variety of rea- sons; (2) replace the conjunction with a conjunctive adverb or adverbial phrase (such as in addition for and, however for but, alternatively for or, and consequently for so), which usually also requires adding a comma after the adverb and may give excessive emphasis to the connection to the preceding sen- tence; (3) just drop the conjunction, which may remove a 5
26. 1 -2 Grammar helpful indication of the significance of the statement to come; or (4) completely recast the sentence. It is acceptable to begin an occasional sentence with a con- junction; such a sentence is not a fragment. But remember that some people still condemn such use of conjunctions, and it can lead to inept or confusing sentences (see also for in the Glos- Elliptical sentences Many sentences are elliptical—that is, they leave out one or more words that the listener or reader can be expected to supply. The missing word or phrase is called an ellipsis. An elliptical sentence is not a fragment; fragments are faulty grammar, but elliptical sentences are usually quite respectable grammatically. (They are, however, sometimes ambiguous. For example, John loves money more than Mary has an elliptical dependent clause, which could be filled out in two very dif- ferent ways: more than Mary loves money or more than he loves Mary. See also Rule 1-3.) Answers to questions are often elliptical. "When did you www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com discover the overalls!" "When I was ladling out the chowder." In this dialogue, the answer is severely elliptical, leaving out the entire main clause, which would be I discovered the over- alls. But any listener or reader could supply the missing words; the answer is still a complete sentence in its context. The context can be more stately than conversation about Mrs. Murphy's chowder: What is man! A featherless biped. Il 1-2 Don't omit grammatically necessary •I words. The function of language is to communicate meaning, and grammar is only one of the tools language employs to serve that function. Yet meaning can be entirely clear and grammar still faulty, just as meaning can be entirely clear in a sentence with misspelled words. Good grammar has to be good in itself, not just adequate to communicate meaning. Thus even when a listener or reader would have no real trouble supplying an omitted word, the omission may be an error if the word is essential to the grammar of the sentence. 6
27. The Sentence 1 -2 Omission of parts of phrase pairs The stock has always performed as well or better than ex- pected attempts to be a compact sentence and does leave out some dispensable words, but the second as in the adverbial construction as well as should not be omitted; it should be as well as or better than expected. The error is common in sen- tences that include phrase pairs such as as well as . . . or better than and as much as . . . if not more than. Thus The stock has gone up as much if not more than IBM is a similar error. The same errors occur with adjectival comparisons: Her money is as green or greener than yours. The stock has always performed as well as expected or better and The stock has gone up as much as IBM if not more are, however, correct. These are elliptical sentences (see Rule 1-1). It is permissible, and often desirable, to let the listener or reader supply the missing words, which would be than ex- pected in the first example and than IBM in the second exam- ple. Thus though the first part of a phrase pair must be com- plete, the second part can be elliptical. Ellipsis is part of the language, and sometimes an essential part. Note that it occurs elsewhere in these sentences as well. With every ellipsis filled, www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com the first sentence would be The stock has always performed as well as it was expected to perform or better than it was ex- pected to perform and the second sentence would be The stock has gone up as much as IBM has gone up if not more than IBM has gone up. Ellipsis saves us from such unnaturally tedious Omission of words in compared items: false Like the robbers, the cops' view of law enforcement is complex omits too much, making a false comparison between the rob- bers and the cops' view of law enforcement. It is two views, not robbers and one view, that the sentence means to compare. One way to repair the error is simply to make robbers an independent possessive (see Rule 1-19), so that cops and rob- bers share ownership of the phrase view of law enforcement: Like the robbers', the cops' view of law enforcement is com- plex. Another way would be to put the phrase in the first part of the sentence and then repeat a word of it: Like the robbers' view of law enforcement, the cops' view is complex. Still an- other way would be a complete recasting: The cops, like the robbers, have a complex view of law enforcement. 7
29. The Sentence 1 -2 When no auxiliary verb is involved but a verb changes form because of a change in person, the verb can be omitted in the second construction: / drive more than she-, I supply his finan- cial support, his mother his emotional support. When an auxil- iary verb is involved and changes form because of a change in person, the whole compound verb can be omitted as long as the form of the actual verb is the same, as in I am going to jail, you to your just reward, in which the omitted auxiliary verb is are, but the omitted actual verb is going, the same form as in the first clause. Sometimes an omitted verb has the same form as a supplied verb but a different meaning. He is crazy already and quickly driving his wife crazy may look fine—not only is the verb supplied in the first construction but it is unchanged in form in the second construction. However, the omission of is in the second construction is at best questionable. In the first con- struction, is is a linking verb—He is crazy—but in the second construction, it is an auxiliary verb—He is . . . driving. The same word should not be forced to carry two different mean- ings, so is should be repeated in the second construction. Many other verbs can have two or more distinct meanings—I have gone, I have a gun-, He keeps fit, He keeps sheep, He keeps his www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com word—but is is the only one that is likely to be wrongly omitted; no one would write He keeps fit, sheep, and his word. Occasionally the multiple meanings of verbs are used deliber- ately for a humorous effect, a device sometimes also called syllepsis but more precisely called zeugma: He bolted the door and his dinner-, He took his hat and his leave. See also zeugma in the Glossary/Index. You better do it right now is an odd but very common error; the verb had is left out completely. In speech, You had better is quite properly contracted to You'd better, then improperly blurred to You better-, people come to consider it some sort of idiom, or perhaps as the correct imperative You do it right now with better thrown in as an intensifier, and use it even in writing. It is incorrect in either speech or writing, though it may eventually replace the correct form, and it is possible to think up grammatical justifications for it (see better in the Glossary/Index). Like any other error, it can legitimately ap- pear in quoted dialogue, but I have seen it often in the dialogue of fictional characters whom the writer did not mean to pre- sent as careless speakers. 9
30. 1-2 Grammar Omission of relative pronouns He is the man went to Washington is distinctly folksy. How- ever, He is the man we sent to Washington is good standard grammar. We cannot ordinarily leave out a subjective relative pronoun such as who, but we can often leave out an objective relative pronoun such as whom. In simple sentences, the dis- tinction is clear even with pronouns such as which and that, which have the same form in subjective and objective cases; we accept This is the house Jack built but not This is the house fell down around Jack—we have to supply the pronoun which or that to serve as the subject of fell. (When another clause inter- rupts the relative clause, even a subjective relative pronoun is sometimes omitted, as in This is the house I thought fell down around Jack. See Rule 1-6 for more discussion of such inter- rupting clauses.) This is the house that Jack built and the weather destroyed, leaving out that before the weather destroyed, is correct, and in fact the first that can be omitted too: This is the house Jack built and the weather destroyed. This is the house that col- lapsed in the storm and fell down around Jack is also correct; the single that can serve as the subject of both collapsed and www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com fell down. However, This is the house that Jack built and fell down around him is incorrect. There must be a subject for fell down around him, and the that earlier in the sentence will not do, because it is already the object of the verb built. The same relative pronoun cannot be used both as the object of one verb and the subject of another, with the exception of the pronouns whoever and whomever (see the discussion of pronouns as part of their own clauses in Rule 1-6). In a complicated sentence, it may take some study to reveal that a relative pronoun is trying to play two grammatical roles. Thus They were all fully oc- cupied in preparing for the invasion of the mainland, which they had planned as the next stage in Allied strategy and was to follow in less than a month is troubling—mysteriously so until it is noticed that which is both the object of they had planned and the subject of was to follow. But the error occurs in simple sentences too, such as Do what you like and makes you feel good, in which what is supplied as the object of like but omitted as the subject of makes. This is the house Jack built and that fell down around him is correct, with that omitted as the object of built but supplied as the subject of fell down. It is not, however, a pleasingly bal- anced sentence; it would be much better with the objective 10
31. The Sentence 1 -2 that supplied. Some writers, as well as some editors, like to omit every optional relative pronoun, but such a policy sug- gests an excessively mechanical approach to language. An op- tional pronoun often improves readability. Note that in the examples above in which a relative pronoun is correctly omitted, it always is part of a defining construction rather than a parenthetical construction. A relative pronoun in a parenthetical construction, such as which in This house, which Jack built, fell down, can never be omitted, and it is unlikely that any fluent user of English would omit it. For discussions of defining and parenthetical constructions, see the Glossary/Index and Rule 2-1. Omission of a repeated preposition We disagreed only with regard to what the disaster was due has one too few uses of the preposition to, which is needed after due as well as after regard: We disagreed only with regard to what the disaster was due to. Similarly, It was a disaster the significance of which no one was entirely ignorant needs of at the end to go with ignorant-, the earlier of after significance cannot play two roles. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com It must be admitted that the correct versions of these sen- tences are much harder on the ear or eye than the incorrect versions, and that rewriting them would be advisable. Sen- tences can end with prepositions, despite the oft-heard dogma that they should not, but a sentence that does is likely to be a sentence in which the word order is not standard, because in standard word order a preposition is followed by its object. Sometimes there is no good reason to depart from standard word order. Certainly We disagreed only about the cause of the disaster is easier and pleasanter to read than a sentence so twisted that a preposition can be mislaid among its con- Omission of a repeated modifier There is enough time and energy, omitting the adjective enough before the second object, is correct, but There is neither enough time nor energy is faulty; it should be There is neither enough time nor enough energy The error can be considered faulty parallelism, which is discussed in Rule 1-5. Body blows are the most reliable, effective, and punishing, omitting the adverb most before the second and third adjec- 11
32. 1 -3 Grammar tives, is correct, but Body blows are the most reliable, effec- tive, and easiest to learn is faulty; since most does not apply to easiest to learn, it should be supplied for effective. This error too could be called faulty parallelism. II 1-3 Don't omit words necessary to prevent •I ambiguity or momentary misreading. The preceding rule concerns omissions that leave meaning intact but are grammatical errors. This rule concerns omis- sions that are grammatically correct but produce ambiguity or permit misreading. John loves money more than Mary is ambiguous because the than clause is elliptical. In most contexts the meaning would be clear and the sentence might therefore be judged acceptable, but in some contexts it might be unclear, and in any context it could be criticized as imprecise. The than clause should be at least partially filled out if precision is considered important: than Mary does ox than he does Mary www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com He was expelled for failing physics and gambling is ambigu- ous because of an omitted preposition; it should be He was expelled for failing physics and for gambling, to prevent gam- bling from being momentarily taken as a second direct object of failing. Few readers would persist in their misreading and believe that gambling was part of the curriculum. We uncon- sciously and almost instantly correct such misapprehensions when we read. Nevertheless they are annoying, and text that contains many opportunities for misreading can be profoundly irritating; somewhere below the level of consciousness, our comprehension is continually backing out of blind alleys. The word that is often omitted in such constructions as / believe I'll go home and He said I could stay. These omissions are fine, but sometimes when that is left out it is not clear where it belongs. The expectation is falsely high earnings will be reported could mean either The expectation is that falsely high earnings will be reported or The expectation is falsely high that earnings will be reported. Sentences with that omit- ted should be inspected with extra care. It takes special alertness to catch omissions that are gram- matically correct but invite misreading, since we already know what we mean. Ambiguity is always with us; the examples above are merely a few of the many ambiguities that the En- 12
33. The Sentence 1 -4 glish language permits. Yet the effort to reduce ambiguity is well worth making and should be part of the process of revising any carefully composed work. See Rules 4-9 to 4-14 for advice about that process. II 1-4 Omit redundant or otherwise II unnecessary words and phrases— but with some discretion. The traffic was as usual as ever is a typical careless redun- dancy; as usual and as ever mean virtually the same thing. This kind of redundancy repeats the same idea in different words. It seems to be especially common with as con- structions, as in Traffic was equally as bad last week-, either equally bad or as bad should be used. The writer or speaker may be using equally merely as an intensifier, like just, but to the reader or listener, equally and as have the same meaning in this context. / hope that when the parole board votes on my case that it will not fail to consider my recent beatification incorrectly www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com repeats that. The first that introduces the remainder of the sentence, which is a noun clause with an adverbial when clause dependent on it. The second that reintroduces the noun clause and should be taken out. The error is common when a noun clause has a preceding dependent clause. The examples above are true errors. More often, redundancy is not an error but just an unnecessary use of a modifying word or phrase. There are dozens of familiar expressions that cannot be called grammatically incorrect but are redundant: con- sensus of opinion means consensus-, variety of different choices means variety of choices-, large in size means large-, plans for the future means plans. One should watch out for such redundant expressions—for one thing, they are overused and consequently bore the reader, like clichés—but they do not have to be exterminated; the cadence of a particular sentence may make plans for the future more desirable than plans. Writing from which every redundancy has been religiously uprooted is apt to be unnaturally terse and clipped. Refer back is often condemned as redundant, and it is redun- dant in Please refer back to the previous chapter. But the re in refer does not necessarily have the same meaning as back— obviously it doesn't in Please refer to the next chapter. If I am 13
34. 1-5 Grammar reading Chapter 10,1 might expect to be referred to Chapter 12 but would not object to being referred back to Chapter 8; the back might be dispensable, but it would remind me that I am being referred to text I have already read. It is wrongheaded and simpleminded to leap on every redundancy. Wordiness and flourishes Because of the fact that I had occasion to be in possession of the money, they were of the opinion that I was the party guilty of having stolen it is wordy for Because I had the money they thought I had stolen it. Such wordiness occasionally has a function, emphasizing some part of the meaning or giving it a slight twist, but usually wordiness suggests confusion, pom- posity, or both. It is not an error of grammar but an error of composition (see Rule 4-12). One might call it an overuse of grammar—a use of complex grammatical structures to convey a simple meaning. / venture to say that you wouldn't find me so contemptible if I'd split the money with you begins with a somewhat quaint flourish. However, an occasional flourish is not only permissi- www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com ble but desirable; flourishes can add nuance and expression to otherwise bald statements and convey the feeling of the writer or speaker about the statement. Of course, writers or speakers who use / venture to say, I would hazard that, and similar expressions to begin every other sentence—there seems to be at least one such person at every conference table—are adding off-flavor nuances; they are nervous, or pompous, or uncertain, or just clumsy with language. II 1-5 If there are elements in a sentence II that are parallel in meaning and in grammatical function, make them parallel in grammatical form. This is a basic rule of clear expression. Violations of the rule are a feature of what one might call deliberately bad writing, committed by writers who consciously vary the grammatical form of parallel elements because they think the variation will make their sentences interesting and impressive. Such varia- tion may violate rules of grammar and will almost certainly 14
35. The Sentence 1 -5 make sentences needlessly confusing and clumsy. More often, violations are accidental; writers merely fail to notice a poor choice of phrasing, an omission of a necessary word (see Rule 1-2), or a mispositioning of a word. Correcting faulty paral- lelism occupies more of an editor's attention than correcting all other grammatical faults put together. Items in a series not parallel He liked sailing, swimming, and to fish is a simple example; most of us don't have to be told that the third item in the series should be fishing, producing a series of three gerunds rather than two gerunds and an infinitive, or else the first two items should be to sail and to swim, producing a series of three infinitives. Yet wrong as the example seems, its grammar is technically correct, since either a gerund or an infinitive can be used as an object of liked. The error is an error of parallelism. He liked sailing, beachcombing forays, and swimming is a subtler example of faulty parallelism. Although sailing, beach- combing, and swimming are all gerunds, beachcombing does not stand alone but merely modifies the noun forays, so in- www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com stead of a series of three gerunds we have a gerund, a modified noun, and another gerund. If we take out forays, the series is properly parallel. The faulty parallelism in the example is only faintly troubling, however, and one could even argue that it gives the sentence a vitality that the stolid He liked sailing, beachcombing, and swimming lacks. Rule 1-5 should not be applied so zealously that every variation of structure in a series is disallowed, especially in writing that is intended to do more than merely state the facts. Note that He liked sailing, swimming, and other seaside activities is not a case of faulty parallelism. The third item in the series is not parallel in meaning and significance to the other two, but characterizes them and represents a group of unnamed activities. Nor is He liked sailing, swimming, and girls faulty parallelism; the series consists of two gerunds and a noun, but there is no way to change the noun without changing the content of the sentence—the series is as close to parallel as it can be. Items in a series should usually be as parallel as their meaning permits, but they don't have to be so parallel that we can't say what we mean. He liked to sail, to swim, and girls is faulty, however, because two infinitives and a noun combine in a series much less happily—that is, they are farther from paral- lel—than two gerunds and a noun. 15
36. 1 -5 Grammar He liked to sail, swim, and to walk on the beach has a series of three infinitives, but they aren't properly parallel. The word to should either be eliminated before walk or be supplied before swim. In putting to before the last infinitive but not the middle one, the writer could be hoping to discourage a possible but unlikely misreading; on the beach could grammatically go with all three infinitives, as it does in He liked to sunbathe, read, and sleep on the beach all day, though it would take a perverse reader to notice the grammatical possibility in the original example. If there is a real possibility of misreading such a series, recasting to avoid the series is a better solution than making the series nonparallel. He liked to sail, swim, and had a passion for beachcombing is in real trouble, because the last item is not part of the series at all but is the second part of a compound predicate: He liked . . . and had . . . The error seems glaring but is very common. He liked to sail and swim and had a passion for beachcombing is correct: two predicates to go with He, and two parallel objects to go with liked. If we want to avoid the run-together look of sail and swim and had, we can put a comma after swim (a comma is usually unnecessary and undesirable between www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com compound predicates but is permissible to ease reading; see Rule 2-3), or we can put in the comma and also repeat he before the second predicate, making it an independent clause: He liked to sail and swim, and he had a passion for beachcomb- ing. See also false series in the Glossary/Index and the last paragraph of Rule 2-6. Either . . . or, not only . . . but also: correlative items not parallel Correlative items in a sentence are ones indicated by pairs of conjunctions such as either . . . or, not only . . . but also, and whether. . . or. He has either gone swimming or someone has taken him sailing is faulty parallelism—and faulty grammar—because the second element is not a second predicate sharing the subject He with the first predicate, but an independent clause with its own subject, someone. The sentence can be made gram- matically correct by changing the position of either: Either he has gone swimming or someone has taken him sailing. Now the correlative elements are both independent clauses. An- other solution would be He has either gone swimming or been taken sailing. Neither solution produces perfect parallelism— 16
37. The Sentence 1 -5 in the first, one verb is intransitive and the other transitive, and in the second, one verb is active and the other passive. However, both solutions are correct, and the parallelism can- not be perfected without changing the meaning. For example, He has either gone swimming or gone sailing loses the im- plication that he can go swimming on his own but wouldn't be expected to go sailing without someone else. He has either gone swimming or gone sailing is precisely parallel; gone swimming and gone sailing are grammatically similar and share their relationship with he has. The sentence can be made nonparallel all too easily by misplacing either: He has either gone swimming or sailing omits a repetition of gone, and He either has gone swimming or gone sailing omits a repetition of has. These failures of parallelism are not really offensive in the casual context of the example, but they are noticeable. They could be considered uses of ellipsis (see Rule 1-1), but not every permissible ellipsis is a desirable one. The sentence can also be made nonparallel by leaving either where it was but repeating a word: He has either gone swimming or has gone sailing unnecessarily repeats has. This failure of parallelism is somewhat offensive; the ear and eye are more apt to accept a questionable ellipsis than a questionable repetition. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com The properly parallel sentence He has not only gone swim- ming but gone sailing can be made nonparallel in the same ways. With the conjunctive pairs either . . . or and not only. . . but also, the item following the first conjunction and the item following the second conjunction should be grammatically Note that this is not true of all conjunctive pairs. With the conjunctive pair whether. . . or, the item following the second conjunction usually can be and often should be shorter. I don't know whether he has gone swimming or he has gone sailing is precisely parallel but not natural English; the second he should come out, and has or has gone could come out. He has either gone swimming or gone to town with his father is not strictly parallel—gone swimming and gone to town with his father are both predicates and hence are gram- matically equivalent, but they are structured differently and make different uses of the verb gone. That is quite all right; correlative items should be as grammatically similar as their meaning permits, but they cannot always be grammatically identical. He has gone either swimming or to town with his fathef is not all right; since gone functions differently with swimming and to town, it should be repeated (see the discus- 17
38. 1 -5 Grammar sion of omitted verb forms in Rule 1-2), and it can't be repeated without repositioning either. Sentences that are more ambitious than the examples above often fall into misplacement of correlative conjunctions be- cause of an inverted or otherwise unusual word order. The effect is to make serious prose seem somewhat scatterbrained, as in Not only had classical anticommunism returned to Washington in official rhetoric, but also in military programs and the reassertion of self-confidence. There is a failure of parallelism, because the item introduced by Not only is a clause, but the item introduced by but also is merely a preposi- tional phrase. The latter item could be made a clause, of course: . . . but it had also returned in . . . Parallelism could also be achieved by using either standard word order—Classi- cal anticommunism had returned to Washington not only in official rhetoric but also in military programs and the reasser- tion of self-confidence—or a different nonstandard order—Not only in official rhetoric but also in military programs and the reassertion of self-confidence had classical anticommunism returned to Washington. See also the discussion of complica- tions in inverted sentences in Rule 2-5. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com More than, as much as: adverbial comparisons not Adverbial comparisons in a sentence are ones joined by phrases such as more than and as much as. Errors occur with them (and with adjectival comparisons, such as greener than and as green as) when a necessary than or as is omitted, as discussed in Rule 1-2. Errors also occur when the second item in the comparison is a pronoun, as in He sails more than me, which can be considered an error of parallelism, since He and me aie grammatically parallel and should therefore be in the same case (such errors are discussed in Rule 1-6 as errors in case). He didn't like swimming as much as to sail is clearly non- parallel and ugly. However, lack of parallelism can be much less apparent in more complicated sentences, and it can be defensi- ble. He learned to swim that summer, but more than swim- ming with his friends on the broad public beach he liked to sail to the deserted strands of the islands in the bay fails to make swimming and to sail parallel, but then perhaps they are not really parallel in thought anyway—there is an implication that when he got to those deserted strands he liked to swim there, and consequently the parallel in thought is between 18
39. The Sentence 1 -5 swimming with friends and swimming alone rather than be- tween swimming and sailing. English is not mathematics, and language can sometimes compare nonparallel things—can compare apples and oranges. Careful parallelism is not the only important property of good English, and sometimes it is a dispensable property. But not, rather than: antithetical constructions not Antithetical constructions are used to state that something is true of one thing but untrue of another. He liked sailing and swimming but not to walk on the beach is faulty parallelism; to walk should be changed to walking. When the untrue item is given first, but not becomes not . . . but, and errors of parallelism can occur in the same way they do in correlative constructions, discussed earlier in this rule: He has not gone swimming but sailing omits a desirable repetition of gone, He has gone not swimming but gone sailing undesirably repeats gone, and so on. He chose to sail to the island rather than swimming there is www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com nonparallel, and it is easily made parallel by changing swim- ming to to swim or simply to swim—it is often permissible to leave out to in an infinitive, though to should be either consis- tently included or consistently omitted in the second and sub- sequent infinitives in a series, as explained earlier in this rule. However, nonparallelisms with rather than are often not objec- tionable, even in such a straightforward sentence as the exam- ple, and sometimes they are necessary. He sailed to the island rather than swam there is parallel, and He sailed to the island rather than swimming there and He sailed to the island rather than swim there are not, but the second and third versions do not mean the same as the first; the first version simply tells us what he did and did not do, whereas the second suggests to us and the third tells us that he made a conscious decision be- tween alternatives. When the negative rather than con- struction precedes the positive construction, parallelism is actually an error: Rather than swam there, he sailed to the island is not English, though the nonparallel swim and swim- ming would both be English. The normally conjunctive phrase rather than is often used, and used correctly, as if it were a prepositional phrase such as instead of, and when it is so used, the rule that items joined by conjunctions should be as gram- matically similar as possible must sometimes be abandoned. 19
40. 1-5 Grammar Like and unlike These words very often occur in introductory constructions: Like me, she is a teaching fellow-, Unlike her classwork, her tutorial duties bore her. They seem to invite faulty parallelism, and the result is false comparison (discussed in the Glossary/ Index and in Rule 1-2). Like me, tutorial duties take up a lot of her time and Unlike her classwork, she is bored by her tutorial duties are examples; in the first, me is not parallel to tutorial duties, and in the second, classwork is not parallel to she. The frequency of such errors may be partly due to haziness on the proper functions of like-, see also like for as, as if, or as though in the Glossary/Index. CASE OF NOUNS AND PRONOUNS: SUBJECTIVE, OBJECTIVE, AND POSSESSIVE The case of a noun or pronoun is determined by the function of the word within its sentence—by whether it is the subject of a verb, the object of a verb or preposition, or the possessive modifier of another word. English nouns have only two forms www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com for the three cases, since the subjective and objective forms are the same; the possessive case is formed by adding an apos- trophe and s or sometimes just the apostrophe (see Rule 2-29). Some pronouns, such as one and anybody, also have only two forms, but some others have not just three but four. I, me, and my are subjective, objective, and possessive forms, and there is also a special form for the so-called independent possessive, mine, which instead of merely modifying another word acts like a noun: Let's take your car, since mine has bald tires. The possessive mine can even itself be made possessive—Let's take your car; mine's tires are bald—though this is not true of other independent possessives, such as yours and theirs. Except for independent possessives, possessive nouns and pronouns are actually modifiers, and they are discussed later in this book (Rule 1-19), though Rule 1-7 concerns the use of the possessive case for the subject of a gerund. The three other rules in this section concern the pronouns that have different forms for the subjective and objective cases. 20
41. Case of Nouns and Pronouns 1 -6 Il 1-6 Put the subject of a verb in the •' subjective case. Since nouns have the same form in the subjective and objective cases, violations of this rule occur only with a few pronouns— the personal pronouns I/me, he/him, she/her, we/us, and they/ them, and the relative or interrogative pronoun who/whom and its indefinite form whoever/whomever. But because these pronouns are common, errors in case are common. Pronouns as part of compound subjects Johnny and me want to go swimming is amazingly difficult to stamp out of a child's speech. This may be one of the times that natural grammar—the grammar we absorb as we learn to speak and long before we go to school—is at real odds with standard English. The child perhaps considers Johnny and me, or even me and Johnny, to be a single idea that should keep the same form whether subject or object. Eventually, parents and teach- ers convince the child that the pronoun in a compound subject has to have the same form that it would if it were standing alone—I want to go swimming—and we begin to hear John and I want to buy a motorcycle. Pronouns as part of their own clauses I avoid him who has the plague is correct; him is the object of avoid, and who is the subject of has, the verb in its own clause. Those who make it I avoid he who has the plague may just be afraid of the objective case, having in childhood been corrected so often about Johnny and me want to go swimming, but more sophisticated people make the error too, because it does seem to have some logic going for it. The entire word group him who has the plague acts as a unit—in the example, as the direct object of avoid—and the who in the subordinate clause seems to attract the him of the main clause to its own case. It shouldn't; who is governed by its own clause, in which it is the subject, but him is governed by the main clause, in which it is the object. It was she I was writing about may seem puzzling at a glance, because there is no objective pronoun and J was writing about seems to require one. The temptation is to make it It was her I was writing about, thus providing an objective pro- 21
42. 1 -6 Grammar noun. This is an error—It was she is correct, since a pronoun is governed by its own clause. The missing objective pronoun, whom, has simply been omitted, as is entirely permissible (see the discussion of omission of relative pronouns in Rule 1-2). With the ellipsis filled in, the sentence becomes It was she whom I was writing about. I invited people whom I thought would get along together is just as wrong, if less apparently so, as / invited people whom would get along together. The pronoun whom is the subject of would, not the object of thought, and it should therefore be who. Often a relative clause such as who would get along together is interrupted by another clause such as J thought. The object of the verb in the interrupting clause is somewhat difficult to pin down. In effect it is the idea, but not the exact words, of the surrounding clause: J thought they would get along together. Perhaps this fuzziness about the object of the verb in the interrupting clause explains an odd fact. Even though the relative pronoun in the sentence I invited people who I thought would get along together is subjective, it can be dropped: / invited people I thought would get along together. Normally we could not omit a subjective pronoun—we could www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com not make it I invited people would get along together—but the interrupting clause permits the omission, just as if the pro- noun were objective, as it is in I invited people whom I thought you would like. Whom shall I say is calling! is a common error among those who think whom is always more genteel than who (see gen- teelism and hyperurbanism in the Glossary/Index). More so- phisticated people make the error too, particularly in passive constructions, such as Whom did you say was being invited! Here the interrupting did you say camouflages the otherwise glaring wrongness of Whom was being invited! I saw a man who I thought was better dressed than I and / met a man whom I thought to be better dressed than I are both correct. In the second example, whom is objective as the sub- ject of the infinitive to be (see infinitive in the Glossary/Index). In I saw a man whom I thought better dressed than I, the infinitive is omitted but understood, and whom remains cor- rect. (Rule 1-6 would be more precise if I had made it "Put the subject of a finite verb in the subjective case"—but I did not want to puzzle readers with the term finite. Seefiniteverb in the Glossary/Index.) Whoever, unlike other pronouns, can play two roles in a sentence at once. It can function as the subject of one verb and 22
43. Case of Nouns and Pronouns 1 -6 the object of another, as in / will invite whoever wants to come, in which whoever is the subject of wants and also the object of invite (though more precisely it is not whoever but the entire clause whoever wants to come that is the object of invite). Whomever can function as the object of verbs in two clauses, as in / will invite whomever you choose, or as the subject of a verb and the object of a preposition, as in Whomever we send invitations to is sure to come and For whoever draws the lucky number there will be a prize. Other combinations of function are possible. As the examples here show, the form of the pronoun—whether it is the subjective whoever or the objective whomever—is determined by the role it plays in its own clause, which is the clause that completes its meaning, defining who whoever or whomever is. In speech, occasional errors are almost inevitable, because the role of the pronoun can be so complicated, as in This invitation is for whoever that is you're with—the temptation is strong to make it whomever, as the object of for or the object of with. When we are writing, we have time to figure out that whomever that is would be an error. See also Rule 1-8 and who, whom-, whoever, whomever in the Glossary/Index. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com Pronouns in elliptical clauses She sails better than him seems wrong to most of us, and to all of us if the elliptical clause is filled in: She sails better than him sails. The word than is a conjunction, and conjunctions join words or word groups of similar grammatical signifi- cance—two adjectives modifying the same noun, two subjects or two objects of the same verb, two clauses, and so on. In She sails better than him, than joins a clause and an objective pronoun, which is not a proper function of a conjunction. Use of objective pronouns with than has been exceedingly common for centuries, however, especially with first-person pronouns: She thinks she's better than me-, She sails better than us. Consequently, some modern dictionaries accept than as a prep- osition, condoning its use with objective pronouns, since the objects of prepositions should be in the objective case (see Rule 1-9). I advise denying oneself this liberty, since there are many who condemn it. She likes him better than me is a correct use of than as a conjunction. Me is objective, but that is all right, because it is the objective pronoun him that me is joined with, and if the elliptical clause is filled in, the sentence becomes She likes 23
44. 1-6 Grammar him better than she likes me. When in doubt about the proper case for a pronoun following than, we can just imagine the sentence with the elliptical clausefilledin. See also than in the He has better friends than I is correct but ambiguous; it could mean either He has better friends than I am or He has better friends than I have. Elliptical clauses should be checked for ambiguity as well as for grammatical soundness. Pronouns in apposition John, he of the big mouth, won't be invited and Let's not invite John, him of the big mouth are both correct. In the first sen- tence, he of the big mouth is in apposition to John, the subject of the sentence, and the pronoun he is in the subjective case. In the second sentence, him of the big mouth is again in apposi- tion to John, but John is the object of the sentence, and the pronoun him is in the objective case. The case of a pronoun in apposition is determined by the case of the word that it is in apposition to. (See also Rule 1-19 for special problems with www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com The directors you have chosen, Mr. Smith and me, will do our best is an error; Mr. Smith and me is in apposition to The directors, the subject of the sentence, and hence should be Mr. Smith and I. The intervening you have chosen encourages the error—its understood object, the relative pronoun whom, seems to offer its invisible self for Mr. Smith and me to be in apposition to. All of us are going may seem puzzling, since Us are going is impossible. But in All of us are going, the pronoun us is the object of the preposition of, not a word in apposition to the subject of the verb; there is no apposition in the sentence. The entire phrase All of us is the subject, and the case of the pronoun is determined by its role within its phrase. T. S. Eliot's line Let us go then, you and I could be considered an error; you and I is in apposition to us, and thus it should be you and me. However, you and I is supported by idiom and to some extent by grammatical analysis. Let us and Let's are so frequently followed by subjective pronouns that objective pro- nouns are apt to seem wrong or at least colloquial, as in the correct Let's you and me have a drink. Let us and particularly its contraction Let's are not perceived as what most gram- marians say they are, the imperative Let and the objective us or its contraction. One of the most scholarly grammarians, 24
45. Case of Nouns and Pronouns 1 -6 George O. Curme, would consider Let us go to be a subjunctive rather than an imperative construction, a modern form of Go we, and Go we then, you and I could not be attacked for disagreement in case, so perhaps Let us go then, you and I should not be attacked either. Nevertheless, I advise not using the subjective after Let us and Let's, if only because Let's you and I has at least a faint whiff of the reeking gentility of between you and L, people who use the subjective may be suspected of doing so not because they tolerantly accept idiom but because they intolerantly and ignorantly think the subjec- tive is more elegant. Let's encourages other apposition errors besides errors of case, such as the colloquial Let's us go and Let's you and him make up, which when the contraction is expanded become the grossly redundant Let us us go and the nonsensical Let us you and him make up. Obviously, let's has acquired a broader meaning than that of the uncontracted let us, but in anything more than casual speech it should not be used where let us cannot be used. Its me or It's /? Pronouns as subject complements www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com A subject complement is a word or phrase that follows a link- ing verb such as is or seems} it's the that in This is that, and it's the gray in All cats seem gray A subject complement isn't the object of a verb but something linked to the subject by a verb. The rule for subject complements is very simple: They should be in the same case as the subject they are linked to, which is, of course, the subjective case. It's me and It's us break the rule, a fact that has probably generated more incredulity among grammar-school students than any other precept of "good grammar," because It's I and It's we seem impossibly unnatural to them. I advise breaking the rule whenever the subjective pronouns / and we seem stiff or prissy, as they do following the informal contraction It's and in many other situations. That was we singing outside your window last night-, When you hear three knocks, it will be I-, His chief victim was I—such sentences may obey the rule, but they are idiomatically objectionable. There are, of course, sen- tences in which obeying the rule is not idiomatically objec- tionable. In It was I who broke your window, the subjective who seems to make I preferable even though in principle there need be no agreement in case between a pronoun and its ante- cedent (see Rule 1-12). The ear has to be the judge. 25
46. 1-7 Grammar It's him and It's her cannot be defended quite as energetically, because the rule-observing It's he and It's she, though perhaps slightly stilted, are not outlandish; most careful speakers and writers do use them. It's them is perhaps more often defensi- ble, because It's they is more than slightly stilted. Again, the ear must be the judge; That was he singing outside your win- dow seems fine to me, but His chief victim was she seems contrary to idiom, and to a lesser extent so does That was they singing outside your window. II 1-7 Put the subject of a gerund in the II possessive case, if possible. I dislike that man's wearing a mask and / dislike that man wearing a mask are different statements. In the first, the wear- ing of the mask is disliked; in the second, the man is disliked. In the first statement, wearing is a gerund—that is, a special verb form that functions as a noun—and it is the object of the www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com sentence, with the possessive phrase that man's modifying it. Such a possessive "owns" the action implied by the gerund and thus is considered the subject of the gerund. In the second statement, wearing is a participle—that is, a special verb form that functions as an adjective—and that man is the object of the sentence, with the participial phrase wearing a mask modi- fying it. However, very often the objective case rather than the pos- sessive case is used for the subject of a gerund, especially when it is unlikely that the gerund will be misperceived as a partici- ple, as in / dislike him wearing a mask. Many writers and editors, and some of the grammarians whose books they use for reference, consider use of the objective case for the subject of a gerund to be standard idiomatic English, and certainly it is common. Other writers and editors, and the grammarians they prefer, condemn use of the objective case if the possessive case is possible. Since such use of the objective case will not escape criticism, I advise against it. I also believe that it eliminates a useful grammatical signal and permits an annoying fuzziness of syntax. A sharper understanding of what a gerund is may help reduce the fuzziness. There are two types of gerund. One type is exactly like a noun—it can be the subject or object of a verb, it is modified by 26
47. Case of Nouns and Pronouns 1 -7 articles and adjectives, and it cannot take a direct object. The other type is mostly like a noun but has some of the charac- teristics of a verb or a participle—it too can be the subject or object of a sentence, but it is modified by adverbs and can take a direct object. In The inappropriate wearing of a mask is forbidden, the gerund wearing is of the first type; in Inap- propriately wearing a mask is forbidden, the same gerund is of the second type. Of course, a gerund with no modifier and no object or of phrase following it cannot be assigned to either type. We do not mix the types in modern English, though fluent users of the language did mix them in previous cen- turies. The journals of the eighteenth-century explorer James Cook are full of examples, such as The trouble and vexation that attended the bringing these animals thus far is hardly to be conceived, in which bringing is modified by the, just as a noun would be, but has the direct object these animals, just as a verb or participle would have. Every modern fluent user of English automatically uses the possessive for the subject of gerunds of the first type—/ dislike that man's inappropriate wearing of a mask—because the "nounness" of the gerund is so evident. But a great many fluent speakers and writers use the objective for the subject of www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com gerunds of the second type—J dislike that man inappropriately wearing a mask—because the "nounness" of the gerund is obscured by its adverbial modifier and direct object. When the objective is used instead of the possessive, the gerund can be perceived as a participle modifying man rather than a gerund modified by man, and the meaning is likely to be different. Sometimes it makes little difft rence to the sense of a sentence whether a verb form ending in ing is understood as a participle or as a gerund. For example, / don't remember his ever being angry and / don't remember him ever being angry mean very nearly the same thing, and an argument could be made for preferring the latter—the thought is of the man angry more than of the man's anger. But often there is a difference, and if we mean the ing word to be a gerund rather than a participle, we should use the possessive case for its subject. She approves of the teacher handing out extra homework as punishment would probably not be misunderstood; almost certainly the approval is of the handing out of the homework, not of the teacher observed to be handing it out. But a usage that is unlikely to be misunderstood is not necessarily a usage that should be accepted as correct. At least in principle the example is just as wrong as She approves of the teacher disci- 27
48. 1 -7 Grammar pline, in which the gerund phrase has been replaced by a noun. The subject of a gerund "owns" the action of the gerund, and owning is expressed by the possessive case. She approves of the teacher's handing out extra homework as punishment is there- fore preferable. When the possessive is impossible or bizarre When the subject of a gerund is not a simple noun or pronoun but a group of words, it may be impossible or at least bizarre to use the possessive. For example, the plural in Many of us don't approve of a man whom we voted against's being elected is bizarre. It may seem reasonable enough to dispense with the possessive in such situations: . . . a man whom we voted against being elected. However, we would not write Many of us don't approve of a man whom we voted against's election either, and we would not have the alternative of dispensing with the possessive; . . . a man whom we voted against elec- tion is not English. We would rephrase, using an of con- struction: Many of us don't approve of the election of a man whom we voted against. We are not forced to rephrase with the www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com gerund as we are with the noun—but we could choose to rephrase. We accept a man whom we voted against being elected only because the objective rather than the possessive is so often used for the subject of a gerund even when the pos- sessive is not impossible; the objective never surprises us. But its failure to surprise us does not make it desirable. I advise not accepting it without some thought; rephrasing to avoid it may be worth the trouble. Sentences in which the possessive is logically called for but is impossible are likely to be clumsy Many of us don't approve of this man, whom we voted against, being elected can have no possessive for the subject of the gerund, not even a bizarre one, because the relative pro- noun whom cannot have a possessive form as its antecedent (see Rule 1-19). But rephrasing remains an option. Sometimes rephrasing is not a good option and it is wiser to accept the objective subject of the gerund. There is no law against gambling, but there is a law against people actively involved in a sport betting against themselves might be such a case. Some words, such as any, never or only very rarely have possessive forms, so we use the only form available: Some players have been hurt, but I've never heard of any dying. English does accept the objective for the subject of a gerund 28
49. Case of Nouns and Pronouns 1 -8 when there is no reasonable alternative. Yet usually there is an alternative phrasing. For example, There is no sense in both of us going cannot be called an error—it is virtually an idiom, and certainly both of us cannot be made possessive. The fastidious may nevertheless make it There is no sense in our both going, which is just as idiomatic and allows the possessive. Confusion of gerunds with participles in absolute John having worn a mask, no one knew he was there begins with an absolute construction (see Rule 1-21 and absolute construction in the Glossary/Index). The word having is not a gerund but a participle. Past participles can be used in absolute constructions too: The mask removed, we all recognized John. John's having worn a mask, no one knew he was there is a bad error. The possessive should be used for the subject of a gerund, but not for the subject of a participle—that is, for the word the participle modifies. The error is infrequent, but someone trying hard to follow my advice and use the pos- sessive with gerunds might slip into it. www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com I found a fine example of a gerund construction in an Amer- ican grammar published in 1863: Caesar's having crossed the Rubicon spread consternation throughout Rome. The gerund construction can be made an absolute construction by chang- ing Caesar's to the subjective case, inserting a comma, and making consternation the subject of the basic sentence: Caesar having crossed the Rubicon, consternation spread throughout II 1-8 Put the object or indirect object of a II verb or verbal in the objective case. Like Rule 1-6, this rule is violated only with the few pronouns that have different forms for the subjective and objective cases. Pronouns as part of compound objects Our parents sent John and I to Europe and Our parents gave John and I a trip to Europe are embarrassing errors, much worse than the childish Johnny and me want to go swimming. Not only are they incorrect, they also suggest a self-conscious 29
50. 1-8 Grammar effort to be correct—they are hypercorrect (see hyperurbanism in the Glossary/Index). Once Johnny and me want to go swim- ming is eradicated, some of us go too far and give up the objective case in compound objects, though very few of us would fail to use the objective case for a pronoun standing alone as object—sent I to Europe and gave I a trip are quite evidently not English. Pronouns as part of their own clauses / avoid he who has the plague is incorrect, because the pro- noun he is the object of avoid—the verb in its own clause—and should be him. See Rule 1-6 for more discussion of this point. Pronouns as objects of verbals / hate saluting him-, I hate to salute him-, The man saluting him must be his son. The objects of verbals—that is, of gerunds, infinitives, and participles—are always in the objec- tive case. The subjects of verbals are not so consistent—the subject of a gerund should usually be in the possessive case www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com (Rule 1-7), the subject of an infinitive should be in the objective case, as in / want him to salute me, and the subject of a participle can be either subjective or objective, depending on its role in the sentence. But the objects of verbals are always A problem: who and whom, whoever and whomever Who is the subjective case and whom is the objective case, and we can, if we like, apply Rule 1-8 strictly: Whom are you going to invite! Whom are you going to send invitations! But for a century and a half, language arbiters from Noah Webster on have been pointing out that educated speakers and writers often use who and whoever when the objective case is called for: Who are you going to invite! I'm going to invite whoever I choose. Certain failures to use the objective are perceived as glaringly wrong, such as To who will you send invitations! But most get by, and their correct equivalents can seem labored and prissy. For some reason, whom and whomever have always had a la-di-da flavor. In formal writing it is best to follow Rule 1-8 strictly and use whom and whomever in every objective situation. In less for- 30
51. Case of Nouns and Pronouns 1 -9 mal writing and in speech it is permissible to use who and whoever when they seem more natural. This way we are at least less likely to make the foolish error of using whom when it should be who and ending up both la-di-da and wrong. Whoever can be, or at least seem to be, both the subject of one verb and the object of another, as in I'm going to invite whoever wants to come and Whomever you invite is likely to refuse. Its case is determined by the role it plays in its own clause—the clause that explains who whoever is. See also Rule II 1-9 Put the object of a preposition in the I' objective case. She wrote the most lovely note to John and I and I don't understand what's going on between Mary and he are embar- rassing errors, because they suggest an attempt to be elegant. Such errors with objects of prepositions are quite common; for some reason, people who would not break Rule 1-8 by saying or www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com writing Mary drove John and I home or Mary gave John and I a lift will break this rule, sometimes even when a pronoun directly follows a preposition: to he and I, between she and he. The object of to, between, or any other preposition must be in the objective case, just as the object or indirect object of a verb must be. Mistakes with who are comparatively rare; few people say or write For who are you going to votel If the preposition does not immediately precede the pronoun it is permissible, as ex- plained in Rule 1-8, to use who instead of whom: Who are you going to vote fori Everyone but he left and Everyone left but I are errors. In many other constructions, the versatile word but is not a preposition; for example, in She left but he didn't it is a con- junction. But in Everyone but he left and Everyone left but I, it is preposition, with the same meaning as the preposition ex- cept, and its object must be in the objective case: Everyone but him left-, Everyone left but me. Note that Everyone left but he cannot be passed off as elliptical for Everyone left but he didn't leave, which is a logical contradiction; if he didn't leave, then it is false to say that everyone left. Don't act like I'm going to bite you is a very common error. 31
52. 1-10 Grammar Since like is a preposition, the example does violate Rule 1-9, but the error is usually committed not because of ignorance of the rule but because of a misunderstanding of the word like, which should not be used to mean as or as if, which are conjunctions. See also like in the Glossary/Index. The preposition of is sometimes followed by the possessive case, as in Any friend of John's is a friend of mine, in which both John and mine are possessive. See possessive case in the AGREEMENT Long before the schoolteachers get hold of us, we learn that in an English sentence certain words must agree in form with certain other words—that He don't and John and Mary is in love are faulty grammar. A verb's form may be affected by whether its subject is in the first person [I), the second person www.IELTS4U.blogfa.com (you), or the third person {he, she) and by whether the subject is singular or plural, and we pick up this part of grammar as we learn to talk. Applying the principles of agreement is not really very diffi- cult, since English, unlike many other languages, does not have separate inflections, or form changes, for every situation. Nevertheless, errors do occur, and disagreement in number, covered in Rules 1-11 and 1-12, is common even in simple situations. Also, the very simplicity of English inflection can be a problem, since a word may be in grammatical agreement with too many other words in the sentence, permitting ambi- guity; avoiding such ambiguity is the concern of Rule 1-13. II 1 - 1 0 Make a subject and its verb agree In II person. You are crazy and / am not crazy are straightforward examples of subject and verb agreement in person. But should it be Either you or I is crazy, or am crazy, or are crazy2. The verb has two subjects but can agree with only one—a situation called syllep- sis (see the discussion of omission of verb forms in Rule 1-2). Syllepsis is sometimes an error, but in either . . . or con- 32
+1-315-636-4485
+91 98151-74050 
