Dave’s WW of EU: Clauses

We are coming to the end of my grammar posts. I only have one more after this one, that I may or may not post because it’s, in a word, lame (Intensifiers). Then again, I know how much you are simply dying to read about intensifiers so….

A clause is a group of related words that (unlike a phrase) has both a subject and a complete verb. A sentence always has at least one clause, but it may have more clauses.

There are two types of clauses: Independent and Dependent.

An Independent Clause can stand alone as a complete sentence; a Dependent clause cannot. It’s that simple.

I’ve already blogged about Independent and Dependent clause; click the links for details.

Read Full Post »

Daves’ WW of EU: Spelling Out Numbers

This is one of those areas where there is so much gray area that it is really almost pointless to try to define it. I’ve heard rules saying you should spell out all numbers under a hundred. I’ve also heard rules saying the same thing for twenty, fifteen, ten, fifty, and so on. Some say anything under twenty. Others say anything under ten. To make this simpler, I will show you the most common rule I’ve heard.

Twenty and Under Rule

This rule states that you should spell out every number that is twenty or lower. This rule also states that you should spell out large numbers that are whole. By whole, I mean you should spell out fifty, hundred, thousand, million, billion, and so on, but you would not spell out 57, 251, 1325, and so on. Simple enough, right? If you have trouble remembering it, a helpful rule to remember is to never spell out a word that contains a hyphen. When you write numbers, you always place a hyphen between words like twenty-one, fifty-nine, and so on. For example, you would spell 123 this way: one hundred twenty-three. You can also remember that you never spell out anything over one hundred unless it has lots of zeroes.

Yeah, it’s not necessarily precise to think of it that way, but it is accurate.

Personally, find a way that works and stick with it. Consistency in this case is much more important for messaging.

Read Full Post »

Dave’s WW of EU: Cardinal Numbers

Cardinal Numbers are your standard numbers such as one, two, three, and four. They are used to show quantity, but not order. In other words, cardinal numbers are not first, second, third, and so on (ordinal numbers).

The way to remember the difference is that Ordinal Numbers show Order, Cardinal Numbers do not. I’ve also heard the phrase “You count Cardinals (as in the birds).” Whatever helps you remember is fine by me.

One thing I did learn about Cardinal Numbers that I did not know is that they are a type of Noun Determiner. A noun determiner is a word that signals that a noun is soon to follow. For example, when you see the phrase, “I have three…,” you know that a noun is going to follow that cardinal number: “I have three oranges,” for example. One thing to remember is that Cardinal Numbers are NOT always noun determiners, but they ALWAYS refer to a noun. Don’t believe me? Watch….

• What time is it? Three. (The three refers to o’clock, which means “of the clock”)
• How many oranges do you have? Three. (Three refers back to oranges.)
• Choose a number, any number? Three. (Three refers back to the noun “number.”)

Granted, those are just three limited examples, but think about it long enough, and you’ll see that you cannot use a Cardinal Number that does not refer back to a noun and make sense. The only way you could is if you just randomly said a number. Not only would that not make sense, but you’d probably find that people would smile politely in your direction and then back away slowly.

What does it mean to me?

Honestly? Not much. It’s just one of those things that most people don’t think about but do perfectly without even trying. That alone makes it interesting and is one more evidence of the extreme complexity and brain power required to speak a language. It also explains why saying a random number without any context sounds… odd. It’s because your brain is searching for that noun.

On that note, I leave you with this wonderful message…

… forty-two.

Read Full Post »

Is it just me?

Most of my friends and associates know that I’m a writer by trade and even moonlight as an editor every now and then. Because of that, I make a point to tell those who communicate with me by writing that I’m not “one of those” editors. Yes, I know exactly when you blow it when you’re writing or speaking to me, but I will rarely–if ever–point it out. It just doesn’t matter that much.

I started doing that because several people over the years have told me how much it embarrasses them to write something down that they presume I’ll then edit OR that they’ll misspeak in my presence.

I really don’t worry about it (but I admit readily that Ido notice if only because language is just that fascinating). That being said, I’m noticing it more, and part of me wondered if that were just me….

Is it?

Here are a few things that I’ve noticed most recently:

• Saying myself when you really mean me. For example, I hear people say, “You can give that to myself later” all the time.
• Adding a superlative to adverbs. For example, a coworker the other day kept saying “quicklier.” It should be “faster” or “more quickly.”
• Subjunctive. I recognize that English makes very little use of the subjunctive and most English speakers–including many otherwise seriously educated English nerds–probably have no idea what the subjunctive even is. Frankly, I’m not going to explain it…. I would almost suggest learning a romance language to really get it. Anyway… I hear people say, “I wish I was…” all the time. It should be “I wish I were….”

Realizing that I’m recognizing all these more commonly and naturally–because this is all very natural for me–made me wonder: Is it me? Do others see these things naturally? Do others even notice this?

Am I becomingthat kind of grammar guy?

Sigh… I hope I’m not, and I don’t remember pointing something like this out to anyone. If I have, forgive me. And if I have, shape up. This really is your fault for not speaking perfectly in the first place.

Admin Note: I actually really do NOT edit what you write or say. I just recognize it. And no… I rarely edit my own blog even. I might review some of my more important pieces, but typically no. I reserve that for one of my faithful readers who consistently finds the most egregious typos–of which there are many–and tells me to fix them.

Read Full Post »

Dave’s WW of EU: Flammable, inflammable, non-flammable

These terms are ones that are often confused simply because they do not mean what you think they should mean.

Flammable means that something is capable of being ignited, easily burned.

Inflammable means the same thing.

Non-flammable means incapable of being ignited, not easily burned.

So why the confusion? Well, the prefix “in-“ in English means “not” and is closely related to the similar prefixes “un-” and “im-.” That is how we arrive at such words like unfair, inexplicable, impossible, and so on. However, in this case, the “in-“ prefix is not the English “in-“ prefix. It’s Latin. In Latin, adding the prefix “in-“ to a word was a way of intensifying the term. We see this used in the words enflame, engulf, intense, and so on. The problem is that most people confuse the two prefixes and think that inflammable means that something cannot be ignited or burned. Not true.

How does this affect you?

Well, it probably doesn’t in your normal life. However, most usage experts agree that the term inflammable should be avoided since most people confuse the correct meaning. After all, you’d hate to make that mistake when you really needed to get it right. For the sake of understanding, use flammable and non-flammable.

Read Full Post »

Dave’s WW of EU: Among vs Between

Among and Between are two commonly confused terms. Most people don’t make much distinction between the terms, but among grammarians, there is a very fine line.

Among should be used when discussing three or more or a group generally understood to be larger than two like a committee, educators, athletes, and politicians. Between should be used when referring to two; no more, no less.

So, you would say, “The decision was discussed among the committee members.” You would also say, “I had to decide between taking the red car or the blue car.”

What this means for you

To be honest, most people don’t care which one you use in speech. You will find the occasional grammar nazi that will slip into a coma when you use it wrong, but for most people, it just doesn’t matter that much. In writing, you should make the effort to use the correct term simply because it is more identifiable, more recognized, and more looked for. Much like Good vs. Well, using the correct term does not bother those who do not know better, but it does impress those who do. Might as well use it, right?

 

Read Full Post »

Dave’s WW of EU: Accept vs Except

Accept is a verb that means “agree to, believe, or receive.”

Except is a verb that means “to exclude, leave out.” Except can also be a preposition meaning “leaving out.” Examples:

• Accept—I accepted the award on behalf of the committee.
• Except (verb)—I answered the question wrong and was excepted from the game.
• Except (preposition)—Except for corn, green beans, potatoes, peas, broccoli, and spinach, I’m not very fond of vegetables.

One way that I remember the difference between these terms is to think about them as positives and negatives. Accept is generally positive; except is generally negative. I also find it useful to remember that “ex” tends to be somewhat of a negative prefix.

Another useful thing that I try to remember is that except as a verb is pretty uncommon in English. Typically, you see except used in other forms such as prepositions. You also see it used in exceptional, excepting, and so on. In that sense, you could almost say that accept is a verb, except is not, but that is NOT an accurate rule. It’s just a helpful trick.

Read Full Post »

Dave’s WW of EU: Farther vs Further

Farther and further are two words that seem very much alike and are commonly misused. While each has roughly the same meaning, they have very distinct usages.

Farther is used when you are discussing an actual distance. “I ran 100 yards farther than you.”

Further is used when you are trying to say “to a greater extent” or “more.” “He continued his lecture by further expanding his thesis.”

That’s it. Simple right? Well, when you can think about it, yes. When you use it on the spur of the moment, you just have to train yourself. I find it helpful to remember that farther = far and further does everything else. It is also helpful to remember that if you can replace the word with “more,” you should use further.

Read Full Post »

Dave’s WW of EU: Cannot vs Can Not

This is one that I’m seeing more and more.

For the longest time, I did not know there was a distinction between these two terms. In fact, I thought that can not was simply incorrect. Truth is, they are both correct in certain contexts and have distinct meanings.

• Cannot—Cannot is used for inabilities as in “I cannot go.”
• Can Not—Can not is used to describe a choice. For example, “I can not go,” does not describe the inability to go, but rather the option of not going. Instead of the “not” modifying “can” (as happens in “cannot”), “not” modifies the following word, in this case “go.”

One of the key differences is in the inflection you put on the word. In Cannot, the “not” portion of the term is not inflected. In Can Not, “not” is highly inflected. If you think of it another way, “can not” is almost asking a question or making a suggestion and is inflected that way.

What it means to me

The biggest thing is that you’ll start to notice the difference, and the difference is important. Unfortunately, you’ll start to notice that some people incorrectly make the distinction, especially in the written word. Fortunately, the difference between the two terms is so unique and specialized that you can probably figure it out just from context. That specialization is probably why so few people even know the distinction exists. I sometimes wonder if the two terms will eventually become one term with two meanings.

Read Full Post »

Dave’s WW of EU: Ghoti

Ghoti is one of those linguistic things that is just kind of fun. Unless you’ve seen it before, you are probably pronouncing that word “g-ah-ti.” The real pronunciation is “fish” as in “all the fish in the deep blue sea.” I’ll show you how in a minute, but first let’s talk about why this term even came into existence.

Spelling in the English Language is just as screwed up as our word history. One of the great beauties and power of the English language is that it is really a mess of dozens of language influences. Those influences didn’t affect just our speech, but they affected our spelling as well. Many languages have one sound and one sound only corresponding to a letter or letter combination. For example, the Spanish “a” when seen alone is always pretty much the exact same sound. There are also few if any silent letters. English, on the other hand, makes all sorts of sounds with each letter and has silent letters all over the place. As an example, the term “ghoti” was created to showcase just how crazy our language is.

As I’ve already mentioned, ghoti is really pronounced “fish.” Here’s how:

The “gh” is the same “gh” sound you find in words like “enough, tough, trough.”

The “o” is the same “o” sound you find in the word “women.”

The “ti” is the same “ti” sound you find in words like “information, destination, and reflection.”

And there you have it. When the sounds are all thrown together, they read “fish,” not “g-ah-ti.”

By the way, our unusual history of linguistic development is one of the biggest reasons our spelling is so difficult. Numerous attempts to simplify our spelling have all failed, but I doubt they will cease anytime in the near future. On another note, our linguistic history is another reason that English is such a fantastic language at describing and discussing terms. We have so many words that are so similar to each other that we have a wide-reaching scope of possibilities.

Read Full Post »