OurEcho Everyone has a story. What's Yours?

This story and more like it can be found at http://www.ourecho.com/story-2206.shtml

Grammar--Who Needs It?

Story ID:2206
Written by:Wanda Molsberry Bates
Story type:Musings, Essays and Such
Location:Manhattan KS USA
Year:2007
GRAMMAR—WHO NEEDS IT? (I italicized names and some words but the italics do not show in the copy.)

Reading some posts in OurEcho a few weeks ago regarding sentence structure and grammar reminded me of attempts I have made in writing to abide by the rules which I learned in English classes in school and college. Feeling a need for some reminders, I pulled down the grammar books which still stand on my book shelves, dusted them off, and began taking a refresher course. I have noticed that editors or others who give suggestions to aspiring writers sometimes point out commonly made errors, and it is not unusual to find them in one’s own or other writers’ work. Thinking of errors which I try to avoid I decided to list some of them as reminders to myself and as possible help to other writers. I am aware that rules do change or are no longer applied, but here are some of the common errors of which I am aware. This is not meant to be critical. I hope it may be of some use.

The use of the apostrophe may be puzzling. Misuse of it is found often in commercials where an apostrophe is used with a plural of a name. An example of this is in Young’s which needs no apostrophe unless it is a possessive of a single person named Young. The plural is Youngs and needs the apostrophe only if several people named Young are using the name as a possessive. In that case the apostrophe would be added after Youngs’. Sometimes names (e.g., Johnson’s) will be written on mailboxes. Unless, as said above, there is one person named Johnson who is showing that he possesses the mailbox, no apostrophe is needed if the idea is to show that several people named Johnson use the mailbox. In that case all that is needed to show that the name is plural is Johnsons. However, if they wish to show that more than one person owns the box, and the possessive is needed, they would write Johnsons’.

The apostrophe frequently shows up in it’s. The only time it is used correctly is in saying “It is.” For possession, no apostrophe is needed. It should be written as ”its” without punctuation as are “his” and “hers.”

Another trouble-maker is the dangling participle, sometimes called the dangling gerund. A phrase at the beginning of a sentence, such as “Looking out the window, a fire truck raced by,” has a dangling participial phrase. “Looking out the window,” should refer to the rest of the sentence and could properly be written, “Looking out the window, I saw a fire truck race by.” It was not the fire truck that looked out the window. Another example of this misuse is in a paragraph where a sentence said that a man married a woman older than himself. The following sentence reads “Though much older, he married her.” It would have been written without the dangling participle if it had read,”Though she was much older than he, he married her anyway.”

Then there is the very troublesome subjunctive mood. People have been known to get into heated arguments about this usage. It is a temptation to use “were” in sentences starting with “if,” as in “If it were a nice day we had a picnic.” In that case, “was” should have been used. Correctly, “were” is used only in cases where the sentence is contrary to fact—not true. Examples of this are “If I were you,” “If he were only more careful,” and “If wishes were fishes.” An example of the correct use of “was” is shown in “If he was going to bring the hot dogs, why didn’t he say so?” Another is “If she was the winner, she should have some publicity.”

A rule which I had thought was set in concrete has been softened to some extent. That is the rule which says an infinitive should not be split. Combining the word “to” with a verb (as in “to go”) forms an infinitive. It has long been said that no other word should be injected between the two words and an expression such as “to quickly go” has been frowned on. However, in recent years, that rule has been relaxed, with a smoother-sounding result than the un-split infinitive would have. An example of this is “to forcibly dislodge” which reads more smoothly than “forcibly to dislodge.”

These are suggestions from the above-mentioned grammar books. I have found them helpful in occasional struggles I have with editing my writing. I thought maybe other writers would be interested in this discussion. Let me hear from you if I have made errors in this post! I’m sure there are wise grammarians who write for OurEcho who may make some corrections.

OurEcho is a FREE SERVICE dedicated to capturing and sharing the individual "bits and pieces" that define our local communities. It might be a bit of interesting local history, an old photograph, a special memory or just a funny story. We are particularly interested in those fascinating and intriguing events/people (both large and small) that we all encounter as part of the human experience. It might be something that happened recently or something passed down to you through your family. Our goal is to provide a forum for local communities to share who they are through their stories and photographs. When you take the time to share these reflection with others, you help us better understand you, the world we live in, and if we are lucky, they help us better understand ourselves.