Just because I'm OCD about grammar, (so much that I have to mentally correct people as they speak to me) I thought I would put some of my writings to use. This is intended to be a quick study of common misunderstandings, errors and usage problems. Some of these "rules" are my own house-rules I've created in place of English's own lack of consistency. I defy anyone to debate me on the subject of grammar, since English is undergoing a constant reformation, anyway. We may as well try to fill in all those ugly gaps by ourselves...

Maybe this can benefit someone, or give them ideas about how to overcome usage problems they've encountered in their own writings.

1.) The Confusion of Subject / Object Cases

I've noticed a lot of people still struggle to understand the proper usage of "who" vs. "whom." Unfortunately, one of the complications involved in a native language is that we tend to "coast" on phrases we pick up from everyday speech, lacking any formal understanding of the inner-workings of our language. What's more, grammar school doesn't cover all the nitty-gritty details we really need to know.

To better understand why English has "who" and "whom" in the first place, we need to recognize that pronouns (I, me, you, them, it, who, etc.) exist in different cases. First, we have the subject case. This means the pronoun is the subject of the sentence. (generally, the person or thing doing something) Secondly, we have the object case. This means the pronouns is the object of the sentence. (the one on the receiving end of a verb or preposition)

Subject pronoun examples: I, you, he, she, it, who

Whenever something is the subject, you would always use the above pronouns. e.g., "I am going to leave today." Since I'm talking about myself, I'm the subject. I wouldn't say, "Me is going to leave today." "Me" is an object pronoun.

Object pronoun examples: me, him, her, whom

e.g, "He spoke to me today." Since "he" is speaking to "me," that makes me the object of the sentence. I wouldn't say, "He spoke to I today." I'm not the subject of the sentence - "he" is.

Now, if we slightly reword the sentence, we can see where "whom" fits in. e.g., "He spoke to whom?" Any person or thing being spoken to is the object of the sentence; so we see that "whom" fits here.

A quick way to remember where to put "whom" is to think of how the sentence would appear if it were reworded. Think of whether or not you would say "me" in the sentence. e.g., "With whom did she eat lunch? She ate lunch with me." If "me" doesn't fit, then you shouldn't use "whom."

On an extended note, many people also get sentences like, "It was me" completely wrong. You aren't supposed to use the object case when you're dealing with am / are / is / was, or similar verbs. The proper usage is, "It was I." Think of how you would say, "I was it," and not, "Me was it." The syntax is just a little different in either situation, but the pronoun case remains the same.

2.) The Usage of Relative Pronouns

Relative pronouns help bring together different elements in a sentence to establish how they're directly related. Some examples of relative pronouns are words such as: that, which, who, when.

"This is the cake that I baked." "That" is the relative pronoun, linking the two clauses, "This is the cake," and "I baked it" by establishing the cake as "the one that I baked."

"The woman who went to the mall." "Who" is the relative pronoun.

One usage problem is when people get these pronouns mixed up. Instead of saying, "The woman who went to the mall," someone might say, "The woman that went to the mall." This is incorrect, because instead of establishing the woman as a human, it implies that she is an inanimate object or non-person. It's important to remember that people are always referred to as "who."

Another example of the same usage problem:

"For he's a jolly-good fellow, [...] nobody can deny."

There are several ways to fill in this blank, but your choice of relative pronoun here will alter the context of the entire sentence.

"For he's a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny." - This means the man is a jolly-good fellow, which is a fact that cannot be refuted. "Which" can never mean "who."

"For he's a jolly-good fellow, whom nobody can deny." - This means the man is a jolly-good fellow, and that nobody can deny him. (remember that "whom" is used instead of "who," because the man is the object of the verb "to deny")

Now, another problem is when we have multiple pronouns. In this case, we start switching "that" with "which." Example:

"That which has already been said." - It would be clumsy to say, "That that has already been said."

Lastly, there is also confusion about using "who" and "whom" as relative pronouns. This one is a bit more difficult to explain, but it does make sense. For the most part, you wouldn't use "whom" if someone is the object of the sentence, provided there is some prior pronoun on the receiving end of the verb or preposition, and the second part of the clause establishes this person as a subject. Some examples:

"I gave it to someone who loves cherries." - I gave something to someone, making someone the object. "Who," in this case, acts as the subject part of a second - but still related - clause: "Someone who loves cherries."

"I gave it someone whom I love." - Now we have two object cases on our hands. First, I gave something to someone. Someone is the object of my giving. Secondly, it is someone whom I love. They're made into the object in both clauses.

To make things easier, let's break these sentences down into separate clauses.

"I gave it to someone" | "Someone who loves cherries."

It's easier to see how someone is first the object, and then the subject.

"I gave it to someone" | "I love this someone."

First, we see that I'm giving something to someone, making that someone the object of my giving. Next, we see that I profess my love for someone, again making them an object - this time, an object of my affection.

3.) Spelling Differences between English Dialects

Although everyone recognizes that English is a divergent language, many still remain unaware of the extent of the differences that exist between each dialect. The major dialects of U.S. and U.K. English still struggle to impose consistent standards on the general public. This has become especially true in the case of U.S. English, which - despite borrowing from many reforms - still favors the orthography of U.K. terms in certain cases. I hope to clarify upon some of these differences, and explain a few of the general usage rules behind them.

the unstressed -or / -our

In U.K. English, you have words like colour, neighbour, rumour, labour, etc.

In U.S. English, these are respectively spelled color, neighbor, rumor and labor. English reforms have deemed the (u) unnecessary, as it complicates English's already difficult orthography.

-ed / -t verbs

Unfortunately, English is full of irregular verbs. U.S. English has attempted to bring more consistency to verb endings, but often times we've only succeeded in swapping them around.

Words like "spilt," "spoilt" or "burnt" are chiefly U.K. English, whereas U.S. English will use "spilled," "spoiled" and "burned."

In the U.S., over-usage of the (-t) ending usually gives the impression of someone having a Southern dialect, or being poorly educated. Of course, there are words where (-t) is the only proper ending. (e.g., "slept")

-ize / -ise endings

In U.K. English, you have words like realise, specialise, organise, etc.

In U.S. English, these are respectively spelled realize, specialize and organize. The reason for this goes back to English's Greek etymology, whereas (-ize) endings are preferred for greater consistency.

-ce / -se endings

In U.K. English, you have words like defence, pretence, offence, etc.

In U.S. English, these are respectively spelled defense, pretense and offense.

-re / -er endings

In U.K. English, you have words like centre, theatre, metre, etc.

In U.S. Englsh, these are respectively spelled center, theater and meter.

the -ue ending

In U.K. English, you have words like prologue, analogue, demagogue, etc.

In U.S. English, the (-ue) is dropped in most cases; so you get words like prolog, analog and demagog. This rule is seldom consistently followed. While someone in the U.S. may write "analog," they may also prefer keeping the (-ue) intact while writing "demagogue." There tends to be a lot of cherry-picking when it comes to the dropped (-ue) endings.

It's important to distinguish between the (-ue) in words like "prologue" and the (-ue) found in words like "fatigue." The latter (-ue) is preserved in U.S. English, because the phonology of these words is different.

the dropped -e

In U.K. English, the spellings "judgement" and "abridgement" would be spelled "judgment" and "abridgment" in U.S. English. The (-e) is dropped from many other words, as well. At times, understanding its usage can be difficult. A few additional examples of spellings (U.K. / U.S.) are: ageing / aging, likeable / likable and unshakeable / unshakable.

-st

Occasionally, "amongst," "whilst" and "amidst" will appear in U.K. English; though, these are not officially standardized spellings. In fact, they're just wrong. This confusion is based on how superlatives have [-st] endings. The problem is that "among," "while" and "amid" are not superlatives. Prepositions, especially, are not supposed to end with [-st]. Even "against" is technically wrong. We should be saying "againes." Unfortunately, "against" has become the standard spelling simply because it's a mistake that caught on.

There is another misconception that "amongst" has usage beside "among." The belief is that "amongst" should be used as a preposition between human beings, while "among" should be used as a preposition between abstract concepts, or non-humans. This is incorrect. Such a usage rule would also needlessly complicate English grammar, and for no other reason than preserving an incorrect word-form that contextually means the exact same thing as its proper counterpart.

superfluous -s

For some unknown reason, certain dialects like to attach [-s] to many words: Towards, anyways, backwards, afterwards, etc. This is more common in British grammar, but sometimes appears in U.S. grammar, as well. (mostly within the South) There's no reason to attach the [-s] to any of these words; but your mileage may vary.

4.) Crash-Course in Syntax

A given language will (ideally) have a rigid set of rules that dictate the placement of words, depending on the relationships between them. We usually compare the syntax of different languages by looking at the placement of the subject, the object and the verb. In this sense, English would be considered an SVO language. (subject-verb-object) This means the subject predominantly appears first, followed by the verb and object.

For instance: "I ate the pizza."

I - [subject]
ate - [verb]
pizza - [object]

This is, perhaps, the most simplified way to look at a language's syntax. Languages are comprised of many more elements and, even though two different languages may belong to the same typological category, they may call for entirely different rules regarding the placement of adverbs, prepositions, articles, etc.

Because the evolution of English is so extensive, our language has undergone several radical changes in syntax. Generally, these changes were part of purposeful attempts to reform English. At times, a language reform can be a difficult task, because not everyone who speaks the language is willing to adapt to the proposed changes. Due to a lack of general support, some attempts at reformation only introduced a small number of overall changes, leaving large inconsistencies in areas that weren't totally reformed. Sometimes, this plays a role in the syntax of English. Earlier forms of English may have called for slightly different syntax, which - even after successful reformations - still finds colloquial usage in Modern English.

Example: "I ate the pizza quickly."

ate - [verb]
quickly - [adverb]

In Early Modern English, the placement of the adverb would be considered correct. Generally, adverbs did appear after the verbs they modified. In Modern English, this sentence would be acceptable in colloquial, everyday speech, but is technically wrong.

"I quickly ate the pizza."

In Modern English, adverbs precede the verbs they modify, much as other elements would precede the things they also modified.

In everyday speech, this rule might sometimes sound awkward due to our tendency to stock and repeat phrases, rather than formulate sentences with a deeper understanding of how syntax should appear.

Example: "I gracefully danced."

A person might perceive this as awkward, instead opting to say, "I danced gracefully." This is only because most people are trained to hear the incorrect placement of adverbs. It's simply a colloquial fault that continues to be circulated in English.

Also problematic is the placement of prepositions. As a rule, prepositions should not appear at the end of the sentence - they need to be contained between the things they modify. Let's look at some sentences:

"I went with him."

This is a good sentence, because the subject and object are "flanking" the preposition, so to say. It demonstrates their relationship in a logical manner.

"Whom did he go with?"

whom - [object]
he - [subject]
with - [preposition]

This is a bad example, because the preposition is tacked on the end of the sentence. It really doesn't show the relationship between the subject and the object. Let's try it another way:

"With whom did he go?"

This is better. The subject and object are clearly linked by the preposition in this example. You might also phrase it this way:

"He went with whom?"

There is an exception with phrasal verbs, which contain prepositions. An example sentence:

"I'm burning up!"

To be "burning up" is actually a phrasal verb. In a sense, it counts as a single word. The preposition contained in this phrase isn't a true preposition. To avoid confusion, some people place dashes in phrasal verbs:

"I'm burning-up!"

This helps to clarify that the concept of "burning-up" is treated as a single word, as opposed to an independent verb and preposition.

5.) Subject / Object Cases - Redux

Earlier, I discussed a few frequent misconceptions on the usage of subject / object cases, and the confusion of who vs. whom. I would like to add a quick addendum by addressing a common debate among writers and grammarians: Can something be the object of "than"? Short answer: No. It's simply the appearance of "than" that causes confusion.

First, I'll elaborate on what a comparative is. A comparative is a type of word that compares two distinctive things. For instance, "She is more intelligent than I am." In this sentence, "more" is the comparative. Her intelligence is being compared to mine, and is stated to be greater. In this sentence, "than" functions as a conjunction.

My policy is that the casing is very situational. I will outline several example sentences based on my understanding of how each case would be applied:

- She is greater than I

Here, I use the subject case for myself, because rather than being the object of "than," I'm actually the subject of "I am"

- She is greater than I (am)

Dropping "am" from the sentence still implies that I'm a subject, simply because it would normally appear there, anyway. We often drop these kinds of words for the sake of keeping things short and simple. That doesn't mean they aren't still assuming their respective functions from behind the scenes.

The same applies to words like "before":

- He was there before I (was)

There could be confusion in the context of the word if the object case is used:

- He was there before me (he stood before me / in front of me)


Onto the proper object cases with sentences involving "than" ...

Here are a few examples:

- The lightning scared him more than me

In this case, both "him" and "me" are objects of the verb "to scare." The sentence, again, has a few dropped words:

- The lightning scared him more than (it scared) me

In this sentence, it's more clear how "me" is the object of the verb.

- He would rather give it to her than to me

This one is easy to understand, because "me" is actually the object of the preposition "to." Don't let "than" deceive you!

6.) English Title Capitalization

This is a subject I love and I hate, because it seems we can't all agree on a single set of standards for how titles (in the English language) should be capitalized. Bearing in mind, English is a language whose grammar undergoes constant reformation. In that respect, your mileage may vary when it comes to how you want to go about capitalizing your titles.

Most people are aware that articles (a, an, the) aren't capitalized. They're also (partly) aware that prepositions (of, on) and conjunctions (and, but, or) aren't capitalized. The biggest usage problem is when we run into longer prepositions (from, with, over, et al.) and conjunctions. (than, et al.) I've noticed that many people still capitalize these, while simultaneously lower-casing shorter words. The rule is that *all* said parts of speech therein should be lower-cased; if one preposition is lower-cased, then all prepositions would also be lower-cased. Thusly, we get titles like, "Somewhere over the Rainbow" as opposed to, "Somewhere Over the Rainbow"

* Some grammarians are going to claim that parts of speech of a certain length that would normally be lower-cased should actually be capitalized, for aesthetic reasons.

I would like to try to list all the parts of speech that should be lower-cased, along with a few specific examples. Bear in mind that some words can be categorized as multiple parts of speech. Remember which part they fall under, because the context of the word can mean that it is still capitalized in some situations.

- Articles (the, a, an)

"Follow the Light"

- Conjunctions of all kinds (and, but, or, when, et al. - a huge list)

"Everything but the Girl," "In the Spring, when the Snow Melts"

- Prepositions of all kinds (on, of, with, from, over, through, toward, against, et al. - another huge list)

"He Moved through the Fair"

- Relative pronouns (who, that, et al.)

"The Organization that Controlled Everyone," "Those who Defied Fate"

Remember to discern the difference between regular and relative pronouns. You're still going to capitalize in titles like, "The Who and the Why"

- Indicative verbs / "to be" (am, are, is, be)

"I am the Legend," "We are the Victors," "Don't be Afraid"

Somewhat of a house-rule of mine. I've seen other people lower-case these words, as well. They're extremely common and are not functionally important. Why emphasize them through capitalization?

- The pronoun "it"

"When it Rains, it Pours"

This is a house-rule I use, given how general the pronoun "it" is. "It" rarely ever represents anything of importance. This is your call.


When using titles based on other languages, you should follow their capitalization rules. Generally, most other languages only capitalize elements that would normally be capitalized in a sentence. (such as proper nouns)

"La roman de chevalerie" ("The Tale of Chivalry")

"La puerta del Cielo" ("The Door of Heaven")

German titles are simple, since the German language calls for all nouns to be capitalized:

"Heut' ist mein Tag" ("This is My Day")

When you're dealing with titles that contain phrases from other languages, respectively apply both capitalization rules:

"Je t'aime till My Dying Day" ("I Love You until My Dying Day")

*twitches, foams, dies...*

err, I cannot tell you what I think of this as it has overloaded my brain.....

i dont like grammer

Wow, that is an extremely comprehensive list. I would make that required reading for all Cemetech members if not for the fact that it would scare away the bulk of our new recruits. I'll have to read that over more carefully when I have more time and offer more specific comments.

I'm all for the abolishment of schoolboy errors (flagrant misuse of the apostrophe, for example) though attempting to enforce strict rules across the entire English language is a fool's errand.

As far as spelling variations go, most computing terms adopt the US spelling in the UK (for example you would watch a television programme but write a computer program). Opera conspicuously gets this wrong, referring to small pop-up windows as "dialogues" rather than "dialogs".

A more curious word is disc/disk; this appears to take on the spelling of the country of origin (so America gave us floppy disks and the Netherlands gave us compact discs).

Weird, I was just thinking about his last night. I use 'disk' when talking about hard disks, but 'disc' when talking about CD/DVD discs.

I write the same thing too, Progbeard.Perhaps link to this topic when a member asks about moderatorship and could improve with their grammar.

I really do need to read this in depth later. It seems very comprehensive.

I would just like to call you out, though. It really bothers me when someone says "I'm very OCD about X" or "I'm borderline OCD". OCD is a crippling disorder that can cause a lot more problems than just mental correction of grammar. Every human has a natural need for symmetry. OCD stands for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It's a disorder that causes small habits to become compulsions and obsessions. That means that someone with this disorder would put this over everything else, and usually this thing is a meaningless task. For example, let's say I liked my hair to be swept the right way. If I had OCD, and it was a habit to mess with my hair, it would be my number one priority. If my hair wasn't right, then school or my job wouldn't be done, just my hair. Fixing my hair would be the only thing I could do. OCD is a disease and not a negative reaction to small peeves. I wouldn't say that I'm OCD if I like to correct grammar in my head. I do that too. Likely a lot of people do so. It's just a natural need to rectify the wrong.

Necropost to flame someone much?



FWIW calling someone out with out asking them how bad their affliction may be, is a really good way to offend someone. That said. He said he was OCD about. Not a claim it is a statement. To the point of he has, on IRC, had instances of mental instability due to my! bad grammar habits. With that. Working on Escheron, I have made typos when transposing scripts for characters into the app. Development stops until I fix them once he notices them. Just some examples. Call people out if you like, but remember never assume anything, because no one will tell you anything 100%.

If you guys would like a book on some great grammar (it's assuming you know all the basics so it's more advanced; I have to read it for AP Language), it's called The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. If you want to grow in grammar, I suggest this book to you.

sean: Strunk & White is a fun read, though it's definitely showing its age these days.


A long-ish aside on the OCD issue:

Education time, and we can all be careful in our speech from here on out. Basically, please do not confuse OCPD with OCD, and, as StrawberryFrostedPopTart said, please try to avoid using "I have x mental disorder" as a shorthand for "I'm pedantic/a clean-freak/have y personal idiosyncrasy" unless you have an actual diagnosis. Many people with these disorders are private about it and unlikely to reveal this in casual conversation, but are keenly aware of (and uncomfortable with) people who casually claim to have similar problems based on a single personal idiosyncrasy.

I had to write this today for my AP Language class. It's on grammar and writing. It follows the topics I'm supposed to talk about. Correct me on anything you like.


Code:

And I thought Honors English was hard.

I don't think it's that hard. That assignment was a summer extra credit assignment. I used a book(defined a couple posts above) to create this essay. I'm going to use it for the rest of my essays also.

When I saw this topic I tjought it was for the grammer programming language I will have to read this carefully later; it will be useful.