Getting Creative with Language Conventions

            There are many, many books out there about grammar rules and what constitutes proper English. But have you ever considered where these rules came from? What we know as English today developed out of many changes over the years. The language is still changing today and the people who help create that change are those who are willing to question the conventions of language and writing. They are willing to bend the rules to make language better express what they want to say. Even if this sounds like English is doomed, stay with me. There are few rules more closely guarded than those of the English language. I’m not suggesting that one should completely disregard grammar rules like E. E. Cummings. What I am saying is that English is fluid. Words and their meanings change, sometimes daily. Why can’t we be creative with conventions to make language work better for us?

            If you are going to push the boundaries of language, moderation is key. You need to be strategic about what you change and how you do it. Basic grammar rules like subject-verb agreement and capitalization are best left alone so that readers don’t get lost. Spelling rules should also be left intact. Some things are better left alone. What I am talking about are the style choices that have room for individuality. For example, writers love commas. They are versatile and show up everywhere in text. I can appreciate a well-placed comma. I’m amongst the staunch defenders of the Oxford comma. But there is nothing like a semicolon. When I get the chance, I like replacing those commas with semicolons. It feels more definite and authoritative to me.

            These creative changes can make your writing unique and interesting. When practicing moderation, there are several things you can consider to help you plan a strategy. The first is timing. If your venture away from convention is ill-timed, it can distort the meaning of your text or frustrate readers. If you’re writing something to a client, you might want to think twice about straying from conventional type. Why risk losing a client if you don’t have to? On the other hand, a blog post might be an interesting place to insert something unconventional to keep readers’ attention and make your post memorable. If you’re writing a book, you might not want anything too wild because books have a long life span. You should think in terms of where your writing will be seen.

            The second thing you should consider when trying to moderate changes is your audience. The audience is critical for guiding your decision. Try to answer the following questions. How lenient will your audience be with the changes? Will they be able to understand what you’re doing? Think about whom you intend your work for and how your changes might be perceived. Nothing should reduce the accuracy or meaning of your writing. It also should not jolt readers out of their train of thought. If a reader gets frustrated or annoyed enough by something unconventional in your writing, they may stop reading all together.

           Have fun with your writing! It’s supposed to be creative and show your personality. As you play with the conventions of language, make sure you do it in moderation. The best way to decide what changes to make is by thinking about the timing of the change and who your audience is. When done right, your creative writing can delight readers and make you stand out from the rest.

Using "Who" and "Whom"

            Every day brings new examples of English's fluidity. Sometimes the change comes swiftly. Other changes take many years and face much resistance. One change that has been slowly coming is the usage of who and whom. One side declares that whom is dead and that only who should be used. The other side stubbornly insists that whom is still relevant enough to be used in modern English. The question is which side is in the right. Which word should one use in their writing and speech?

            Before we can make a certain decision about these two words, we need to do some research. It is important to understand how to use the words and what their purpose has been in the past. Both who and whom are pronouns but serve slightly different purposes. Who completes several different jobs, but as a pronoun it acts as the subject. As a slight variation, whom is an objective pronoun meaning that who becomes whom when it acts as an object in a sentence. For example, you can say “I asked my friend who gave him the gift.” In this case, who is the subject of the clause "who gave him the gift." However, you can also say "To whom did you give the gift?" Whom is the object in the phrase “to whom.”

            Both who and whom have existed in English since before the 12^th century according to Merriam-Webster[1]. They have also seen relatively little change in their meaning. The spelling has gone through a transformation as the language moved into Middle and then Modern English[2]. If anything, these two pronouns have proven a great tenacity. As was the case for many words, grammarians of the 18^th century had much to say about their usage. The grammarians of the following century declared that whom was dying out. Unlike with other words, English-speakers largely ignored these grammarians and continued to use both words as they always have.

            That brings us back to our original question. Which word is the correct one to use? The experts of today see it in two ways. One side says that whom is a valid word but is tricky to use. Thanks to the aforementioned grammarians, many English speakers are out of practice concerning the correct way to use it. Therefore, people either avoid the word at all costs or use it everywhere. If one can learn to use the two words in the right context, there is no problem with them.

            However, other experts say that it shouldn't matter. Because people don't understand how to use it, the word should be allowed to die. They believe that who can easily replace its counterpart and clear up the confusion once and for all. Besides, these experts say that whom is pretentious and gives the wrong tone in most forms of writing and speech today.

            Who should we listen to? I honestly believe that it is a matter of personal choice. If you like having separate words, you should use them. Only be careful that you are using them correctly. You'll be doing yourself no favors if you continually use whom in the wrong context. You should also consider tone. Sometimes, whom might be correct but causes a sentence to sound clunky because it doesn't match the tone of the surrounding text. If you're of the party that wishes whom would disappear, using who is perfectly fine. That is part of the beauty of the English language. It is fluid and gives much leeway towards a person’s style and personality.

---

[1] Merriam-Webster, s.v. “whom,” accessed February 9, 2020, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whom.

[2] Ibid.

How to Use Hyphens and Dashes

             If reading is like driving a car, then punctuation marks are like traffic signs. My English teacher in elementary school used that analogy many times. It has stayed with me over the years. Although, I will admit to switching that imaginary car out for a horse. Two "traffic signs" that create a great deal of confusion for both writers and readers are hyphens and dashes. Authors will often either give up trying to correctly place them or overuse them to avoid breaking grammar rules. What is a writer to do? I had some struggles of my own which led to some research. I wanted to know how to use these punctuation marks and how to remember them. My findings resulted in not only some handy reminders but also some new knowledge about the different uses for each punctuation.

            The first point that a writer needs to understand is that a hyphen and dash are not the same. These marks complete very different jobs. The hyphen is meant to connect words or parts of words. For instance, it connects a word that is made up of more than one word such as brother-in-law. It can also be useful for signaling that a word has been separated between two lines on a page, but digital communication has made that relatively unnecessary today. Hyphens do many more jobs such as creating compound adjectives, connecting written out numbers, clarifying written out ages, connecting ranges, and adding prefixes and suffixes. The best description I came across is from the always helpful Grammar Book which describes hyphens as the glue of grammar[1]. The hyphen's goal is to clarify. At times, something makes much more sense when spoken than when written. Hyphens indicate in writing what would normally be implied by how it’s spoken.

            Dashes serve another purpose in writing. There are both em dashes and en dashes. If you really want to complicate matters, you can also break down em dashes further into two em dashes and three em dashes. We are going to keep things simple though. The en dash is easily confused with a hyphen. It is slightly longer than a hyphen and its purpose is sometimes similar. The en dash mainly brings distant relatives together. By this, I mean the en dashes connect ranges such as page numbers (1–2), dates (November–December), and actual ranges (Sacramento–Honolulu flight)[2]. En dashes also complete the special task of prefixing proper nouns. A hyphen would normally do when prefixing a word, but proper nouns are a special case[3].

            The em dash is much more assertive and very versatile. It takes the place of commas, semicolons, colons, and parentheses in a sentence to create different emphases and pauses. It is a longer line than either the en dash or hyphen. When creating emphasis, the em dash sets the emphasized part off from the rest of the sentence. It can also create pauses that can be a little longer than other punctuation. A final function the em dash has is indicating broken speech such as if one speaker interrupts another[4].

            Now that you know the differences amongst all these punctuation marks, you are most likely wondering how they are going to help you in your writing. Hyphens and dashes can help replace some of the more common punctuation marks and give your content a clearer voice. The trick is to not overdo it. Some writers get a little ambitious and hyphenate everything like this supposed-one-word-but-not word. That can be overwhelming to your reader. It can also be confusing to see an overabundance of dashes, as anyone who has read Emily Dickinson’s poetry knows all too well. On the other hand, an absence of hyphens and dashes can create confusion because the reader may not be able to understand what the author is meaning. In short, moderation is key. If it will add value, use it. Otherwise, it might be better to skip it.

           The hyphen, en dash, and em dash all serve unique purposes that help writers create clear and accurate content. They can demonstrate parts of speech that are not so easy to represent on paper with words alone. As a rule of thumb, remember that hyphens act like glue, en dashes want to bring everyone closer together, and em dashes want to stand out. Of course, if you ever are in doubt, look it up! It's always better to spend time researching than correcting errors.

---

[1] “Hyphens,” Grammar Book, Retrieved October 28, 2019, https://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/hyphens.asp.

[2] “Hyphens, En Dashes, and Em Dashes,” Chicago Manual of Style Online, Retrieved October 28, 2019, https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes/faq0002.html

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Zombie Rules: The Myths of English Class Part 3

We've finally reached the third and last week about zombie rules. We have covered a lot of ground over the last several weeks. So far, we have discussed why it is perfectly grammatical to use starting conjunctions, ending prepositions, split infinitives, and a passive voice. This week, we will be discussing two more zombie rules that are not quite as black and white. These rules are about contractions and using the word "that."

Everyone at some point has been told not to use contractions in their writing. If we’re talking about "ain't" I would probably agree. But contractions are not grammatically wrong. As I have mentioned before, I enjoy dabbling in other languages. Contractions are a universal construction in language. They are necessary for more than just a shortcut in speech. Contractions aid the smooth flow of sentences and influence the tone of a written piece. Read these next two sentences and compare how they sound. We don't need it anymore. We do not need it anymore. Now, both are correct and would be acceptable to use. The difference comes in how they sound. The sound of "don't need" versus "do not need" is vast. The former has the flow of natural speech and has a personal tone. The latter example has a jarring sound and adds stiffness to the sentence not to mention that it can place a greater emphasis on the “not.”

Don't misunderstand me here. I am not saying that contractions should always be used. As with any grammatical construction, there are certain appropriate uses for it. I only mean to point out that they can create a smoother flow in a sentence and can give a different tone. Contractions don't always informalize sentences either. For example, there are contractions like "'tis" and "shan't" which add a peculiarly classy or literary sound to a sentence. 

Therefore, it is all about what one is trying to say. Contractions are meant to be your friend; a tool to help you better communicate your thoughts. In formal English, the occasional contraction is acceptable if it doesn't disrupt the tone of your document. Informal English benefits exponentially from contractions because of how they give a conversational sound to written English. Moderation is important, but don't be afraid to use contractions in your writing.

The final zombie rule we must cover is using "that" in place of a "who." In English class, students are taught that a "who" is a person and a "that" is an object, animal, or idea. However, how many times have you referred to someone as a "that" lately? You know, the coffeehouse person that hands you your coffee every morning. In that example, the "that" refers to the person who works at the coffeehouse. Is there a difference?

It turns out the answer is both yes and no. The idea that "who" is for people and "that" is for everything else is an oversimplification of a long-standing grammar rule. Truthfully, "who" is reserved for people (most of the time), "which" is reserved for inanimate objects, and "that" is for both people and inanimate objects. Keeping this in mind, the argument over "who" versus "that" becomes more about writing style and preference.

Once we enter the world of writing style, the differences become more apparent. Using "that" for a person is not a problem in most instances, but it can sometimes have a decidedly negative connotation[1]. A writer needs to know exactly what he wants to convey and ascertain that his words do so. On the other hand, "who" can sometimes refer to others beyond people[2]. "Who" is often used to refer to animals, especially dogs and cats[3]. People think of their pets as companions and that is reflected in speech. The best rule of thumb is to use "who" for people and either "that" or "which" for everything else. However, you don't have to worry about slipping because "that" is perfectly acceptable.

We have reached the end of our zombie rule discussion. I hope everyone has learned a lot about writing and the beauty of English. Researching for these posts has certainly taught me much about grammar that I was not necessarily aware of. In the future, use the flexibility of English to communicate better with people and share your ideas with the world. These flexibilities make it easier for an author's voice and personality to come through in his writing. So, go write to your heart’s content and don’t let zombie rules crush your confidence as a writer!

---

[1] Mignon Fogarty, 2006, “Who versus That,” Quick and Dirty Tips, Retrieved October 11, 2019, https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that?page=1.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

Zombie Rules: The Myths of English Class Part 2

Last week, we explored the world of zombie rules. I think this topic is interesting because people have such varied opinions about it. These rules can be a sore spot because of pet peeves and perceived grammar rules. They can also be fun and liberating for writers to discuss once they learn that these rules are dead (or never existed). I am hoping you fall into the second category because today we are going to be talking about two more zombie rules.

We've already discussed rules concerning the beginning and end of sentences. Today's rules are focused on the inner construction and voice of the sentence. The first zombie rule is about splitting infinitives. This can be a tricky rule because some people find it to be especially irritating in writing. Spoken English is another matter but, I suppose people think less about words if they can't see them. If you're like me, you become easily distracted by unique words or unusual phrases. My inner grammar researcher can't resist. But I'm getting off-topic here.

An infinitive is a basic structure of "to" and a verb. If you are involved with language learning at all, you know that courses will often teach the infinitives of verbs followed by how they conjugate in different situations. This zombie rule states that "to" cannot be separated from its verb, e.g., He is beginning to heal fully. In this example, "to heal" is the infinitive and "fully" is the adverb. The infinitive is whole with the adverb on the end. It could read like this: He is beginning to fully heal. Now the infinitive has been split by the adverb. Do you notice something different when you read it? Try rereading both sentences and see what stands out to you. The placement of the adverb slightly changes the meaning of the sentence by putting emphasis either on the verb or the adverb.

Why do so many have a problem with split infinitives? This pet peeve can be traced back to the well-meaning grammarians of the 1700s. Much like last week with the ending prepositions, grammarians from this period desired to make English more like its root language, Latin [1]. In Latin, it is wrong to split infinitives. It would be more accurate to say impossible because Latin infinitives are not formed like English ones [2]. Latin rules cannot always apply to English because English has developed into a separate language. It has its own formations and rules that need to be followed. The best solution then is to go ahead and split that infinitive if it emphasizes accurately and sounds natural.

The second rule is one that has long pervaded the writing territory. People have become increasingly busy. We've somehow managed to become more efficient and have less time. Our language reflects this change in society. English is an evolving language and an active language deserves an active voice, right? Generations of English writers have been admonished for using the passive voice. I am here to tell you that passive voice is necessary and should be used.

A sentence can either be in the active or passive voice. In the active voice, a sentence follows this construction: a subject doing something, an active verb, and an object receiving the action. For example: I write articles. It is simple, straightforward, and emphasizes the doer of the action. On the other hand, the passive voice uses this construction: a subject receiving the action, a passive verb formed by a "to be" verb plus a past participle, and sometimes an object doing the action. For example: The articles are written by me. The sentence is a little longer now and it places emphasis on the object of the action. The problem that grammarians and writers have with the passive voice is its more complex structure and its allowance for vagueness.

Avoiding the passive voice is a zombie rule because it is not a true grammar rule. It is actually a writer's preference and writing style. Using a passive voice can be beneficial. The passive voice is essential when the doer is unknown. You don't always know who stole the neighbor's car. In that case, the passive voice makes it possible to tell someone that the car was stolen without having to come up with a perpetrator.

A passive voice can also be useful for certain types of writing. More technical writings such as scientific or medical manuscripts need a passive voice to explain processes and formulas. In other writings, emphasis on the receiver is important to make a point. If I want to emphasize the type of writing I do, I would use a passive voice, e.g., The articles were written by me. The noticeable part is "the articles." I want people to know that those articles are my style rather than biographies. That being said, it is important to note that the passive voice should not be abused. By this, I mean purposely using a passive voice to hide information and be vague. A classic example is a politician who says, "Mistakes were made." It sounds like an admission of guilt but is refusing to take responsibility.

Writers have a great deal of flexibility in English. To get your point across, it is perfectly acceptable to use both split infinitives and a passive voice. Although, you might want to introduce one at a time. There's no point in provoking so-called grammar enthusiasts. Clarity, consistency, and accuracy are the triple crown of writing. If breaking a zombie rule or two helps you achieve these goals, then I say start smashing.

[1] Erin Brenner, 2013, "Killing the Zombies: Split Infinitives, ‘Hopefully,' and Singular ‘They'," Visual Thesaurus, Accessed October 4, 2019, https://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wc/killing-the-zombies-split-infinitives-hopefully-and-singular-they/.

[2] Ibid.

Zombie Rules: The Myths of English Class Part 1

Last week, I wrote about using the singular they. Some editors and grammarians believe that avoiding singular they is a zombie rule. Zombie rules have nothing to do with actual zombies, but rather outdated grammar rules. A more accurate way of describing them is as non-rules. The term was coined by a professor, Arnold Zwicky, in 2005 for grammar "rules" that authors, editors, and elementary schools insist on following even though these rules don't exist and have no grammatical basis [1]. The term took off as demonstrated by John McIntyre's article that described an entire list of them [2]. Over the next few weeks, I'm going to be describing some of these zombie rules and why writers should allow them to permanently die out.

The first two zombie rules I am going to discuss are very common amongst authors, overzealous editors, and elementary school classes. People consistently break both rules in speech which gives evidence that they don’t apply to the natural flow of words. Our brains appear to know a little more about grammar than we do when we allow them to take over. The first rule is to never start a sentence with a conjunction. The second insists on never ending a sentence with a preposition.

For many years, elementary students have been told that they cannot begin a sentence with a conjunction. That is not necessarily the case. A conjunction's job is to connect clauses, phrases, or words within a sentence. There are three types of conjunctions: correlating, subordinating, and coordinating. Writers use both correlating and subordinating conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence without trouble. The coordinating conjunctions are the problem. These conjunctions include the common and, but, and or. Spoken English reflects the usage of beginning conjunctions such as these.

Grammar rules and style guides have never warned against using conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence [3]. This "rule" was most likely created by teachers and carried on as a grammar rule when truly it is teachers' preference [4]. However, there is one stumbling block with beginning conjunctions that writers must watch out for.

When one uses a conjunction, it is important to ensure that the sentence is not a fragment [5]. With simple cases, one only needs to trust their instincts and what sounds the most natural. As I said previously, the brain knows much more grammar than we do. With harder cases, it can help to take the time to identify each part of the sentence to make sure everything is present that should be. 

Once one stops trying to avoid conjunctions, they find that conjunctions can be very useful. Sometimes, nothing works like a period to create a certain effect. One could use a comma and make the two sentences one. But a period adds a greater pause and gives more emphasis to the sentence that follows [6]. That emphasis produces greater clarity and magnifies the author's voice. These two benefits are key to every writer.

The second zombie rule is to avoid prepositions at the end of a sentence. The job of a preposition is to demonstrate the relationship between a noun or a pronoun and some other word in the sentence. As the one who is showing how words relate to each other, prepositions can become a part of phrasal verbs [7]. Phrasal verbs are phrases that behave like verbs, and prepositions often end up at the end of sentences that have either these phrases or interrogatives because the order makes the most sense [8].

The idea that prepositions cannot end a sentence has never been a grammar rule for English. This idea was popularized by the famed poet John Dryden and many style guides that followed him [9]. Both Dryden and an earlier culprit, grammarian Joshua Poole, wanted to keep English close to its roots [10]. In Latin, ending a sentence with a preposition is, in fact, wrong [11]. I can appreciate wanting to keep close ties between English and Latin. But Dryden, Poole, and countless others were forgetting something very important. English is not Latin. English may have its roots in Latin, but it is not the same thing. What works in one language may not in the other. For the sake of clarity, English sometimes needs a preposition at the end of the sentence. 

If it is true that conjunctions and prepositions can be used, what are authors to do? The best rule to follow is to use the conjunction or preposition unless it might cause problems. If readers are going to be riled by a "misplaced" word, they are not going to absorb your actual point and may even question your expertise. For the sake of one's message, moving the word or replacing it might be the better option.

These zombie rules may have been around for decades, but that doesn't mean they should be accepted or followed. You can make writing clearer and more natural by adding in some beginning conjunctions and ending prepositions. You'll be one less author contributing to the continued life of these "rules." Just be careful you don't create a mob by doing it. Some battles aren't worth fighting.

[1] Merrie-Ellen Wilcox, 2016, "Spooks, zombie rules, and the singular ‘they'" [blog], West Coast Editorial Associates, accessed September 27, 2019, http://westcoasteditors.com/spooks-zombie-rules-and-the-singular-they/.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Neal Whitman, 2014, "Can I Start a Sentence with a Conjunction?", Grammar Girl Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, Accessed September 27, 2019, https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/can-i-start-a-sentence-with-a-conjunction.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Mignon Fogarty, 2011, "Ending a Sentence with a Preposition," Grammar Girl Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing, Accessed September 27, 2019, https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/ending-a-sentence-with-a-preposition.

[8] Ibid.

[9] "Prepositions, Ending a Sentence With," Merriam-Webster, June 25, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/prepositions-ending-a-sentence-with.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

The Rise of Singular "They"

            If you are as much of a word nerd as I am or spend any amount of time on grammar-related social media, you've probably heard about the recent dictionary changes. As we all know and witness daily, English is an evolving language. Part of that growth includes adding new words into the dictionaries as part of common English usage. Change is never something we handle well. Therefore, new words are not always greeted with much enthusiasm. A recent addition in Merriam – Webster has especially created a stir. That word is the singular they.

            The singular they is one of those topics in English grammar that can quickly divide a room. The most common objection to they as a singular pronoun is that it’s supposed to be plural. That is true and they is still retaining its plural sense. But English has precedence for breaking its rules and developing exceptions. On the other hand, many applaud the recognition of singular they as progress that makes the English language less clunky and easier to use. No longer do authors have to use phrasing such as “his or her” or reword sentences to avoid the construction altogether. With these opposing sides, it can make one wonder who exactly is right. Well, the answer might not be what one would think.

           Singular they has been used in spoken and written English for centuries. If you pay close attention to what you are saying, you will most likely find that you use they in this sense daily. According to Patricia O’Conner and Stewart Kellerman of Grammarphobia, they has been a part of English in the singular usage since the 1300s and became a permanent part of the language by the end of the century[1]. With its entry into English, no one saw a reason to object to its singular meaning. In fact, widespread distaste for the singular they did not appear until the 1700s when grammarians began to insist on they being used strictly in its original sense as a plural pronoun[2].

            These grammarians may have successfully stigmatized singular they, but they did not stop anyone from using it. Too much time had passed, and it had firmly taken root in speech and writing. Thus, the battling amongst grammarians and authors began and has continued into modern times. Merriam – Webster accepting singular they is a mighty success for this beleaguered pronoun but is honestly nothing new. It only means that dictionaries are finally catching up with reality.

            For those who still find it hard to accept singular they, I would like to point out that a similar change has already happened for you. I am not referring to you being used in the plural sense though. Unbeknownst to many, you was not a singular pronoun originally. It wasn’t even a subject pronoun. While everyone was busy fighting over how to use they, that sly pronoun you overtook first ye as the plural subject and later both singular forms thou and thee.[3]

           Because of the changes brought on by you, English is one of those few languages that has no distinction between singular and plural or formal and informal speech. If anyone was going to complain about language changes, I think they (catch that there) should be going after that upstart you. Even though English has taken on some drastic changes, it has survived and thrived. Personally, I think English is going to weather this latest change just fine.

---

[1] Patricia T. O’Conner and Stewart Kellerman, “Fifty shades of ‘they’,” Grammarphobia (blog), May 22, 2017, https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2017/05/they-4.html.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Elizabeth O’Brien, “The Story of the Pronoun You,” Grammar Revolution, Accessed September 20, 2019, https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/history-of-you.html.