The Grammar Logs -- Number One Hundred, Fourteen

The
Grammar
Logs
# 114

Question I'm in the Air Force writing a performance report. I want to use two quotations together. What is the proper format for the two quoatations?
ex: ...past student feedback states it best: "excellent style, informed, upbeat, and energetic", "up to speed, knowledgeable, and articulate."
Should the comma be on the inside of the quotation marks (after energetic)? Or is there another procedure? Please help! Thank-You
Source & Date
of Question Unknown
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response If you really need to separate these items, you would put the comma between the "c" of energetic and the quotation mark. (This is American convention; in other countries, you might put the comma after the quotation mark.) Another possibility is simply to run these two quotations together: "energetic . . . . up to speed, . . ." But your way is probably better.

Question I have recently been told that EVERY time I use the word which to start a clause, I must use a comma--that is, which always starts a nonrestrictive clause. Is this a new grammar rule? I find it in some books but not in others.
e.g. The car which was 20 years old was in amazingly good condition.
Supposedly I should use that for restrictive clauses and which for nonrestrictive. What do you say?
Source & Date
of Question Elgin, Illinois
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response Reference books will agree that the word "that" should be used to introduce restrictive clauses. In the sentence you give us, "which was twenty years old" is not a restrictive clause. We can remove it without changing the essential meaning of the sentence: The car was in amazingly good condition." The added information, the nonrestrictive clause, is properly introduced by "which," but we need commas to set it off: "The car, which was twenty years old, was in amazingly good condition." When which introduces a nonrestrictive clause, you will use a comma before it.
However, some writers will use which to introduce a restrictive clause: "The rule which he used more than any other was the rule about restrictive clauses." In that case, we wouldn't use a comma. It would be handy if all writers used "which" only to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, but to ignore the fact that many writers, many good writers, use it to introduce some restrictive clauses (depending on the sound, more than anything) is sheer folly. See Notorious Confusables on that/which.

Question I know that when you have two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction, a comma precedes the coordinating conjunction. For example: "He hit the ball, and then he ran to first base." But. . .
When you have two independent clauses, either of which have an implied subject, does this rule still apply? For example: "Place the cursor in the value field, and press enter." Or-- "Place the cursor in the value field and press enter."
Both "Place the cursor in the value field" and "press enter" are independent clauses with the implied subject "you." But, it seems odd to use a comma in that construction.
Would the insertion of "then" between "and" and "press" make a difference?
I could beg the question by making the clauses two sentences, but that only defers the problem rather than solves it. Besides, inquiring minds (mine) want to know.
Source & Date
of Question Littleton, Colorado
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response I suppose you could think of the implied subject being repeated with the second verb, but why are we thinking of that original sentence as two independent clauses? Doesn't it work the same as "John places the cursor in the value field and presses enter."? I don't think you need the comma in that sentence -- whether you use "then" or not.

Question Would you please explain the following and give some sentence examples?

in a sense that
whereby
Thank you
Source & Date
of Question Koala Lumpur, Malaysia
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response In think you mean "in the sense that, as in "He was really mad, in the sense that he was insane." or "In the sense that we got along very well, but only part of the time, we were like a family." "Whereby" is a word we could probably get along fine without, but it does have its uses: "His grandmother gave him a million dollars, whereby he was able to afford just about anything he wanted to buy."

Question I would like to know how to write an argument paper.
Source & Date
of Question Walnut Creek, California
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response Until we finish the section of Principles of Composition devoted to writing the argumentative essay, I will have to link you to the Brief Guide to Writing Argumentative Essays from Roane State Community College. Be sure to read the sample student essays, as they are quite remarkable.

Question When do you use toward vs towards?

He went toward the boat.
He went towards the boat.

The car came toward him at 90 miles per hour.
The car came towards him at 90 miles per hour.

The bird flew toward the fence.
The bird flew towards the fence.

Source & Date
of Question Palos Park, Illinois
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response The only difference between these two words is the spelling and the pronunciation. Go with whichever sounds better to you. Consistency, however, is a good thing, and I think most people prefer toward, but most references I have list them as virtually equivalent.

Question When is it OK to use 'alright' and 'all right'? I've seen 'alright' in the dictionary but I don't know if it's been approved for formal writing.
Source & Date
of Question San Pedro, California
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response All the reference books I have scorn the use of "alright" as a substitute for "all right." I certainly wouldn't use it in academic prose if I were you. And if you were me, you wouldn't use it at all.

Question Usage for causative verbs
Source & Date
of Question Vancouver, BC, Canada
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response Causative verbs designate the action necessary to cause another action to happen. Here is a brief list of causative verbs, in no particular order: let, make, help, allow, have, let, require, allow, motivate, get, make, convince, hire, assist, encourage, permit, employ, force, allow. Most of them are followed by an object (noun or pronoun) followed by an infinitve: "She allows her pet cockatiel to perch on the windowsill. She hired a carpenter to build a new birdcage."
Three causative verbs are exceptions to the pattern described above. Instead of being followed by a noun/pronoun and an infinitive, the causative verbs have, make and let are followed by a noun/pronoun and the base form of the verb.
Professor Villa had her students read four short novels in one week.
She also made them read five plays in one week.
However, she let them skip the final exam.
Authority: The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers by Maxine Hairston and John J. Ruszkiewicz. 4th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1996.

Question Hi. Great reference site you have here. I enjoyed taking one of your quizzes, the one on verbs, but I have a question on it. I was marked incorrect on one out of 25 questions, one where I wrote dove and your test was looking for dived. I'm just curious about your reasons for marking this incorrect, since the usage books I reference, while they agree dove is a recent usage from probably the mid-19th century, state that dove is acceptable.
I also have another question that's been plaguing me, and I hope you will have the time to answer me. I have trouble determining whether may or might should be used in a particular instance. May seems to have predominant use in modern writing, but I'm not sure the use is always correct. My usage books suggest might is the proper form for past tense and hypotheticals, and I agree, but where is the line between probability and hypothetical? For example, which of "you may be right" or "you might be right" is correct? Other examples would be helpful if you can come up with any or direct me to a location where I might (or may?) find some.
I'll look forward to hearing from you. In any case, thanks for the helpful web site.
Source & Date
of Question Grand Blanc, Michigan
27 April 1998
Grammar's
Response In at least one of the quizzes, there's an asterisk on the dived/dove choice, indicating that more than one choice is possible, but the computer can recognize only one -- and I chose dived. There may be another quiz where I ask for that choice, but forgot to designate that a choice was possible. If so, sorry about that (and tell me where it happened if you can remember).
The difference in degree between "You may be right" and "You might be right" is slight but not insignificant: If I say you may be right about something, there is a higher degree of probability (I think) that you are right about it than if I say you might be right about something. "You think Einstein is the most brilliant physicist who ever lived? Hmm. You may be right." versus "You think it's going to rain this afternoon even though the sun is shining this morning? Well, you might be right."

Question I'd like to know if this construction is correct: "The diaper needs changed." (Source: a web site for new parents. I've heard the same usage from friends and co-workers.) If it's not correct, why not?
My mother, a retired teacher, agrees with me that this violates some rule or other of English grammar. My wife, a professional writer, says I'm full of it. Clearly the question needs answered.
Reputations hang in the balance! Thanks so much for your expertise.
Source & Date
of Question Prairie Village, Kansas
28 April 1998
Grammar's
Response You may be full of it, I'll leave that to your wife, but that's a horrible grammatical construction. I suppose someone who uses it argues that the "to be" in "The diaper needs to be changed" has been truncated (or some such thing). What we need in that sentence (besides fresh air) is a noun form -- The diaper needs something. -- and the noun form of the verb is a gerund: "The diaper needs changing."

Previous Grammar Log
Next Grammar Log
Index of Grammar Logs
Guide to Grammar and Writing

Question	I'm in the Air Force writing a performance report. I want to use two quotations together. What is the proper format for the two quoatations? ex: ...past student feedback states it best: "excellent style, informed, upbeat, and energetic", "up to speed, knowledgeable, and articulate." Should the comma be on the inside of the quotation marks (after energetic)? Or is there another procedure? Please help! Thank-You
Source & Date of Question	Unknown 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	If you really need to separate these items, you would put the comma between the "c" of energetic and the quotation mark. (This is American convention; in other countries, you might put the comma after the quotation mark.) Another possibility is simply to run these two quotations together: "energetic . . . . up to speed, . . ." But your way is probably better.

Question	I have recently been told that EVERY time I use the word which to start a clause, I must use a comma--that is, which always starts a nonrestrictive clause. Is this a new grammar rule? I find it in some books but not in others. e.g. The car which was 20 years old was in amazingly good condition. Supposedly I should use that for restrictive clauses and which for nonrestrictive. What do you say?
Source & Date of Question	Elgin, Illinois 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	Reference books will agree that the word "that" should be used to introduce restrictive clauses. In the sentence you give us, "which was twenty years old" is not a restrictive clause. We can remove it without changing the essential meaning of the sentence: The car was in amazingly good condition." The added information, the nonrestrictive clause, is properly introduced by "which," but we need commas to set it off: "The car, which was twenty years old, was in amazingly good condition." When which introduces a nonrestrictive clause, you will use a comma before it. However, some writers will use which to introduce a restrictive clause: "The rule which he used more than any other was the rule about restrictive clauses." In that case, we wouldn't use a comma. It would be handy if all writers used "which" only to introduce nonrestrictive clauses, but to ignore the fact that many writers, many good writers, use it to introduce some restrictive clauses (depending on the sound, more than anything) is sheer folly. See Notorious Confusables on that/which.

Question	I know that when you have two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction, a comma precedes the coordinating conjunction. For example: "He hit the ball, and then he ran to first base." But. . . When you have two independent clauses, either of which have an implied subject, does this rule still apply? For example: "Place the cursor in the value field, and press enter." Or-- "Place the cursor in the value field and press enter." Both "Place the cursor in the value field" and "press enter" are independent clauses with the implied subject "you." But, it seems odd to use a comma in that construction. Would the insertion of "then" between "and" and "press" make a difference? I could beg the question by making the clauses two sentences, but that only defers the problem rather than solves it. Besides, inquiring minds (mine) want to know.
Source & Date of Question	Littleton, Colorado 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	I suppose you could think of the implied subject being repeated with the second verb, but why are we thinking of that original sentence as two independent clauses? Doesn't it work the same as "John places the cursor in the value field and presses enter."? I don't think you need the comma in that sentence -- whether you use "then" or not.

Question	Would you please explain the following and give some sentence examples? in a sense that whereby Thank you
Source & Date of Question	Koala Lumpur, Malaysia 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	In think you mean "in the sense that, as in "He was really mad, in the sense that he was insane." or "In the sense that we got along very well, but only part of the time, we were like a family." "Whereby" is a word we could probably get along fine without, but it does have its uses: "His grandmother gave him a million dollars, whereby he was able to afford just about anything he wanted to buy."

Question	When do you use toward vs towards? He went toward the boat. He went towards the boat. The car came toward him at 90 miles per hour. The car came towards him at 90 miles per hour. The bird flew toward the fence. The bird flew towards the fence.
Source & Date of Question	Palos Park, Illinois 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	The only difference between these two words is the spelling and the pronunciation. Go with whichever sounds better to you. Consistency, however, is a good thing, and I think most people prefer toward, but most references I have list them as virtually equivalent.

Question	I would like to know how to write an argument paper.
Source & Date of Question	Walnut Creek, California 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	Until we finish the section of Principles of Composition devoted to writing the argumentative essay, I will have to link you to the Brief Guide to Writing Argumentative Essays from Roane State Community College. Be sure to read the sample student essays, as they are quite remarkable.

Question	When is it OK to use 'alright' and 'all right'? I've seen 'alright' in the dictionary but I don't know if it's been approved for formal writing.
Source & Date of Question	San Pedro, California 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	All the reference books I have scorn the use of "alright" as a substitute for "all right." I certainly wouldn't use it in academic prose if I were you. And if you were me, you wouldn't use it at all.

Question	Hi. Great reference site you have here. I enjoyed taking one of your quizzes, the one on verbs, but I have a question on it. I was marked incorrect on one out of 25 questions, one where I wrote dove and your test was looking for dived. I'm just curious about your reasons for marking this incorrect, since the usage books I reference, while they agree dove is a recent usage from probably the mid-19th century, state that dove is acceptable. I also have another question that's been plaguing me, and I hope you will have the time to answer me. I have trouble determining whether may or might should be used in a particular instance. May seems to have predominant use in modern writing, but I'm not sure the use is always correct. My usage books suggest might is the proper form for past tense and hypotheticals, and I agree, but where is the line between probability and hypothetical? For example, which of "you may be right" or "you might be right" is correct? Other examples would be helpful if you can come up with any or direct me to a location where I might (or may?) find some. I'll look forward to hearing from you. In any case, thanks for the helpful web site.
Source & Date of Question	Grand Blanc, Michigan 27 April 1998
Grammar's Response	In at least one of the quizzes, there's an asterisk on the dived/dove choice, indicating that more than one choice is possible, but the computer can recognize only one -- and I chose dived. There may be another quiz where I ask for that choice, but forgot to designate that a choice was possible. If so, sorry about that (and tell me where it happened if you can remember). The difference in degree between "You may be right" and "You might be right" is slight but not insignificant: If I say you may be right about something, there is a higher degree of probability (I think) that you are right about it than if I say you might be right about something. "You think Einstein is the most brilliant physicist who ever lived? Hmm. You may be right." versus "You think it's going to rain this afternoon even though the sun is shining this morning? Well, you might be right."

Question	I'd like to know if this construction is correct: "The diaper needs changed." (Source: a web site for new parents. I've heard the same usage from friends and co-workers.) If it's not correct, why not? My mother, a retired teacher, agrees with me that this violates some rule or other of English grammar. My wife, a professional writer, says I'm full of it. Clearly the question needs answered. Reputations hang in the balance! Thanks so much for your expertise.
Source & Date of Question	Prairie Village, Kansas 28 April 1998
Grammar's Response	You may be full of it, I'll leave that to your wife, but that's a horrible grammatical construction. I suppose someone who uses it argues that the "to be" in "The diaper needs to be changed" has been truncated (or some such thing). What we need in that sentence (besides fresh air) is a noun form -- The diaper needs something. -- and the noun form of the verb is a gerund: "The diaper needs changing."