The Grammar Logs -- Number Two

The
Grammar
Logs
# 2

Question Can you explain predicate nominatives and direct object clauses?
Also can you explain to me how the answer whoever is correct for this sentence: "Give these old coats to whoever seems to need them the most."
Thank you :-)
Source & Date
of Question Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
1 April 1997
Grammar's
Response A predicate nominative (or subject complement or predicate noun) can be expressed as the second part of an equation. "I am a student." I = a student. A student is the predicate nominative; it is the subject, a way of re-naming it. When the predicate (the completer of the sentence) stands for the subject and is a noun, then, it's called a predicate nominative (or you could just call it a completer and be done with it).
Authority: The Little, Brown Handbook by H. Ramsay Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, & Kay Limburg. 6th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1995. By permission of Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.
A direct object clause would be a noun clause (a group of related words containing a subject and verb and acting as a noun) that is also the direct object of the sentence. For instance, "The fire destroyed what he had spent a lifetime building." The clause "what he had spent a lifetime building" is the direct object of this sentence. The fire destroyed something (direct object). What is the thing the fire destroyed? The answer is the direct object clause. Refer to Clauses in the Guide.
And as for whoever: In that sentence, whoever is the subject of the clause "whoever seems to need them the most." That whole clause, now, becomes the object of the preposition to. (So here the clause is the object of a preposition, not a direct object clause.) You have to determine whether the whoever or whomever is acting as a subject or an object to determine the proper form. Here, you're looking for the subject of that clause so you want whoever. See the Special Quiz on Who/Whom.

Question Which is grammatically correct?

The man stepped out of the door and slipped on a pebble that was too small to even see, so he just thought he was clumsy.
The man stepped out of the door and slipped on a miniscule pebble. He just thought he was clumsy.

Source & Date
of Question Morristown, New Jersey
1 April 1997
Grammar's
Response Well, the first sentence has some problems. First, we don't need both out and of. He stepped out the door does the job. We have a split infinitive with to even see. (Although this is no longer regarded as a "biggie," we might've said "that was too small even to see.") And finally, the logic of the whole thing is a bit too flimsy for that word "so," which means that your second version, in two sentences, is logically more secure. (Not really a grammar question, but I think it's better if the thought process in the second clause is separated from the event of the first sentence. Isn't that sort of the point?)

Question I am very interested in proper grammar. My spelling however might need some attention. My question concerns the use of I / me. When I was studying grammar, I can remember a specific rule about it. If the sentence were just about you then it stays the same. EXAMPLE This is a picture of me. This is a picture of my sister and me. I realize that the second sentence sounds incorrect, but that is the way I was taught it should be. I am helping my children with proper grammar (I hope) and I do not want to give them incorrect information, or information that has changed over the years.
Please help
Source & Date
of Question Prairie Village, Kansas
2 April 1997
Grammar's
Response Your question is about the compounding of pronouns, and the rule is really quite simple: when you compound a pronoun with something, don't change its form. You give a perfectly good example of it. Furthermore, you're probably right about its not sounding correct -- because so many people say it incorrectly. For instance, you would say, "Grandma loved Raoul; she left all her money to Tomas and him." But most people would probably say "to Tomas and he." They're wrong and you're right. Your children have a good coach!
See, also, the Guide under "Compounding Pronouns."

Question What's the difference between the abbreviations e.g. and ex. (and did I write these correctly)? When should you use one vs. the other? Also related is the abbreviation i.e., but I know that means "id est" meaning "that is" and is used when you'd like to restate something a different way (if I'm correct).
Source & Date
of Question San Diego, California
2 April 1997
Grammar's
Response You're correct about i.e. (i.e., right on; you've got that one nailed, etc.). We can use these abbreviations in parenthetical information; otherwise, the APA Publication Manual suggests we should use the English translations. The translation for e.g. is for example, and you would use it where that is appropriate in parenthetical information. Ex., however, is not an abbreviation for a latin term or phrase; it's simply an abbreviation for the English for example. I would avoid it, but I don't think people should get too excited over its use.
Incidentally, may I add that when you use versus the way you do in that question (actually, you use vs.), you might want to use the whole word, not the abbreviation (unless you're referring to a legal document)?
Authority: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Assocation American Psychological Association. 4th ed. American Psychological Association: New York. 1994.

Question My question involves the use of parentheses at the end of a sentence. When should the punctuation be included inside the parentheses and when should it be outside? I have included two simplified examples from some technical documentation:

The code is reviewed for compliance with established standards (as defined in the software plan.)
This information can be found in the Software Description Document (SDD).
I assume that I have placed the punctuation correctly in the two examples.
Thanks!
Source & Date
of Question Spartanburg, South Carolina
2 April 1997
Grammar's
Response Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. One of your examples or the other has to be wrong. If the material between parentheses appears within a sentence, don't use end punctuation within those parentheses, even if your parenthetical material is a complete sentence. Thus the period for both your sentences goes after the closing ). The only time you use end punctuation within parentheses is when they include a complete sentence and when this sentence (it wouldn't matter how long the sentence is) does not appear within another sentence. (I hope this makes sense to you!)

Question I am always confused about the proper usage of the Latin abreviations etc., et al., and i.e.
Could you please explain the differences and provide some usage examples.
Thank you for your time and this wonderful service.
Source & Date
of Question Dallas, Texas
2 April 1997
Grammar's
Response The abbreviation etc. (for et cetera) means (translated) and so forth. It is usually used at the end of a list where you want to suggest just that, and so forth. His jobs at the church included cleaning out the pews, rearranging the chairs, blowing out the candles, turning off the lights, etc. I often tell my students that over-using etc. can make them seem lazy.
et al. is short for et alii (and others) which we use, primarily, when we are listing authors, editors, etc. (hah!) in a reference list or parenthetical citation. Thus, when referring to a book written by a Mr. Shields and several other people, our citation would look like this:
During the mid-1990s, what was already known as English Alley also became known as a hotbed of byzantine intrigue (Shields et al. 170).

i.e. is an abbreviation for id est, which means that is and we use to provide an illustration (i.e., another way of looking at something??). Get the picture?

Question How can everyone be singular if it means everyone?
Source & Date
of Question Phoenix, Arizona
3 April 1997
Grammar's
Response That's a really good question! And everybody, too, is singular. Think of it this way: every single one, every single body. When choosing a verb, we seldom make a mistake. We always say "Everyone is here." "Everybody who's anybody is here." But then we say, "Everybody has done their homework" when we really ought to say "Everybody has done his or her homework." Or at least we ought to write it that way. The rule is loosening in speech, however, and hardly a soul raises an eyebrow when we say everbody/their. There's a great deal to be said for using the gender-nonspecific their instead of his/her. See the Guide regarding gender (under pronouns). Grammar

Question Please explain the difference and give examples of using "bring" and "take."
Source & Date
of Question Richmond, Virginia
4 April 1997
Grammar's
Response Yep, my fourth husband, Earl, couldn't figure that out to the day he died, bless him, though it's more a trouble for New Englanders than it is for folks down your way, I thought. Here's an answer I found in one book: Use bring only for movement from a farther place to a nearer one and take for any other movement. First, take these books to the library for renewal, then take them to Mr. Daniels. Bring them back to me when he's finished.
Authority: The Little, Brown Handbook by H. Ramsay Fowler and Jane E. Aaron, & Kay Limburg. 6th ed. HarperCollins: New York. 1995. By permission of Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.

Question It has been a long time since I studied english grammam but I seem to recall that I was taught that inanimate objects were said to set, while animate objects sit. In the media these days I read such statements as: The auto is sitting in the parking lot., and a large stone sits in the middle of the field. It is my belief that birds might sit in the parking lot, or a boy might sit in the middle of a field, but not autos and stones. How about it?
Source & Date
of Question Hermon, Maine
4 April 1997
Grammar's
Response I think you and I were raised in the same hometown, friend, because that's what I've always felt: that things couldn't sit. I always thought that something that could sit should also be able to get up and walk away. But we're wrong: things can and they do -- sit, that is. Right now, my computer is sitting on my desk (where I set it) and the books are sitting on the shelves above it. Chickens are the one exception: when they sit, they set. Oh, the sun is said to set as it sits on and slips below the horizon, but that's not the same. Sorry to upset this long held sense of the rightness of things setting, but that's the way it truly sits. Maybe you and I could use the word hunkers instead?

Question Hi. I'm struggling to find the right way to phrase the following sentence:
"Two of the subjects were raised contemporaneously to the pre-school group under more usual conditions."
I'm being thrown by how to express the fact that these two subjects grew up at the same time as the others with comparable parenting except for the experimental treatment. "Contemporaneous with" seems right for the adjective, but what proposition goes with "contemporaneously"? Or with "simultaneously", for that matter. And while I have your attention, should the comma after "simultaneously" follow or precede the quotation mark? And what about with the question mark in the sentence before?
Thanks so much for your help.
Source & Date
of Question Brooklyn, New York
5 April 1997
Grammar's
Response First, the punctuation around quotation marks: that ? is in the right place and is quite logical; the comma, on the other hand, goes inside the quotation marks, even though it might not make sense to put it there.
As for the phrasing of your sentence, you might be at a point where the best bet is to blow your sentence to smithereens and start all over again. "Contemporaneously with" is kind of a clumsy substitute for "were raised at the same time as. . . ." or "in the same period as. . . ." or you might actually name the time in which these groups were raised. And the second half of the sentence is equally ambiguous: what does that mean, "more usual conditions"? I think your sentence is trying to do too much work all at once and it's got you backed into a corner. Knock it on its butt and start all over again.

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

Question	Which is grammatically correct? The man stepped out of the door and slipped on a pebble that was too small to even see, so he just thought he was clumsy. The man stepped out of the door and slipped on a miniscule pebble. He just thought he was clumsy.
Source & Date of Question	Morristown, New Jersey 1 April 1997
Grammar's Response	Well, the first sentence has some problems. First, we don't need both out and of. He stepped out the door does the job. We have a split infinitive with to even see. (Although this is no longer regarded as a "biggie," we might've said "that was too small even to see.") And finally, the logic of the whole thing is a bit too flimsy for that word "so," which means that your second version, in two sentences, is logically more secure. (Not really a grammar question, but I think it's better if the thought process in the second clause is separated from the event of the first sentence. Isn't that sort of the point?)

Question	I am very interested in proper grammar. My spelling however might need some attention. My question concerns the use of I / me. When I was studying grammar, I can remember a specific rule about it. If the sentence were just about you then it stays the same. EXAMPLE This is a picture of me. This is a picture of my sister and me. I realize that the second sentence sounds incorrect, but that is the way I was taught it should be. I am helping my children with proper grammar (I hope) and I do not want to give them incorrect information, or information that has changed over the years. Please help
Source & Date of Question	Prairie Village, Kansas 2 April 1997
Grammar's Response	Your question is about the compounding of pronouns, and the rule is really quite simple: when you compound a pronoun with something, don't change its form. You give a perfectly good example of it. Furthermore, you're probably right about its not sounding correct -- because so many people say it incorrectly. For instance, you would say, "Grandma loved Raoul; she left all her money to Tomas and him." But most people would probably say "to Tomas and he." They're wrong and you're right. Your children have a good coach! See, also, the Guide under "Compounding Pronouns."

Question	My question involves the use of parentheses at the end of a sentence. When should the punctuation be included inside the parentheses and when should it be outside? I have included two simplified examples from some technical documentation: The code is reviewed for compliance with established standards (as defined in the software plan.) This information can be found in the Software Description Document (SDD). I assume that I have placed the punctuation correctly in the two examples. Thanks!
Source & Date of Question	Spartanburg, South Carolina 2 April 1997
Grammar's Response	Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. One of your examples or the other has to be wrong. If the material between parentheses appears within a sentence, don't use end punctuation within those parentheses, even if your parenthetical material is a complete sentence. Thus the period for both your sentences goes after the closing ). The only time you use end punctuation within parentheses is when they include a complete sentence and when this sentence (it wouldn't matter how long the sentence is) does not appear within another sentence. (I hope this makes sense to you!)

Question	How can everyone be singular if it means everyone?
Source & Date of Question	Phoenix, Arizona 3 April 1997
Grammar's Response	That's a really good question! And everybody, too, is singular. Think of it this way: every single one, every single body. When choosing a verb, we seldom make a mistake. We always say "Everyone is here." "Everybody who's anybody is here." But then we say, "Everybody has done their homework" when we really ought to say "Everybody has done his or her homework." Or at least we ought to write it that way. The rule is loosening in speech, however, and hardly a soul raises an eyebrow when we say everbody/their. There's a great deal to be said for using the gender-nonspecific their instead of his/her. See the Guide regarding gender (under pronouns). Grammar

Question	It has been a long time since I studied english grammam but I seem to recall that I was taught that inanimate objects were said to set, while animate objects sit. In the media these days I read such statements as: The auto is sitting in the parking lot., and a large stone sits in the middle of the field. It is my belief that birds might sit in the parking lot, or a boy might sit in the middle of a field, but not autos and stones. How about it?
Source & Date of Question	Hermon, Maine 4 April 1997
Grammar's Response	I think you and I were raised in the same hometown, friend, because that's what I've always felt: that things couldn't sit. I always thought that something that could sit should also be able to get up and walk away. But we're wrong: things can and they do -- sit, that is. Right now, my computer is sitting on my desk (where I set it) and the books are sitting on the shelves above it. Chickens are the one exception: when they sit, they set. Oh, the sun is said to set as it sits on and slips below the horizon, but that's not the same. Sorry to upset this long held sense of the rightness of things setting, but that's the way it truly sits. Maybe you and I could use the word hunkers instead?