The
Grammar
Logs
# 323

QUESTION
I teach high school English but often even ask myself this question. When "because" is used like a coordinating conjunction to connect two independent clauses, is it necessary to put a comma before it, just like it is a regular coordinating conjuction. For example, would it be example one, "We are really tired and need a lot of sleep, because we have been up for so long.", or would it be, "We are really tired and need a lot of sleep because we have been up for so long." which has no comma? I have sort of always thought that by definition "because" doesn't need a comma before it in this case because it is not an official coordinating conjunction. Yet, I often see it both ways in published literature. Which way is it in your opinion, with or without a comma in this case alone? My kids want to know too. Thanks for your contribution to Georgia public education.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Covington, Georgia Wed, Jun 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I don't think "because" ever acts, really, like a coordinating conjunction; it subordinates the clause that follows. (You will, from time to time, hear a sentence beginning with "because" that is not attached to an independent clause, but that's a bit irregular, and you wouldn't want to do it in academic prose. Because it isn't done.) The question remains, however: can we begin a clause with "because," mid-sentence, that is set off by a comma. That will be determined by the nature of the clause itself: if it is essential to the meaning of the sentence (as it nearly always is—by virtue of the meaning of "because," if nothing else), you will not use a comma: "I like Juneau because the winters are mild." If the "because clause" can be regarded as nonessential, however, you will use a comma. One example: "I know he got the biggest raise in the department, because his wife told me." I hope that helps more than it confuses.

QUESTION
What would be the correct grammer:
  • I forego lunch to make room for dinner.
  • I forewent lunch to make room for dinner.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Hanover, Maryland Wed, Jun 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Not to be a wise guy, but neither is correct. Drop the "e" from the "fore." You can forgo lunch, if you wish, and if you did it yesterday, you forwent lunch. But who on earth uses that word? You're much better off saying you "went without" lunch. Actually, you're much better off eating lunch, in my opinion.

Authority for this note: Oxford American Dictionary: Oxford University Press, New York. 1980.


QUESTION
A basic question. I keep running across writing that puts a full sentence inside parenthesis. I think that parenthesis should not be used with stand alone sentences. Is that correct? If you can put a full sentence in parenthesis, would the period come inside or outside.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Somewhere, Washington Wed, Jun 2, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I suppose that ought to be a relatively rare event: a thought that deserves its own independent clause yet is so parenthetical to the flow of text that it's tucked into parentheses. Yet it can happen. And when it does happen, the end punctuation for this sentence ought to be inside the parentheses. The writer should wonder, however, if he isn't making something parenthetical that deserves the full light of day, extra-parentheses.

QUESTION
Dear Grammar,

I am a native English speaker and I am taking a course in syntax at a European university. On a recent quiz, the following sentence was presented as grammatically correct English: "John believed to be a friend of himself." We are studying transformational grammar, and my professor explained the sentence above as having a PRO (hidden subject) between "believed" and "to" which refers to "John" but has no case. My question is: Is this an acceptable sentence? To me, it sounds very strange and possibly incorrect. My professor says I have problems "accepting that other speakers may use different constructions."

Also, how is this different from the sentence: "We consider to be right" which my book lists as "ungrammatical?"

-Thank you

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Groningen, The Netherlands Fri, Jun 4, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
With all due respect to your instructor, that sentence just doesn't work for me. I don't know what a "hidden subject" is in this case. What we're missing is an object for "believed": John believed what or whom to be a friend? Even if you had a proper object, it would be a clumsy sentence. I suppose it's similar to "We consider to be right." in that we're also missing an object in that sentence. I wish you well in your study of transformational grammar. I spent a semester working on transformational grammar when I was in college—utterly bewildered was I, but I've gotten over it.

QUESTION
How should we address a lady in formal written and spoken languagae if we are not sure of her marital status? Is it true that Ms. stands for ladies in general, both married and not married? If yes, how is Ms. pronounced - like "miss" which would be confused with a single woman?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Istanbul, Turkey Fri, Jun 4, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Yes, "Ms" refers to females in general, regardless of marital status. I don't know how much "Ms" is used outside the U.S. It's pronouned Mizz and it has no period after it because it's not an abbreviation of anything.

An alert reader from Houston notes that the dictionary does, indeed, put a period after Ms. The NYPL Writer's Guide puts it this way: "Technically, Ms. should not have a period because itis not an abbreviation, but the period is there nonetheless, for consistency and equivency to Mr.

Authority: New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage HarperCollins: New York. 1994. p. 326. Cited with permission.


QUESTION
I would like to know whether a sentence in the following form is correct:
The park was originally opened in response to Mr. Allen's petition, which he distributed throughout the city for six months.
The confusion is whether 'he' is in fact referring to the person in the sentence or whether it really refers to the subject (in this case, the park). Or is there an answer?!

Thanks!

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Bloomington, Indiana Fri, Jun 4, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Although that sentence would probably be understood in casual speech, your instincts about it in formal writing are quite correct. The "he" in the dependent clause has no subject form in the independent clause (no Mr. Allen) to refer to. Instead it's trying to refer to "the park," which doesn't make sense at all, or to "Mr. Allen's," which doesn't make much sense either. You're better off going to a passive construction in that dependent clause: "which was distributed throughout the city for six months."

QUESTION
Does the possessive of an abbreviation ending in S use the apostrophe only, or an apostophe s? Or is this optional? In other words, which examples are correct?
  • UPS' trucks or UPS's trucks
  • the AAS' questions or the AAS's questions
Thank you!
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Chehalis, Washington Fri, Jun 4, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
UPS's trucks and AAS's questions. Treat the acronym as if it were a regular word: "Service's trucks," etc. It's not really optional.

QUESTION
I recently read your assessment of the phrase "greater of a and b" versus the phrase "greater of a or b" and disagreed with your findings. You prefered the use of "a and b" over "a or b." I'm no grammar scholar but this may be more of a technical or mathematical issue. Here's why:
  1. The word "and" denotes joining, collecting, or grouping together based upon something in common.
  2. The word "or" denotes comparison, differentiation, or segregation based upon some characteristic suitable for making a choice.
  3. The phrase "greater of" clearly suggests comparision, differentiation, or segregation and there is an expectation of choice. The "er" in "greater" introduces a relative comparison of two or more items.
So you could select the greater of a or b, with the result being either item a or item b, but you could not select the greater of a and b because once item a and item b are collected together you cannot differentiate them. Put another way, once you have a and b, there is only one group so no choice can be made.

For example, given the choice, you might value the taste of sea salt over table salt but you might also value the taste of a mixture sea salt and table salt over either one individually. If so, you'd value sea salt as "the greater of sea salt or table salt," but you would value the mixture as "the greater of sea salt, table salt, or sea salt and table salt combined."

Well, that took way too much time and effort but if you still feel that "and" is the better choice please let me know where I missed the boat. All this talk about salt makes me want a bag of chips.

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Minneapolis, Minnesota Fri, Jun 4, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I'm convinced and pass the chips and beer.

This reader (whom we thank sincerely) is referring to Grammarlog #47 and Grammarlog #25 Or perhaps I mean he's referring to #47 or #25.


QUESTION
Yesterday I sent you an e-mail asking for an answer to a question that has been troubling me as well as to my teachers. Nothing wrong so far. But I'm sending you this "new version", because the other one was a mess. So, here it goes:
In "The Tell-Tale Heart", Edgar Allan Poe wrote the following:"To think that there I was, opening the door, little by little, and he NOT EVEN TO DREAM of my secret deeds or thoughts."
My question is: Is that grammatically correct? Why?

Thanks

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Unknown Fri, Jun 4, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Clearly there is some kind of grammatical shortcut happening in that sentence. I think it means that the "he" of the sentence could not have guessed (or dreamed), in a million years, what the narrator was up to in his secret life. Exactly how the phrase works is beyond me, I'm afraid. I think we could call it kind of an elliptical clause —something like "he who could not even dream" with the machinery of the clause omitted and reduced to an infinitive phrase. I don't think I could recommend Poe's construction here as a means of clear expression, but I don't think it's really incorrect either. Of course, we can continue to treasure the story even though we have to pick through the syntax of a sentence or two. [E-Mail Icon] I'll leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else cares to comment on Poe's sentence or my response.

QUESTION
Every lawyer I know writes: "Please find enclosed herewith...." I have argued with little success that this is not good grammar, but I don't know why. Am I correct ?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Fri, Jun 4, 1999
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
It's not so much that it's not good grammar, it's archaic and stuffy. Fowler describes it this way: "[Words such as herewith, hereunto, heretofore] are in retreat before those who are seeking to replace 'archaic' jargon with plain English expression."

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996.


Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing