The Grammar Logs
#596

Your help is urgently needed to break up a grammar brawl here at the office. You are our last hope . . . without your calming wisdom, we shall descend into chaos.

Should there be a comma after "activists" in this sentence?

In her book, Autobiography as Activism: Three Black Women of the Sixties, which focuses on the autobiographies of the social activists Elaine Brown, Asana Chacour, and Angela Davis, Professor Perkins examined how individual writing styles affect the interpretation of events.

I recommend that you avoid both that particular comma and the fright of Chaos and old Night. If the names that follow were somehow parenthetical, as in "the autobiographies of the three most important social activists of the decade — Elaine Brown, Asana Chacour, and Angela Davis — Professor Perkins examined … ," we would need a comma or something even stronger (like those dashes). But the three names are not parenthetical in the least, and they flow as nicely without the comma as something like (in the singular) "social activist Drew Sanborn announced earlier this year that …"

The business of that "which clause" is heavy-duty stuff and might deserve to be tucked into the sentence early on. That way we might also avoid the shift from present to past tense:

Focusing on the autobiographies of social activists Elaine Brown, Asana Chacour, and Angela Davis in her book Autobiography as Activism: Three Black Women of the Sixties, Professor Perkins examines how individual writing styles affect the interpretation of events.

Finally, I enlist a sentence from "This Grand National Enterprise," an essay on the origins of the Gettsyburg National Monument. Note how the names follow, without interrupting comma, the plural noun for which they serve as appositives:

I have always been taught the there is no such word as funner or funnest; it should be more fun and most fun. However, an English teacher said that was not the case. What is the answer?

You will certainly find "funner" and "funnest" in the dictionaries nowadays, primarily because today's fun-loving youngsters are in need of comparatives and superlatives for "fun" and use these words all the time. The adjectival use of "fun" is accepted rather widely: "This is a fun thing to do," but the use of the "-er" and "-est" forms grate on the ears of anyone over thirty. "To traditionalists," according to Garner, "the adjectival fun and its comparative forms remain blemishes in both writing and speech."

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

I have always understood the following to be true:

• Sex = Male/Female
• Gender = Masculine/Feminine

Am I right? PLEASE HELP! My mates are ganging up on me and telling me sex and gender are exactly the same thing.

Your description of the difference is probably as apt as anyone else's. Some authorities recommend using "gender" as a grammatical term, strictly. Bernstein puts it this way: "To use gender as if it were synonymous with sex is an error, and a particularly unpardonable one in scientific writing."

On the other hand, some commentators note that the use of "gender" to mean "sex" has become so commonplace that the usage has become standard or nearly so. This has happened, they suggest, because "sex" seems reserved for descriptions of what we see on steamy late-night and cable television programs (or SuperBowl half-time shows), and we need "gender" to talk about sex when the libido remains calm and the temperature cool. I was going to suggest yet another word, but more words to talk about sex is probably not what the world needs right now. Still, it's probably wise not to use "gender" as a substitute for "sex," especially in scientific text.

Authority: The Careful Writer by Theodore Bernstein. The Free Press: New York. 1998. p. 199.

By permission, From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage © 1994 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. (www.Merriam-Webster.com).

Which is correct? Would you explain?

• 1. All is well here in North Carolina.
• 2. All are well here in North Carolina.

"All" can be either singular or plural, depending on what it's referring to. In the first sentence, it's referring to a singular notion, much in the same way that the singular "everything" would be: "All that glisters is not gold." In the second sentence, it's referring to all those people (in one's family, perhaps) who are doing just fine. As a Connecticut Huskies fan, I'm hoping they continue to do fine until the Final Four.

Which would be correct?

• Odds of winning depends on the number of entries received.
or...

• Odds of winning depend on the number of entries received.

The only construction I can find in which "odds" is regarded as a singular is the extremely colloquial expression of exasperation, "What's the odds!" It is otherwise invariably a plural: you'd want the plural "depend" in that sentence.

What is the origin of the word " OK." orÝ " OKAY"??? Ý Some students asked me that. but I know that such question can only be addressed to a native speaker.

"Okay" is a variant spelling of "OK." One widely accepted story is that it comes from a colloquialism, "oll korrect" or "all correct," which was kind of a political slogan from the campaign of President Van Buren's unsuccessful reelection campaign in 1840. It was derived from his nickname, Old Kinderhook (which, in turn, was derived from his birthplace, Kinderhook, New York). OK Clubs were formed to support Van Buren, and the call of "OK," meaning "all correct" came about. You can't make up stuff like this.

Authority for this note: The Oxford Dictionary of Word Histories edited by Glynnis Chantrell. Oxford University Press, New York. 2002.

The media has been using ad nauseum the word presumptive to describe Senator Kerry in his bid for election. Is presumptive the best word for this? How is it better than presumed?

"Presumptive" is probably the only word that would work there (meaning something that can be inferred or presumed — we can't call him the candidate until after the convention, but it's a sure thing). The word jangles the nerves a bit because it's close in sound, but not meaning, to "presumptuous," which means "arrogant, forward, impudent." George W. Bush apparently has a hard time keeping the words separate. He said, in 1999, that it would be "presumptive for someone who doesn't even have the nomination yet to be laying out the list of potential vice presidents." He's not alone.

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

"Proud" is listed is the dictionary as an adj. "Proudly" is listed as an adverb.

I edited a grant proposal from: "...the beautiful library that still stands proud today." to: "...the beautiful library that still stands proudly today."

I was told I was wrong. Am I?

"Proudly" would be correct, and I think that's what I would use, but "proud" is not incorrect. "Proud" is listed as an adverb in the Shorter OED and idioms such as "Do us proud" and "do oneself proud" are enlisted as examples. "Stands" comes close to being a linking verb in your sentence, and the "proud" seems acceptable. A google search for the two phrases, incidentally, comes out about even with "stands proudly" winning out at a 15:12 ratio — take that for what it's worth.

Authority for this note: Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Fifth Edition. Oxford University Press, New York. 2002.

• I am the only child in the family.
• I am an only child in the family.

My question is about the use of articles ("the" and "an") in the above sentences. Which one of the sentences is correct? If both are, could you please explain the difference in the use of articles in these particular examples (why "the" in the first and "an" in the second?)

In the first sentence, with "the," you're talking about the family, describing yourself as the only child. In the second sentence, with "an," you're talking about your status as "an only child," offspring without sibling. In the final analysis, it comes to the same thing — you have no brothers or sisters — but there is a difference.

I wrote a letter to the editor containing the following sentence:

We wish to thank the previous board for all they have done for the town....

The entire letter was very carefully crafted and "signed," Board of Selectmen, Town of.....and our names.

The newspaper chose to print the letter and changed nothing, except, in the sentence cited above, the editor changed "they have" to "it has."

This irritated me because I feel a board of Selectmen, in this case, are better referred to as "they." Am I wrong?

In England, you'd have a better argument. There, collective nouns like "board" and "staff" are generally treated as plurals. In the U.S., even in Maine, they are more apt to be treated as singular entities — unless the individuals are acting as separate beings. You could have kept your "they have" had you thanked "the members of the previous board." The newspaper editor was doing his job — well.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing