The
Grammar
Logs
# 256

QUESTION
My teacher wants us to write a free verse poem. I was absent so I didn't learn what this is. Could you help me? What is a free verse poem?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Yardley, Pennsylvania Mon, Nov 16, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I suggest you go the website of the American Academy of Poets, visit their exhibits, and go their Listening Booth. Look for those poems -- like Lorna Dee Cervantes's "Freeway 280" or, better yet, Ginsberg's "Supermarket in California" -- that do not conform to any particular stanza structure or rhyming pattern or even established line length or rhythmical structure, and you'll have some idea of how free verse works.

QUESTION
Let me ask you one question about creating new words. Would it always be correct to form a new word by adding prefix or suffix to a word despite the fact that there is no such word in a general dictionary.

For example,"defabricate". There is no"defabricate" in the dictionary I consult. Thanks very much.

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Bangkok, Thailand Mon, Nov 16, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Well, that's one approach, and an approach that many writers seem to take. It's surely a good idea, though, to search the dictionary and a good thesaurus for words that already exist that might do the trick for you. "Deconstruct" and "disassemble" and even "destroy" come to mind, but you can probably find better -- before resorting to defabricate. But then, who knows? You might come up with a new school of literary criticism or theory of eonomics called "defabrication" and become famous. I won't stand in your way.

QUESTION
Is it so, as I have heard, that the use of her/him, him/her, she/he, etc. construction is definitely, absolutely, and unequivocally out? I, for one, hope so. But I still come across it in numerous documents.

Cheers

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Tue, Nov 17, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I don't know of any publication or resource that has the clout to declare such a construction "out," and I haven't heard of its demise -- but I haven't been listening, either. [E-Mail Icon] It's a clumsy construction, especially if it happens more than once or twice in any document, and I'm leaning toward the non-gender "they," myself. I'll leave an e-mail icon here in case some user has been reading the linguistic obituaries and has news for us.

QUESTION
  1. When using the words "health care" as a modifier, do you use it as one word or two. I've searched and searched, but every source has it listed differently. For example: is it health care provider, health care coverage, health care financing? or is it healthcare provider, healthcare coverage, healthcare financing?
  2. How do you distinguish between "to" and "through" when using numbers? Example, if i have a program designed for groups 50 and under individuals (and includes 50), would it be groups of "2 to 50" employees or "2 through 50" employees?
  3. Is is "pre-existing" conditions or "preexisting" conditions? I've seen 2 ways
  4. As you can tell i am in health care...do you know of any style guide for health care...our team keeps getting in fights over which guide to use (AP or Chicago). I'm hoping there is one for health care.
Thanks
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
San Francisco, California Tue, Nov 17, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
  1. I think healthcare (one word) is gaining ground on health care, but I don't think it's fully arrived yet. (It's not in my dictionary.) I'd still use health care (two words).
  2. For most purposes, it will suffice to say that the program is for two to fifty individuals, and such wording will indicate inclusiveness. If it's really important to indicate inclusiveness (or to exclude 2 and 50), however, you'll have to word it more carefully, with "between two and fifty."
  3. I'm surprised to see that the dictionary lists preexisting, but not pre-existing.
  4. There is no health care style guide as far as I know, although medical journals might suggest an arbiter in such matters -- probably APA, but I'm not sure.
QUESTION
I occasionally write classical music reviews for publication. I never write one, however, without running into arguments with my editors about how titles of works should be identified. For example, should titles of symphonies, quartets, operas, oratorios and so on appear italicized or in quotes, or just left as they are. Next: As a long-time student of music, I became accustomed to the titles, key signatures and opus numbers identified thusly: Sonata in A Major, K. 526, or Symphony in D Minor, Op. 22. Note that the Major and Minor I.D.'s being with a majuscule in both cases. At concerts now, however, I see that majuscules are replaced by minuscules: i.s. Sonata in A major, Symphony in D minor, etc. Should Op. 44 be written out as Opus 44? From reading many newspapers and music journals on the Net, I have discovered that there is no universal consistency in this matter all. One publication does one, another does another. Finally: Would Chicago Manual help to answer these questions? Or would a British guide be more reliable?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Unknown Tue, Nov 17, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Probably your best bet is to model your writing on the habits encouraged by the best academic journal you can find that includes such reviews. The Chicago Manual of Style does address the issue. According to that book, the titles of really big pieces are italicized or underlined (Don Giovanni, Elijah); the titles of songs are put in quotation marks ("Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring"). We neither italicize nor underline the name of a composition that is identified by its type and key: Symphony in B Major, Sonata in E-flat, Adagio from the Fifth Symphony, D Minor Violin Concerto, B-flat Nocturne. Italian Suite no. 3. In informal reference, according to the Manual, only proper nouns and the key designation are capitalized: the B minor symphony of. . . . In some publications, where many keys are noted (!), we will sometimes see lower-case letters to designate minor keys (and then the words "minor" and "major" are left out): Beethoven's Sonata in c, op. 13. The Chicago Manual goes on for three or four pages on this matter, and I would recommend it to you if you're going to be writing this kind of text. (It says that opus and number can be either capitalized or not, written out or not, as long as you're consistent.)

Authority: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. pages 217 and 288-289.


QUESTION
1)What 's the difference between cook and make in the following sentence?
  • I make breakfast every day.
  • I cook breakfast every day.
2) Can we add 'the' after make or cook in the above examples? Thank you!
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Hong Kong Tue, Nov 17, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
There isn't much difference between those two sentences. Generally, when you cook something, that suggests the application of some kind of technology -- like an electric or gas range. I can make breakfast just by opening a box of cereal, cutting up a banana, and pouring orange juice in a glass, but I'm not really cooking anything. No, it isn't necessary to use an article in either sentence.

QUESTION
The dictionary says that "than" can be used as a preposition, as well as a conjunction, so that it is OK to say "John is smarter than me." But I am writing an article entitled "When computers are smarter than us" and "educated" people are always correcting me, saying that it should be "we." But using "we" sounds too stilted. Of course, I can always cop out and use "When computers are smarter than people." What do you think?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Boulder, Colorado Tue, Nov 17, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
You're going to have to get out your dictionary and hit those educated people over the head with it. I have always been one of them, changing "us" to "we" in students' papers, but I'm beginning to think that if "like" can be a preposition, why can't "than"? I say use the "us" -- or cop out. Or write "When computers are smarter than we are" and avoid the problem. (How's that for waffling about?)

QUESTION
When using the terms backward(s) and forward(s) together in the same sentence, when should they be singular and when should they be plural and is consistency important?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Rockville, Maryland Wed, Nov 18, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Those words can be nouns, but rather rarely do they perform that function, and I doubt if they're ever plurals. As adjectives, they wouldn't have the -s ending: "a backward lad," "the forward compartment." As adverbs, they can be spelled either way: "The train was moving forward/forwards before it started moving backward/backwards." But yes, consistency is important.

QUESTION
I'm currently trying to convince some folks that a phrase they want to use,
"... through winning combinations of instruction with technology,"
is incorrect, and that they should be saying,
"... through winning combinations of instruction and technology."
So--who is correct (and why)?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Wed, Nov 18, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
You might combine something with something else, but that implies that something got added to something else, and that's not what this phrase means, I don't think. You've got a combination of two things, this and that, and that's how we should say it. (Are you sure you've got winning combinations (plural)? Isn't one combination enough? And they probably end up with something like instructional technology, don't they?)

QUESTION
I've searched your site for over an hour and apologize if I've missed this tidbit: I've always been taught to use a comma before Jr. and Sr., but not before II or III. For instance, Stan Smith, Jr. and Stan Smith II. Can you confirm if this is correct?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Chesapeake, Virginia Wed, Nov 18, 1998
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
The Chicago Manual of Style now recommends that these things -- Jr., Sr., II, III -- no longer be set off by commas. The distinction you make, however, is also acceptable.

Authority: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. pages 207 and 307.


Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing