The
Grammar
Logs
# 367

QUESTION
  1. He has two brothers who became a lawyer.
  2. He has two brothers, who became a lawyer.
Our reference book says,
  • means, he has several brothers and two of them became a lawyer.
  • 2) means, he has two brothers and they all became a lawyer.
Do those two sentences have such a completely different meaning? Can't NO.1) have the same meaning as the NO.2)?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan Tue, Jan 11, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I think I would write "He has two brothers who became lawyers. That would mean that is possible that he has other brothers (who became something other than lawyers). If we want to imply that he has only two brothers, we could write "He has two brothers, who became lawyers." But we'd be much better off writing, "He has two brothers, both of whom became lawyers." The comma, though, does mean that the information following is "added information," a parenthetical element (and the main clause, "He has two brothers," would establish the fact that he has only two brothers). So we would use that comma only if he has only two brothers.

QUESTION
What is the difference between: "a school of fish" and "a shoal of fish"?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Somewhere, Malaysia Tue, Jan 11, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
According to Burchfield, there is no difference. It's been my experience that "school of fish" is a great deal more common, but fishing isn't exactly my game.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. (under "school") Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.
QUESTION
Please conjugate the verb "plead." Is the past tense "pled" or "pleaded"?
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Kokomo, Indiana Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
My dictionary says that "pleaded" is preferred, but "pled" is certainly acceptable. Burchfield notes that "pled" is more an American (than a British) usage.

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.
QUESTION
I was wondering if it was correct to say "Drive safe" or "Drive Safely". I concluded that Drive Safe was correct because their really isn't a subject/verb in the sentence. If it included "You" then I would say "You drive safely" is correct instead of "You drive safe", because "safely" is modifying the verb drive. Anyway...I was just interested in your opinion on what is correct. Thank you.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Kernersville, North Carolina Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I have been trying to justify "Drive safe" because I say it myself whenever my spouse or my children are about to drive off, whether it's a trip around the block or across the country. But I'm afraid it's not really justifiable. The you of the insistent suggestion (or command) is understood: "You drive safely." And we need the adverb form, "safely," to modify the verb. One thought: the word "safe" means "free from harm or risk." And can't we say "Drive free from harm or risk"? The word "free" can serve as both adjective and adverb ("Live free [not "freely"] or die," says New Hampshire). Why can't "safe" work the same way? The dictionary just isn't cooperating. But I will probably continue to say "Drive safe," and my spouse will continue to correct me.

QUESTION
Dear Grammar,
A friend and I have been in disagreement regarding pronoun use in a specific sentence. We'd like to hear your opinion on which of the following is superior:
  1. We think that you are a scabby, ulcerous, vermin-infested piece of garbage who wouldn't know good comedy if it bit him on the butt.
  2. We think that you are a scabby, ulcerous, vermin-infested piece of garbage who wouldn't know good comedy if it bit you on the butt.
My friend and I agree that both sentences are grammatically correct, but disagree as to which should be preferred. I argue for number (1) because the relative clause should be self-contained, with the "him" refering to the "who" and the "who" refering to the "you."

My friend prefers to refer the pronoun in question directly to the subject of the independent clause, "you." She says that reinforcing the "you" pronoun in the relative clause adds clarity to the sentence, and that that clarity takes precedence over othe r concerns. She therefore chooses sentence number (2). Whom do you agree with?

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Houston, Texas Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I have consulted various authorities on vermin infested garbage and derived the following consensus: that the correct answer is #1 because the "who" actually refers to "piece of garbage" (which then becomes personified) and we need the "him" to refer back to this phrase; and second, that we nonetheless prefer #2 because it is a more robust and direct way of saying the same thing. I think this means that you both win.

QUESTION
Which is correct?
  1. "Congratulations Arachnids on your excellent teamwork and strategy!"
    or
  2. "Congratulations Arachnids, on your excellent teamwork and strategy!"
    or
  3. "Congratulations, Arachnids, on your excellent teamwork and strategy!"
Three of us here cannot come to agreement on what the subject of this sentence is, on what part of speech "Congratulations" is, and on whether "Arachnids" is a restrictive appositive, or what. Please help us!
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Charlottesville, Virginia Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
This is an interjection, so you're not going to find the usual subject-verb structure. But "Arachnids" is the name of an addressed person (or group of persons — or spiders, whatever — in this case), and an addressed person's name is always set off as a parenthetical element with a comma (or pair of commas when it occurs in the middle of a sentence). So your third option is the only acceptable one.

QUESTION
Which is correct?
  • I shined the light at him.
  • I shone the light at him.
SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Marion, South Carolina Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Use "shone" in that context. We generally use "shone" as the past participle of "shine" except in the context of "polishing" or causing something to gleam with reflected light: "He shined his shoes/car, etc."

Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.
QUESTION
How do you feel about using the word "so" instead of the word "very"? Compare, for example, the following:
  • I was so sad that I cried.
    vs.
  • I was so sad. (Usually said like this: I was *soooo* sad!)
Would you consider the second example incorrect on the grounds of incompleteness (ie failure to complete the so...that construction)? Or would you shrug it off as merely a stylistic lapse?

Thanks

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Andover, New Hampshire Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
Burchfield calls this the "appealing so":
The speaker has a conviction borne in upon him, and, in stating it, appeals, with hir or her so, to general experience as a means of confirmation. . . . This is a natural use, but one more suitable for conversation, where the responsible nod of confirmation can be awaited, than for most kinds of writing.
Authority: The New Fowler's Modern English Usage edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996. Used with the permission of Oxford University Press.
QUESTION
Is this the correct plural form for the name Cruz?
ex: Love,
The Cruzs

Is this the correct form of possessive?
ex: The Cruz's house- singular
The Cruzs' cars- plural

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Plantation, Florida Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, we form the plurals of all names by adding "s" or "es." Exceptions would be names whose pronunciations would be distorted with the addition of new sounds: "The two Dumas, father and son" or "The two King Louis of France." Another exception is not exactly an exception: the CMOS suggests rewriting a sentence to avoid the plural of a name ending in "s" or "z" -- like Velasquez (or Cruz?). So instead of the museum having four Velasquezes, it will have four paintings by Velasquez.

You can avoid the problem by saying "The Cruz family"; otherwise, I suggest using "The Cruzes." And if you don't want to avoid the possessive problem with "the Cruz house" (using their name as an attributive noun), you should write "The Cruzes' house" (plural) or "Ralph Cruz's house" (singular). It's enough to make you want to change your name — until you realize that "Jones" has pretty much the same problem.

Authority: Chicago Manual of Style 14th ed. U of Chicago P: Chicago. 1993. p. 197.


QUESTION
In the 1970's I was taught that a comma must always be placed after the year when writing a particular date in full when such date is written beginning with the month, day, and year. Example: "The order pronounced on May 12, 1999, was appealed." I was not taught there were any exceptions to this rule. Lately, however, I have been told by some who have graduated more recently than I that there is an exception. If the date is used as a modifier for the word which follows the year, no comma is used between the year and the word modified. Example: "The court's May 12, 1999 order was appealed."

In this last example, the reference is to a court order pronounced on May 12, 1999. Thus the order could properly be referred to as either the "May 12th order" or the "1999 order." Hence I must admit that because it is indeed the "1999 order" which is being referenced, the exception to the rule does seem to have a certain logic behind it. Nevertheless, I find no literary authority specifically recognizing this exception. I find it just as logical that the year "1999" given in the last example is a parenthetical that could and should be separated by commas.

My question therefore is whether there is in fact an exception to the rule that a comma follows the year when a date is written in the sequence of month, day, and year? If so, are the exceptions ones that could be considered discre-tionary with the writ er? Lastly, could you cite to any source that specifically explains the exceptions? Thank you.

SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE
Unknown Wed, Jan 12, 2000
GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE
I have looked in more than a dozen writing manuals and I can't come up with a rule or even an example of what you mean. There is not a great deal of logic, frankly, in setting off the year as a parenthetical element, always, in a date (the way that Americans often write dates, that is), as in "The battle began on August 6, 1863, and ended on September 23, 1863. We know that we can avoid that comma by writing the date "the other way": "The battle began on 6 August 1863 and ended . . . "And we know that we don't need a comma when we leave out the date itself: "The battle began in August 1863 and ended. . . ." [E-Mail Icon] But I can't find any suggestion that we can leave out the comma when the date itself becomes a modifier: "The August 6, 1863_? battle was one of the bloodiest. . . ." I can see some sense to leaving out that comma after 1863, and I wouldn't object to its omission, and I would welcome someone else's authoritative resolution of the matter.

Bill Walsh, copy editor for The Washington Post, writes (in kind response to my question):
I'm not sure where this is codified, but I was taught that the Nov. 7, 1999, rule is simply a matter of apposition. Because the year is used in apposition, it requires that second comma to return to your regularly scheduled sentence. I agree that it looks funny, though — same as with "a Saginaw, Mich., man." And that closing comma is customarily omitted in something like "Agassi's 6-2, 6-2 victory," but I suppose the idea of apposition doesn't come into play there. Bill Walsh and I seem to agree then, that the comma after the year (when the date is used as a modifier) doesn't seem to make a lot of sense, but that's how it's done.


Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing