The Grammar Logs
#529

Is this a grammatically correct way of describing a sick woman in bed. Something seem to be wrong.

Thin arms lay limply beside her.

Thank you.

The verb "lay" is correct, if that's what you mean, and if you're referring to the situation in the past tense. The real problem, though, is that this person's arms seem oddly unattached. If they are, indeed, unattached, dismembered, that would account for their limpness, but it might be better to confirm their attachedness: "Her thin arms lay [or 'rested'?] limply at her side"? or "She lay on the bed, her thin, limp arms resting on the comforter." Now that I think of it, I can't seem to reattach those arms!

I frequently see "to grow" used as a transitive verb meaning "to increase in size or extent." Example: "We hope to grow profits by 10% this year." This seems wrong to me. To me, "grow" used in that way means "to produce from scratch, to raise," like vegetables, rather than "to increase the size of something already existing." Your opinion?

We use grow as a transitive verb all the time when we talk about growing fruits and vegetables. But once we leave the vegetable kingdom, we're much better off finding another verb, such as build or develop. We shouldn't try to grow a business or an abstraction such as the economy. A business, of course, can grow, but we cannot grow it. Every writing reference and usage manual I own deplores this use of grow.

I am confused as to how to use "hopefully," which is one of the most frequently misused words in the English language.

For example, is "hopefully, the war will end" grammatically correct?

At least since the middle of the last century, some grammarians objected strenuously to the use of hopefully in sentences such as the one you give us. "Hopefully," they said, cannot be associated with anything but people — apparently thinking this sentence means the war would end "full of hope," a silly idea. Many very good writers ignore this "rule" about "hopefully," which is not really a rule at all. If we can't use "hopefully" in a sentence like this, then we can't use "unfortunately" or "sadly" — and, plaingly, we can. The trouble now is that if you use "hopefully" in such a sentence, some people are going to object, even if they don't quite know why they're objecting.

We use a lot of abbreviations, which causes conflict here in the office. Would a word like pajamas be abbreviated to PJ's, PJs, or pj's?

Thank you for your help!

According to my Merriam-Webster's, "pj's" is what you want — no periods, no capital letters.

Authority: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Electronic Edition, Version 1.5. 1996. Used with permission.

There is something that has been driving me crazy for some time now. I know (and the "pronoun" section of the FAQ confirms) that the case of a pronoun is determined by its function in the sentence. Thus a pronoun that is functioning as an object should take the objective case. This would suggest that a pronoun immediately following the word "let" at the start of a sentence should take the objective case, e.g. "Let him have it." However, there is a famous Biblical phrase attributed to Jesus that is usually given as: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," or sometimes: "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." This version is heard almost exclusively, as far as I can tell. I don't think I have ever heard anyone say: "Let him who is without sin ..." And this isn't the only example of this that I've come across; there are other similar cases I've encountered, usually involving a pronoun functioning as an object combined with the phrase "who is" or "who was," where the pronoun has been given the subjective case. Is this just plain wrong, or is there some exception to the general rule that applies here? (By the way, just as an aside, I once heard that Biblical quote phrased as follows: "He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone," which neatly sidesteps the whole problem.)

Burchfield describes this situation this way: "Such mistakes [in pronoun case] occur fairly often in unsophisticated speech in exhortations led by let: e.g. And now, my dear, let you and I say a few words about this unfortunate affair. . . . [and] Let he who did this be severely punished." The first sentence should have "you and me" and the second sentence "him." The mistake in the quoted speech of Jesus has the cachet of biblical authority behind it, but that's no excuse, as Burchfield points out, for "erroneous constructions of this type in present-day English." On the other hand, not many English teachers are eager to take on the son of God.

Incidentally, the version of Jesus' speech that I find in the book of John (KJV) reads: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." We can have no argument with that.

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. (under "let")

How would you punctuate the following: He is survived by his wife, Lorraine of the home; a son, John of Topeka; and two daughters, Sally Smith of Lawrence and Sara Smyth of Hays. We are particularly interested in whether there should be a comma after Lorraine and John.

The writers of obituaries seem to have their own conventions of typography, expression, and punctuation, and they seem to be the final arbiters, in more ways than one. I would be afraid that "John of Topeka" is going to remind us of "Lawrence of Arabia" or "Gertrude of Wyoming," and I would want to avoid that by putting a comma after "John," certainly, and after "Lorraine," too. It doesn't sound so bad, though, when you have both first and last names: Sally Smith of Lawrence, etc. Is "of the home" considered good form? Can't you give the name of the "home," instead?

Where would you put the apostrophe

Richard King Jr's car?

I'd put it exactly where you put it. If you put a period after the "Jr." (and most people do), the apostrophe comes after the period, of course. If you put a comma between the last name and the Jr. (as some Juniors continue to do), don't add a second comma after the Jr., as in "Richard King, Jr.'s car."

am not certain how to punctuate these sentences in my child's writing assignment. The opening phrases modify nouns that do not immediately follow them. I'll copy some of his lines to get your grammar expertise.

*****************************

Dancing in the cool wind, wave many beautiful plum colored forget-me-nots which look like they are merrily singing in the breeze.

Speedily flying all over my yard, which is dressed in an emerald green cloak, glide selfish blue jays, shy cardinals, and dainty hummingbirds.

Hopping joyfully in the towering pine trees are twittering sparrows and scampering squirrels.

Busily rushing about, collecting sweet nectar from all the fragrant blossoms, buzz colorful honeybees.

Filling the air comes the gay chatter of a jubilant mockingbird.

*****************************

Where should the commas go? Should he rearrange his sentences, such as:

Dancing in the cool wind, many beautiful plum colored forget-me-knots wave as if they are merrily singing in the breeze.

Even though I surely don't talk like he wrote, is his wording improper? By the way, should he have a comma before "which look like they are merrily singing in the breeze" since this phrase is not necessary?

You propose an interesting dilemma because your child (and you don't tell us how old he is) is obviously enjoying his descriptive powers — his exuberance, in fact, tends to generate a profusion of happy language that might call for pruning some days hence — but we would hate to inhibit him now! In the examples you give us, your son nearly always begins with a participial phrase which ought to be followed by something that the participial phrase can modify — but isn't. The result is one dangling modifier after the other. I'll just deal with the last two, and that should give you an idea of what's required here:

Busily rushing about, COLORFUL HONEYBEES collecting sweet nectar from all the fragrant blossoms, buzz colorful honeybees.

Filling the air comes the WITH gay chatter of a , a jubilant mockingbird [does something . . . . .}

The initial participial phrase has to be followed immediately by something it can modify, usually the subject of the sentence. I hope this helps.

Regarding golfing terminology: Is a captain of the ladies' section of the golf club referred to as " The Ladies' Captain" or as " The Lady Captain"?

I contend that " Lady Captain" is an acceptable form of address but that in the written form — rules of the club for example — the post is correctly described as " The Ladies' Captain" ie. captain of the Ladies' section only, not the whole club.

If a Lady was appointed Club captain — that is, captain of the whole golf club — then I believe she could be described correctly as the Lady Captain as an alternative to simply " Captain ".

If she is captain of the entire club, why wouldn't we refer to her as simply "Captain"? Why would we have to make a distinction at all? And if she is captain only of the "ladies' section," she might be called "Ladies' Captain." But "Lady Captain" sounds like something out of Arthurian legend. In the U.S., at least, "lady" seems to be on its way out (except in the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen"). Whether that's regrettable or not, I leave to your judgment, but in the U.S., we would probably use "Women's Captain" or "Captain of the Women's Team."

In the following sentence should the word smell be smells? Can mixed odors have one smell? Thank you.

The smell of sickness and medicine filled his nostrils.

Technically, this is a physiological question that I have no business answering. I believe it's like sound. Just as the ear hears one sound wave at a time that the brain is then capable of sorting into its component parts (miraculously enough), the brain is able to sort out olfactory data. (I could certainly be corrected on this, however.) For this particular sentence, the two sources of smell are probably (believably) merged into one sensation. I would also recommend a rephrasing of the unfortunate "filled his nostrils," however. "Assaulted," maybe? Or "The room smelled of sickness and medicine."

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing