The Grammar Logs
#562

In

I would rather you went now.

which is the verb? "Would"? What is the structure of the sentence here? I mean, does it have a coordinate or subordinate clause? Is "went" a use of the subjunctive?

The verb of the sentence is "would"; it is modified by the adverb "rather," creating a phrase that means "prefer decidedly (given a choice)." The clause "you went now" is a noun clause (without the understood "that") acting as the object of the sentence. And yes, the "went" is an appropriate use of the subjunctive mood.

Is the following sentence grammatically correct?

He went missing yesterday morning.

I can't find this phrase — "went missing" or "go missing" — in any of my writing manuals or reference books, and I'm not sure what that means — either that the editors don't recognize it as a remarkable idiom (correct or otherwise) or that they think it's perfectly acceptable and commonplace. I certainly run across it often enough, and I've seen it used in some hifalutin places (like the online Atlantic and NY Times Book Review). The Shorter OED doesn't list it (in over a page devoted to "go" expressions), but it does note similar combinations such as "go hungry" and "go penniless," saying that the combination often denotes the passage into a condition of privation or disadvantage (with exceptions such as "go free" and "go unpunished").

Would you please revise the following sentence?

It is to children living in impoverished neighborhoods, who have already begun to internalize that society does not value them, to whom our society should offer art and music classes, books in abundance, and dance programs to express their creativity.

Thank you.

Among other problems in that sentence, the "it is" (way out there, at the beginning) weakens the subject, the "whom" feels ambiguous, and the phrase "to express their creativity" feels tacked on. How about something like

To the children of impoverished neighborhoods, to the children who already sense that society does not value them — it is to such children that we must offer art and music classes, dance programs, and books in abundance.

I don't think I had ever thought about the difference in these expressions before. "She has gone" will emphasize the going; it is apt to be accompanied by some kind of direction or destination: "She has gone upstairs" or "she has gone to Boston" or "she has gone away." "She is gone" is a more emphatic declaration that someone was once here and no longer is: she has disappeared; she is absent.

Technically, this is not a comma splice; a comma splice contains two independent clauses that have been connected only by a comma (which cannot do the job without a coordinating conjunction). Neither is it a complete sentence. I think we have to call it a stylistic fragment, nicely balanced the comma, the kind of thing we might find in a good advertisement, which is exactly what the phrase is. It comes, of course, from the calling card of the sophisticated cowboy knight-errant, Paladin, in the television series Have Gun, Will Travel of the late 1950s, early 60s. Paladin (Richard Boone) could quote Plato and Confucius at the same time he was shooting the bad guy between the eyes — and you didn't want to mess with him or question his grammar.

I think that the follwoing sentence is wrong and confusing.

The reason that we pay taxes is because we are good citizens

I think it should read:

The reason WHY we pay taxes is because we are good citizens

It is particularly confusing in this other case:

1. The reason that we pay taxes is enough to justify our demanding schools.
2. The reason why we pay taxes is enough to justify our demanding schools.

In my opinion A) and B) have completely different meanings. therefore, the WHY and the THAT are not a matter of choice nor simlply a matter of style. In case B, the sentence says that being good citizens (which is WHY we pay taxes) is enough to justify our demanding schools. In case A, the sentece says that, since we pay taxes, we are entitled to ask for schools.

Could you please explain whether in English (be it American, British or Canadian) the forms A) and B) are both interchangeable and correct? Also if there is a rule stating the proper use of WHY versus THAT in this instance, could you point me to some printed references explaining this?

Many thanks in advance

Many commentators have argued that "the reason why" is redundant, that the notion of "why" is built into the word "reason" and that "that" (at the beginning of a noun clause, as opposed to the "why" beginning what appears to be an adverb clause) is more apropriate. The argument is undoubtely overstated, as you have described it, above. Other commentators note that "the reason why" is no more redundant than "the place where …" or "the time when … ," for example. You'll find "the reason why" in all kinds of good writing.

From The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Styleby Bryan Garner. Copyright 1995 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

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

I am an English teacher at a junior high school in Tsukuba city, Japan. In one of the texts that we use in our lessons, there is a sentence that sounds strangely odd. Given the fact that this text is used nation-wide, I have my doubts as to whether or not I am right about the correctness of this sentence. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to satisfy my curiousity regarding this sentence. The sentence is as follows:

"It is boring to me."

I am 99% sure that it is not correct. What do you think? Thank you.

It's peculiar, that's for sure. Let's say we enter a museum of fine arts, and we encounter a painting we find objectionable. Would we say "It is ugly to me"? No, we'd probably say, "I find this ugly/offensive/disgusting" or "This appalls me." The adjective "boring" should work the same way. "I find this boring." Or we could use the verb, "This bores me" or "I am bored with this" (but not "I am bored of this"). In short, I don't know if we can say that "It is boring to me" is actually wrong, but there are idiomatically more acceptable ways of saying the same thing.

The recently published collection of language columns by William Safire, No Uncertain Terms, contains a discussion of the following sentence (page 336): " 'Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman' is one of those phrases that sounds as if it comes out of Kipling." William F. Buckley sent the author a one-word note, "Ouch!" Safire acknowledges the error and elucidates the matter: "In the sentence beginning " 'Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman' is one of those phrases that…," what is the antecedent of the relative pronoun 'that'? Is it 'one'? … But 'one' is not the antecedent. To see what the antecedent is, turn the sentence around: "Of those phrases that…, 'conduct unbecoming…' is one. 'Phrases' is the antecedent; it's plural, demanding the plural verb 'sound.' Alistair Cooke inveighed against Safire's use of the present indicative 'comes', observing that a possibility is being stated, therefore the subjunctive is required. His version: " 'Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman' is one of those phrases that SOUND as if they CAME out of Kipling."

To roil the waters, Safire appended a letter from Rod Carlson of Coral Gables, Florida. This gentleman (perhaps an officer) argued that "the sucker play is to assume that the dependent clause 'that sounds' modifies 'of those phrases,' but it doesn't. In this sentence, 'of those phrases' is strictly a modifier and not part of the core meaning or structure. But 'one' is. We're talking about 'one'. We're not talking about 'of those phrases.' Therefore, because 'one' is singular, the verb in the dependent clause takes a singular 'sounds.' "

Now, I'm sure that Buckley and Cooke are correct; Safire's reasoning is sound. Carlson is, I think, wrong: we are in fact talking about 'those phrases.' What exactly is his mistake? How would you persuade him to rethink his position?

I concur that Safire has expiated his offense with an adequate and clarifying penance. The that of his dependent clause refers to phrases and thus must take a plural verb, "sound." Turning the sentence inside out (as Safire does) reveals the good sense of this choice: "Of those phrases that sound as if they came out of Kipling, 'conduct unbecoming …' is one."

Every book on style I own seems to go along with this argument. An interesting note, however, is added in Burchfield's New Fowler's. He gives this example — "Don't you think," said Bernard, "that Hawaii is one of those places that was always better in the past." (from David Lodge, 1991) — and then adds, "A plural verb in the subordinate clause is recommended unless particular attention is being drawn to the uniqueness, individuality, etc., of the one in the opening clause." In an earlier note, Burchfield writes: "Exceptions [to the rule that we use the plural verb] occur when the writer or speaker presumably regards one as governing the verb in the subordinate clause" and he gives another two or three examples, like "I am one of those people who wants others to do what I think they should."

Bill Bryson mocks the original Fowler for making this mistake: "Prestige is one of the words that has had an experience oposite to that described in 'Worsened Words.'" Having read Burchfield's analysis, I'm not so sure that Fowler was wrong. Usually, our commonplace "trick" of turning the phrases inside out and coming up with a plural verb will work, but it is possible for the "that" or the "who" to refer to the one and a singular verb will be appropriate. I don't think that's true in Safire's sentence, but Rod Carlson does. It makes life interesting, even for grammarians.

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.

Authority: Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words, Bill Bryson. Broadway Books, New York. 2002. p. 151.

"Thanks" is always a plural noun (when it's not being a verb, that is), so use the plural verb, "go."

Could you help me explain the following errors? Thank you.

• I'm understanding this exercise.
• The seasons are changing four times a year.
• The rose is smelling sweet.

Certain verbs are incapable of showing change, and they are called stative verbs; verbs that are capable of showing change are called dynamic verbs. Stative verbs cannot be used in the progressive forms (like the "understanding, changing, and smelling" of your sentences); stative verbs can. See our discussion of stative versus dynamic verbs.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing