The Grammar Logs
#585

What is a postponed subject?

In a sentence such as "It was a terrifying journey, driving over the Rockies with a huge trailer," the real subject is the gerund phrase, "driving over the Rockies with a huge trailer," and the sentence might, in fact, have started with that phrase as the subject. Postponing the subject, however, has the effect of drawing special attention to the subject (with what is called "end focus"). The word "it," in a sense, fills in for the subject until you're ready to give it: thus the term "postponed subject."

This is from Thomas Pynchon's "Vineland":

" ... outside talent was booked in with some regularity these days, tonight's being a band up from the East Bay, called Holocaust Pixels ... "

The question is re: UP FROM Wouldn't just FROM be enough, and if not, what is the exact change of meaning brought in by the presence of UP? Is this just an inversion on "from up", i.e. "from up East Bay"? Also, is this formal or informal style?

BTW, wasn't able to find "up from" in any dictionary I looked into.

Pynchon seems to be enamored of compound prepositions in that sentence, doesn't he? I don't see the point of "in with," for that matter. Wouldn't just "with" suffice? "Up from" makes just a bit more sense. Yes, surely, "from" would suffice, but the "up from" gives us a bit of a geographical hint, probably suggesting that this place, wherever we are, is either north of or at a higher altitude than the East Bay. The sentence is informal, as evidenced by these double prepositions and by phrasing such as "some regularity," "these days," the possessive of "tonight," etc.

Is an expression like

"35 times weaker"

incorrect? I have been told that since one time weaker makes something zero then "35 times weaker" is an impossibility.

I'm not enough of a mathematician to say that it's an impossibility (I hear my wife snickering in the background), but I can say that enough people think that it's a mathematical impossibility that you're wise to avoid that construction. That is, do not use "times" with a negative construction. You can say something is 35 times stronger, but not 35 times weaker. Instead, use "1/35th as strong" or (maybe) "35 times more apt to fail"?

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

When should I use real vs. really? For example, which is correct:

• I slept real well;
• I slept really well;

Thank you.

Use "really" as the adverbial intensifier — except in casual speech (or when you're trying to duplicate the spirit of casual speech, when "It's real cold out here" is an acceptable idiom. Even in casual speech, though, there can be a difference between being "real sick," say, and being "really sick" — the first meaning "very" and the other possibly meaning indubitably.

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

What are the rules, if any, for using "as" in place of "because"? I have noticed this usage rising (quickly!) and find it jarring to the ear. I test the usage by substituting the words "because," "since" or "for." The result is usually a replacement and usually with "because." Or am I being an too old fashioned about this?

I realize that the Merriam dictionary defines "as" as a conjunction and offers it as an alternative, albeit low on the list, to "because" and "since."

FYI: I edit a business/technical trade magazine, and our use of language is intended to be at a college level.

Thanks!

According to Burchfield, Fowler's objection to "as clauses" that come later in a sentence (as opposed to "as clauses" that begin a sentence, which he found unobjectionable) is now regarded as "dated." Burchfield says that when the "as" means "in consideration of" or "it being the case that," the as clause can be used at the head of a sentence or later in the sentence without objection. Personally, I think your instincts about this are right: if "because" or "for" works just as well and sounds better, make the change. Be careful of "since" because the possible chronological meaning of that word can make a sentence ambiguous.

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.

When I ask, "Have you brought the keys to the car?" do you respond with "I forget" or "I forgot?" Thanks!

"I forget" would mean that I cannot remember whether I brought the keys with me or not; "I forgot" would mean that I forgot the keys (already) and they're not with me.

Is the word "of" used with the word "all"?

Which is correct?

• All the above
• All of the above


• All of the children
• All the children

I think that "of'" isn't needed. Do we ever use it?

The "of" seems to be required when a personal pronoun follows: "all of us," "all of you," "why not take all of me," "all of my papers were lost." In most nominative phrases, however, it is not required, and the phrase seems a bit more elegant without it: "Where have all the flowers gone," etc. When the thing modified by "all" is modified, the "of" is optional, again, as in "He ate all the pretty ones," but we tend to want the "of" when there is a need to stress specificity: "He placed all of the ornaments with bows in the wrong box."

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.

In the sentence below, was I correct in putting a comma after pickup and before the word "being?" Thank you.

Both suspects then entered a newer, black Dodge, four-door pickup, being driven by a third suspect.

That's quite a pileup of modifiers there, and commas probably aren't going to save the sentence. Can we either omit one of the modifiers (is "newer" necessary?) or create an appositive phrase so we can split up the modifiers, as in

Both suspects then entered a newer vehicle, a black four-door Dodge pickup being driven by a third suspect.

What is the plural of 'agenda'?

In English, "agendas." The etymology of the word is the Latin "agenda," which is, itself, a plural, meaning the things in a list. In English, it has come to mean the list itself, so it's appropriate to pluralize the word in those limited situations in which one wishes to refer to more than one agenda/list.

Would the word "mall" be considered a collective noun, since it contains a group of stores?

A collective noun is a collection of individuals — like group, jury, team, etc. But another mark of a collective noun is that it can be referred to by either a singular or plural pronoun, depending on whether the individuals are behaving collectively or as a bunch of discrete individuals. Thus, the jury took their seats and rendered its verdict. This isn't really true of mall.

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing