The Grammar Logs
#591

When referring in text to a wife or husband (only one!), do you use commas around the name? Example: My husband, Steven, will be coming with me. NOTE: I believe this may be an older rule. Could it be that this rule is now relaxed and the commas are not essential?

When referring to a child, do you use commas around the name? Does it matter if that child is an only son or one of three sons? Example: My son Andrew is coming with me. (In this case, I have three sons??Andrew, Jeff and Mark. Do I leave out the commas in order to indicate the particular son I have, since I have two others? OR do I need commas around the name? I'm assuming that if I have only one son, I would use commas, such as in the husband/wife example.)

We are talking about appositive phrases here. In some appositives, the name and the being thus named become one and the commas disappear. "My husband Steve will be coming with me." Even though the name "Steve" is a parenthetical element (because we assume you have only one husband), the two are combined as one and the comma can be omitted (although it would not be incorrect if you included the comma). In the sentence "My son, Jeff, will be coming with me," the commas establish, in fact, that you have only one son and his name is parenthetical (i.e., we don't need to know the name of this person because we know you're talking about your only son). In the sentence "My son Jeff will be coming with me" (no commas), you are either telling us that you have more than one son and thus the name is essential to the meaning of the sentence OR you are doing to the name "Jeff" what you did with the name "Steve," above. This explanation is probably more complicated than it has to be.

I have noted that some of my colleagues use "where" incorrectly. Please advise regarding how to explain the incorrectness of the below constructed sentences:

• This is an instance where more time is needed for completion.
• The situation is where two people feel that they are correct and will not compromise.

I can't imagine anyone writing that second sentence, especially with that "is." I can imagine someone writing "The situation where two people will not compromise is typical of …" Your instincts are correct, though, and the relative adverb "where" just doesn't work there, not in either sentence. You need "in which," instead. "Where" will only work with places (which can be somewhere), as in "The apartment where he made the arrest burned to the ground last night."

When is it correct to use the word "wrongly"? example: He was wrongly accused of the crime. Don't take this wrongly, but that color doesn't look good on you.

Both "wrong" and "wrongly" are proper adverb forms. I don't know how this came to be, but "wrongly" is used before a verb, as in "wrongly accused," but "wrong" is used as a post-noun (or, in this case, a post-pronoun) modifier, as in "Don't take this wrong" or "He got all the answers wrong."

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

According to your website, the nominative absolute phrase consists of a noun "subject," a participle that modifies it, and any modifiers that support the participle.

Their reputation as winners secured by victory, the New York Liberty charged into the semifinals.

Reputation is the "subject" of the nominative absolute phrase, secured is a participle, and by victory is an adverb phrase that modifies it.

Instead of modifying single words, nominative absolute phrases modify entire sentences.

If anything in the above description is true, the nominative absolute phrase is a grammatical anomaly.

How many other phrases (other than the so-called "infinitive clause") contain a subject? By definition, a phrase is a word group that does not contain a subject and a verb.

Phrases function as single parts of speech. If nominative absolute phrases modify entire sentences, how can they possibly function as adjectives, adverbs, verbs, or nouns?

I submit that the "subject" of a nominative absolute phrase is really the object of an understood preposition.

With their reputation as winners secured by victory, the New York Liberty charged into the semifinals.

In the revision above, all seems right in the grammatical world. An understood preposition (with) introduces an otherwise-normal adjective phrase. Every phrase in the example is a word group that functions as a single part of speech, and none of the phrases in the revision contain anything that even remotely resembles a subject.

Where am I wrong?

I would hesitate to characterize anything in your nicely reasoned argument as wrong. You're right about phrases: they do not contain a subject-verb relationship, the kind of relationship that identifies clauses. Phrases do, however, contain subjects; it's just that if a verb form is included in the phrase, it is a non-finite verb or verbal.

Martha Kolln gives these examples of the subjects of phrases (with the phrases in italics and the subjects underlined):

• (Gerund) Your complaining to the boss will only make matters worse. (Where the possessive "your" is the subject of the gerund phrase)
• (Infinitive) José got up early to study for his Russian test. (Where the subject, José, of the tensed verb, "got up," is also the subject of the infinitive, "to study."
• (Gerund) Raising orchids requires patience. (Where the subject of the gerund, your, in omitted — typical in general statements like this).
• (Infinitive) To go to college is not cheap. (Where the subject of the infinitive could have been expressed as the object of a prepositional phrase, "For you to go to college," but it is omitted — again, typical of a general statement.

In the sentence about the New York Liberty basketball team, the absolute phrase, "Their reputation as winners secured by victory," we have a verb, but it is a non-finite verb, a participle, so we do not have a true subject-verb relationship, just a subject that is then modified. The phrase modifes the subject of the main clause ("New York Liberty") and that makes it adjectival, but it also modifies how (tells us in what manner) the team charged into the semifinals — which makes it adverbial. Thus we say that the absolute phrase tends to modify the entire main clause, not just a part of it.

I hope that helps. If not, I would refer you to Martha Kolln's excellent book, which explains things much more clearly than I can manage.

Authority: Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln. 4rth Edition. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. 1994. pages 108 and 114.

What should this be I or myself?

• For Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith and myself, this promise.....
or

• For Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith and I, this promise...

The "I" is definintely out because we need the object form after the preposition "for." The "myself" sounds more emphatic or more formally correct, perhaps because it's a bigger word than little old "me," but it's "me" that you want there.

In recent years I have seen increasingly frequent use of the phrase "as such" as if it means "therefore" or "as a result." Here is an example from a recent release by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

"Management has a unique perspective on its business that only it can present. As such, MD&A should not be a recitation of financial statements in narrative form or an otherwise uninformative series of technical responses to MD&A requirements ... ."

I do not think that the phrase "as such" can properly be used as broadly as some writers use it. The phrase would make sense to me to if used to say, "Management is the source of the information. As such it [meaning managemnet], ... "

In other words, the sentence would be elliptical for the statement "As such [source of information], it, ... ." Only where the phrase is refering back to a specific noun does it make sense to me. Another proper example would be, "He is the President. As such, he has the power to order ... ." Instead I am seeing usage like this: "He was absent from the meeting. As such, the committee decided to table the discussion."

I have been completely unable to find any grammar authority that comments on this usage. I like to think that there is no commentary because the usage is so aberrant that grammar authorities have not even seen the need to comment. Please comment.

That little "as" word causes more trouble by itself and when it gets together with friends! In Garner's Modern American Usage, he objects to the ambiguous uses of "as such" for the very reasons you enlist above. Burchfield objects to "as such" as being too often "meaningless," and suggests that many sentences would be better off without it (but notes that it is often used in speech for emphasis and that the phrase is less apt to be ambiguous in speech). The Merriam-Webster's usage manual suggests only that we try writing our sentence without the phrase, and if it appears the sentence works without it, omit it. Garner's the guy you want to bolster your argument that the phrase has run amok in contemporary prose.

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

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

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.

Last night, in my writing class, the question came up as to whether (or not) this sentence needs the "or not". Might it read … the questions came up as to whether this sentence needs the "or not"." Thank you for your great help. I gave all my students your site to put in their task bars.

The "whether or not" construction has been around nearly forever and is on good standing. Some grammarians recommend getting rid of the "or not" where it serves no purpose (i.e., where the alternative "or not" is obvious). Another rule of thumb is to make that judgement when the phrase is used as the subject or object of the sentence — "Whether [or not] we drive is up to you", "The students tried to determine whether [or not] the final tests would even be given" — but when the phrase is used adverbially, the "or not" must be included: "Whether or not we agree with his results, we must respect his intentions."

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

Which would be the more proper use of "however:

• We can create an interface with the vendor. However, because we have extensive capabilties in this area, the degree of involvement would depend on ....
• We can create an interface with the vendor, however, because we have extensive capabilities in this area, the degree of involvement would depend on .....

The second version is a comma splice, which we can fix by changing the first comma to a semicolon. However, the combination of a clause break followed by "however" followed by "because" is a bit much for the decaffeinated brain (not wrong, just a bit hard to follow). How about something like

We can create an interface with the vendor; however, we have extensive capabilities [OF OUR OWN] in this area, AND the degree of involvement would depend on .....

Can I use "conflicted" to express that I fell torn or confused?

ex. I feel conflicted by that double standard. / I am conflicted by that situation.

The words "torn" or "confused" would be an improvement. "Conflicted" is what authorities call a "vogue word." It feels worse when you use it as a predicate adjective (as in your sentences) than it does when it's a prenoun modifer: "this tense and conflicted teacher." I'd use "confused."

From Garner's Modern American Usageby Bryan Garner. Copyright 2003 by Bryan A. Garner. Published by Oxford University Press, Inc., www.oup-usa.org, and used with the gracious consent of Oxford University Press.

This is a two-part question. I don't think that it is appropriate grammar to capitalize the word of certain diseases or disabilities such as "autism" or "cancer" but I see that many people do. What is correct? Now, if a disease is named after it's discoverer, such as Asperger's Syndrome, is it correct to also capitalize the word "Syndrome" or "Disorder" after the person's name? What is correct?

Gee whiz, that leads to yet another question....is there a grammatical rule about using the possessive apostrophe after a discoverer's name. For example, which is correct : Down Syndrome or Down's Syndrome?

Generally, the pattern follows the model of other compounds such as Labrador retriever, French doors, English horn. However, if you do a search for "Asperger's syndrome" on Google.com, you'll find many good resources that capitalize both words. My dictionary lists it with a small "s" for "syndrome." I doubt if there is a grammatical rule that applies to the possessive form, and you can find both Down's syndrome and Down syndrome in the dictionary. "Down's" seems to be preferred, though.

By permission. From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, 11th edition © 2003 by Merriam-Webster, Inc. (www.Merriam-Webster.com).

Previous Grammar Log

Next Grammar Log

Index of Grammar Logs

Guide to Grammar and Writing