STUDENTS’ SOUNDING BOARD

Is a professor’s use of the word “anyways” acceptable in class?

Questions e-mailed by forces20, Forum member (July 23, 2011):

1. I often hear my professor saying “Anyways, let’s proceed to the topic...” Is her usage of “anyways” instead of “anyway” correct?

2. What do you think is the best substitute for the expression “at the end of the day”? It is the favorite tail end phrase in our classroom, but sometimes it gets so repetitive and awkward-sounding.

3. What is the meaning of “cutting edge” as used in this phrase: “Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform in the Philippines.”

My reply to forces20:

Here are my thoughts regarding your three questions:

1. The usage of “anyways” instead of “anyway”

The expression “anyways” is nonstandard usage for “anyway” in the United States and Canada. That means it’s a dialect or informal speech, or what may be considered a colloquialism. For this reason, I think it's bad form for your professor to be bandying that word in class. I suspect he or she just wants to show off that he or she had lived for some time or had been educated in North America. Or, if your professor isn’t even aware that this usage of “anyways” is very unseemly, he or she had probably acquired it unconsciously from watching too many Hollywood movies on cable TV or video. This is because “anyways” is part of the American slang commonly used in movie dialogue involving not very well educated characters. In any case, in the context of the classroom situation you described, “anyways” sounds to me a tasteless affectation.

2. The best substitute for the expression “at the end of the day”   

I’m glad that you feel the same way as I do about “at the end of the day.” What’s the best substitute for this deceptively flamboyant but empty-headed expression? Well, that idiom really means “when everything else has been taken into consideration,” so, depending on the drift of the statement that comes with it, that expression can be said more simply as “ultimately,” “in the end,” or “after all.” 

Did you know that in 2004, “at the end of the day” was voted as “the most irritating phrase in the English language” in a worldwide survey conducted by the London-based Plain English Campaign? I’ve been fighting the overuse of this unnerving cliché for almost eight years now, and have written no less than six columns against it and a few other dreadful clichés. I thought I had made at least a small dent in the propensity of Filipinos to use those clichés (“Doing battle with the most irritating phrases in English”). This past year or so, however, there has been a frightening resurgence of “at the end of the day” in the airwaves and public forums because of the habitual use of it by some people in high places. Alas, now we also have to contend with the power of incorrigible bad example!

3. The meaning of the idiom “cutting edge”

Strictly speaking, the title “Cutting Edge: The Politics of Reform in the Philippines” is using the words “cutting edge” in the sense of a metaphor for “the vanguard” or “foremost part” of something. When “cutting edge” is used in the phrase “on the cutting edge,” however, it becomes an idiomatic expression that means “to be trendy and very up-to-date” in something, as in this example: “The equipment installed in the new hospital is on the cutting edge of medical technology.” At any rate, I have a feeling that whoever came up with the “cutting edge” kicker for that title had also intended to make this idiomatic meaning rub off on that title for effect—and successfully at that, I must say!

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

Is “spending much of their time” a gerund phrase?

Question posted as a private message by Pipes, Forum member (June 30, 2011):

Good day!

I would just like to bring up with you a grammar question I am currently dealing with.

Am I right that “spending much of their time” is a gerund phrase?

Does the verb “spend” only take a gerund? For example: “I usually spend my day off watching T.V.”

I look forward to hearing from you.

My reply to Pipes:

You are not necessarily right in calling “spending much of their time” a gerund phrase.

By definition, a gerund is an English verbal ending in “-ing” that functions as a noun in a sentence; as such, it can take on the role of subject, object, or object of the preposition. By extension, a gerund phrase is a gerund followed by its object or any modifier that pertains to that gerund, as in this sentence: “Holding two jobs simultaneously requires a lot of discipline.” Here, the gerund is “holding” and the gerund phrase is “holding two jobs simultaneously,” and the role of that gerund phrase is as subject—and doer of the action—of the  sentence.

Based on this definition, we could be sure that a phrase like “spending much of their time” is functioning as a gerund phrase only if is actually used in a sentence. It will be a gerund phrase in this sentence, “Spending much of their time on Facebook is a preoccupation of many teenagers these days,” where “spending much of their time”—modified by the phrase “on Facebook”—serves as the subject of the sentence. It will also be a gerund phrase in this other sentence, “Many teenagers these days find themselves spending much of their time on Facebook,” where “spending much of their time”—modified by the phrase “on Facebook”—serves as a noun complement of the verb phrase “find themselves.” In contrast, it isn’t a gerund phrase in this sentence, “Many teenagers are spending much of their time on Facebook,” where it’s actually a regular part of the verb phrase “are spending much of their time,” and where “are spending” is the present progressive form of the verb “spend.”

As to your second question: “Does the verb ‘spend’ only take a gerund?” I don’t understand what you mean by that question, but if what you meant is, “Does the verb ‘spend” take only the gerund form,” the answer is no. It can be a regular verb, as in the sentence you provided, “I usually spend my day off watching T.V.,” or it can take the infinitive form, “I like to spend my day off watching T.V.”, where to spend is the direct object of the verb “like.” It can also take the past participle form, as in “The spent bullets were recovered from the crime scene,” where “spent” functions as an adjective modifying the noun “bullets,” or the present participle form, as in “My father gave me spending  money for my weekend outing,” where “spending” functions as an adjective modifying the noun “money.”

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

The usage of the form that combines prepositions with “which”

Question by forces20, Forum member (June 1, 2011):

Good morning, Sir Carillo,

I feel the nostalgic eagernesss of posting grammar questions and other pecularities, so here I am again!

Sir, what do you call the combination of preposition and relative pronoun “which” such as “in which,” “on which,” “with which,” etc.? I am confident that I can use some of these forms in written composition and oral communication, but I know you can give a comprehensive explanation to give me a deeper understanding of them, as follows:

1. “on which”
2. “in which”
3. “of which”
4. “from which”
5. “with which”
6. “into which”
7. “for which”

Below are some sentences using them:

1. “Equilibrium is a situation in which the quantity of supply equals that of demand.”
2. “Price floor is the lowest price set by the government at which a producer can sell a good or service.”
3. “A reservoir of psychic from which they draw a positive outlook in life.”
4. “Words are pegs upon which we hang ideas.”
5. “Some writers base their fiction on actual events to which they add up invented characters, dialogue, settings, and plots.”

My reply to forces20:

I am not aware of a specific term for the combination of prepositions and relative pronouns that you are asking about. Such grammatical structures as “on which,” “from which,” and “with which” are a formal way in written English for introducing a defining relative clause and linking it efficiently to a main clause that typically ends in a noun. This noun becomes the antecedent of the pronoun “which,” which then becomes the object of the preposition in the defining relative clause.

Making a preposition and the relative pronoun “which” in this manner is a powerful grammatical device for combining ideas that would otherwise need to be said in two sentences. Consider the following sentences:

“Boracay is a white-sand beach. The hotel chain built a five-start resort-hotel on it.”

These two sentences can be combined into a single sentence using the prepositional form “on which,” as follows:

“Boracay is a white-sand beach on which the hotel chain built a five-start resort-hotel.”

When the relative clause after the noun refers to a place, of course, a perfectly acceptable alternative to “on which” as a combiner is the relative pronoun “where”:

“Boracay is a white-sand beach where the hotel chain built a five-start resort-hotel.”

In contrast, a misshapen, awkward-sounding sentence results when we attempt to combine those two sentences using the subordinating conjunction “that” instead:

“Boracay is a white-sand beach that the hotel chain built a five-start resort-hotel on.”

This grammatical construction with the preposition “on” at the tail end of the sentence is an example of what’s called preposition-stranding, which is frowned upon in formal written English. (Combining prepositions and pronouns in such forms as “in which” and “from which” is, in fact, meant to avoid such preposition-stranding in sentences.) Nowadays, however, preposition-stranding is widely used by native English speakers in colloquial situations, as in the following sentence:

Stranded preposition: “This is the chapter that passage was taken from.”
(Preposition not stranded: “This is the chapter from which that passage was taken.”)

Now, following the same pattern for the “on which” sentence that we analyzed above, the relative pronoun “which” can also be used in tandem with the prepositions “in,” “of,” “from,” “with,” “into,” or “for” to combine sentences, as follows:

Two-sentence construction: “That is the precise place. They found my missing engagement ring there.”

One-sentence construction: “That’s the precise place in which they found my missing engagement ring.”

(Alternative “where” construction: “That’s the precise place where they found my missing engagement ring.”)

Two-sentence construction: “They have chosen a law office. Atty. Cruz is a managing partner of it.”

One-sentence construction: “They have chosen a law office of which Atty. Cruz is a managing partner.”

 (Alternative “where” construction: “They have chosen a law office where Atty. Cruz is a managing partner.”)

Now let’s reverse the process and analyze the two sentences you gave as examples for “at which” and “upon which” usage:

Your one-sentence construction: “Price floor is the lowest price set by the government at which a producer can sell a good or service.”

Its two-sentence equivalent: “Price floor is the lowest price set by the government for producers of a good or service. The producers can sell at that lowest set price.”

Your one-sentence construction: “Words are pegs upon which we hang ideas.”
Its two-sentence construction: “Words are pegs. We hang ideas upon them.”

At this point, of course, it would be logical to ask: Why bother using such combinations of preposition and relative pronoun as “in which” and “with which” when we could very well use simpler sentence-combining forms like “that,” “where,” and “when”? The reason is, of course, to find the most suitable and best-sounding ways to combine two or more ideas in one sentence—and the more grammatically correct ways to choose from, the better for both our written and spoken English.

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

Which is correct: “junior-senior prom” or “juniors-seniors prom”?

Question sent in by e-mail by Sandra P. (March 6, 2011):
             
Dear Sir,

I am a senior student and I have been very interested in your column since I first got to read it last year. I would like to ask for an explanation regarding something that I’m confused with.  Last month, I wrote an article regarding our JS.  Since everybody has been writing simply “JS,” and my friends do not even seem to know what they stand for, I decided to write “Junior-Senior Prom” instead.  However, it was corrected by our editor to “Juniors-Seniors.” I think that since it already expresses a relationship among the group, the words in the hyphenated term should take the singular form instead of the plural. Please clear my mind on this.  Thank you.

My reply to Sandra P.:

As far back as I can remember, the generally accepted style and spelling for the term in question is “Junior-Senior Prom.” That “Junior” and “Senior” are in the singular form in the hyphenated term is all a matter of convention, though, and not because the hyphenated term “Junior-Senior” is a distinctly new term that expresses a particular relationship.

I personally find it awkward saying “Juniors-Seniors Prom” aloud, which is also why I wouldn’t be caught writing the term that way. But then it’s definitely easier on the tongue to say “Juniors-Seniors,” minus the word “Prom.” I think this is why your editor saw fit to change your “Junior-Senior Prom” to “Juniors-Seniors” for short, which is pleasantly informal and, I might add, more idiomatic than “Junior-Senior Prom.” (In contrast, to say “Junior-Senior”—with both words in the singular form—doesn’t feel and sound right to me.) I therefore can appreciate why your editor decided to exercise the editorial prerogative in favor of “Juniors-Seniors.” This is not to say, though, that “Junior-Senior Prom” is grammatically inferior to “Juniors-Seniors.” The choice between the two is simply a matter of style.

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

When to use the present participle and past participle as modifiers

Question from Nathan_Yell, Forum member (March 4, 2011):

Hi Mr. Carillo,

I encountered this usage definition of present and past participle as adjectives in a textbook. I just want to know what your thoughts are about this because I find it confusing.

1. We use present participles if the noun/pronoun it describes is the one causing the adjective.

E.g. (Incorrect) “The cried baby in the airport caught the passengers' attention.”
       (Correct)     “The crying baby in the airport caught the passengers' attention.”

Explanation: The cry was caused by the child.

2. We use past participles if the noun/pronoun it describes is not the one causing the adjective.

E.g. (Incorrect) “The disappointing passengers went back home because of the airline’s flight.” cancellation. 
        (Correct)    “The disappointed passengers went back home because of the airline’s flight cancellation.”

Explanation: The disappointment was not caused by the passengers; therefore, we used the past participle form of the word “disappoint” 

My thoughts:
1. I don’t think nouns can CAUSE adjectives.
2. I think using past or present participle does not have this clear-cut rule because it depends on the sense. For instance, “disappointed passengers” refer their state of being, while “disappointing passengers” refer to their behavior.

How do we know which participle to use when describing nouns?

My reply to Nathan_Yell:

I’m afraid that the English textbook where you encountered those definitions got it all wrong about the present participle and past participle. Those definitions arise from a total—and I must say shocking—misunderstanding of what participles are, so it’s really no surprise that you found them confusing.

And, of course, you are absolutely right in not thinking that “nouns can cause adjectives.” This is a strange, even bizarre thing for that textbook author to say. Adjectives are not caused by nouns; by definition, adjectives are a part of speech that serves as modifiers of nouns to denote a quality of the thing named, to indicate its quantity or extent, or to specify a thing as distinct from something else.

That said, let me now proceed to clarify what a participle is to begin with.

Recall that the participle is one of the three English verbals, the other two being the infinitive and the gerund. These three are verb forms that function not as verbs but as other parts of speech. The infinitive and the gerund both function as nouns (whether as subjects, doers of the action, or objects in a sentence), but the participle generally can only function as an adjective.   

The basic form of the participle is, of course, a verb that ends either in “-ing” or “-ed.” A participle that ends in “-ing” is a present participle, while a participle that typically ends in “-ed” is a past participle. Certain irregular verbs, though, form past participles that end in “-en” (as in “fallen”), “-d” (“shaved”), “-t” (“dealt”), or “-n” (“seen”). 

So what does the present participle do? It expresses present action in relation to the time expressed by the operative verb of a sentence. For instance, in the example provided by the textbook that you cited, “The crying baby in the airport caught the passengers’ attention,” the present participle “crying” functions as an adjective modifying the noun “baby.” It’s meant to convey the idea that the baby’s “crying” action took place at the same time as its having caught the passengers’ attention.

(Simply as a drill, the present participle is also at work in the following sentences: “The expanding balloon burst into flames.” “The nervous Senate witness ended up crying.” “Bantering, the two friends went home.” “He liquidated the company with his partners not knowing.”)

Now, what does the past participle do? In contrast to the present participle, the past participle expresses completed action in relation to the time expressed by the operative verb of a sentence. Take, for instance, this other example provided by that textbook: “The disappointed passengers went back home because of the airline’s flight cancellation.” Here, the past participle “disappointed” functions as an adjective modifying the noun “passengers.” It’s meant to convey the idea that the disappointment of the passengers over the airline’s flight cancellation had already taken place before their action of leaving the airport for home.

(Also as a drill, the past participle is at work in the following sentences: “They converted the demolished apartment into a warehouse.” “The fallen log was chopped into firewood.” “A comet is a rarely seen sight.”)

Regarding this incorrect example of present participle usage provided by that textbook, “The cried baby in the airport caught the passengers' attention,” it’s wrong not because the noun “baby” is or is not the one causing the adjective, but simply because what’s called for in this particular situation is the present participle “crying.”

In the same token, this incorrect example of past participle usage provided by that textbook, “The disappointing passengers went back home because of the airline’s flight cancellation,” is wrong not because the noun “passengers” is or is not the one causing the adjective, but simply because what’s called for in this particular situation is the past participle “disappointed.” 

Let me reiterate at this point that as you had correctly surmised, that textbook’s two rules for using the past participle or the present participle are absolutely false and absurd. And you are also correct in saying that the usage of a particular kind of participle depends on the sense of the sentence. Indeed, from a semantic standpoint, it could very well be said that in the examples given, the past participle “disappointed” in “disappointed passengers” refer to their state of being, while the present participle “disappointing” in “disappointing passengers” refer to their behavior. From a grammatical standpoint, however, it’s more precise and instructive to say that the present participle applies when a present action is expressed in relation to the time expressed by the operative verb of a sentence, and that the past participle applies when a past action is expressed in relation to the time expressed by the operative verb of a sentence.

I trust that this discussion has adequately clarified that textbook’s alarmingly wrong instruction about the usage of the present participle and past participle.

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

A student’s gnawing doubt about what constitutes act of plagiarism

Question sent in by e-mail by forces20 (November 12, 2010):

Dear Mr. Carillo,

As I know that as a journalist and former editor-in-chief, you can explain my doubts on this matter.

I have finished writing my oratorical piece that’s entitled “The Change I See Begins With Me,” but something deeply bothers me about the originality of my idea. My speech largely revolves around a system that I have coined as the “VIP system,” where the acronym stands for “Visualize, Internalize, and Prioritize.” Actually, these are the three steps for putting into reality one’s desire to become a UP student, as discussed with us by Prof. Violy Quintana in her webinar (seminar on the web). Since then, these three words have become my inspiration, and I believe that they constitute the best way to make change start with me.

Through my own words and ideas, I explained the meaning of the “VIP system” in my oratorical piece. I didn’t directly quote or use the examples Prof. Quintana gave us during the webinar. I have my doubts, though, as to whether using those three words is an act of plagiarizing somebody else’s work. I have such a shallow understanding of plagiarism so I am hoping that you can enlighten me about it.

My reply to forces20:

Plagiarism is stealing and passing off the published words or ideas of another as one’s own without crediting the source. It’s a crime and unethical act that may involve changing some words, paraphrasing, or copying an entire piece of someone else’s work, then claiming authorship for the material. In legal terms, it’s a violation of someone’s intellectual property rights to written material, particularly those covered by copyright.

Now, your question is whether the “VIP system” you have developed plagiarizes the intellectual property of Prof. Violy Quintana who, as you say, discussed the action steps “Visualize, Internalize, and Prioritize” for putting into reality one’s desire to become a UP student. Offhand, I don’t think you’ve done any plagiarizing. Unless she had specifically copyrighted the acronym “VIP,” the action steps “Visualize, Internalize, and Prioritize,” and whatever unique system she has developed around the concept, she can’t lay claim to the idea as her intellectual property, much less begrudge a student she has inspired to seriously pursue it and elaborate on it. On the contrary, I think she’ll be delighted to know that you have taken it upon yourself to spread her ideas further like a good disciple.

But as a matter of courtesy and to avoid any misunderstanding, it would be advisable for you to duly acknowledge Prof. Quintana’s webinar and her ideas as having provided the inspiration for your oratorical piece. Just give credit where credit is due. This way you’ll not only avoid being understood as attempting to plagiarize someone else’s work but also have the opportunity to express your appreciation to her and spread goodwill while sharing a great idea with others who could similarly benefit from it.

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

What “nose for news” means and other grammar questions

Questions from Forum member forces20 (October 25, 2010):

Although I am not a campus journalist in our institution, I am curious about the meaning of the following journalistic terms:

1. Nose for the news
2. Conflict of Ideas
3. Conflict of interest

What is the difference between “conflict of ideas” and “conflict of interest”?

And just a quick grammar question: What are the subject-verb agreement rules for collective nouns (e.g., “public audience,” “army,” etc.)?

My reply to forces20:

1. A “nose for news” means the instinctive skill or facility for discovering things. In journalism, specifically, it means the ability to ferret out newsworthy things from routine or trivial day-to-day activities or occurrences. A person who has a nose for news is naturally inquisitive and with a strong interest in affairs or events other than those that involve himself or herself. When you have a strong nose for news, that means you have the potential to become a news reporter, whether for your campus paper or for the mass media someday.

2. A “conflict of ideas” simply means a state of opposition between the ideas of a person or group and those of another person or group; there is an unresolved disagreement  between them in how they view certain issues or things. On the other hand, a “conflict of interest” means a conflict between the private interest of an individual or organization and its public obligations; for instance, there’s a conflict of interest when a judge or justice assigned to try a court case is a close relative of one of the litigants, so the moral and decent thing to do is to inhibit himself or herself from trying the case.

3. In American English, the rule is that a collective noun, such as “company,” “organization,” “committee,” “family,” and “team,” is singular when it acts collectively or represent one group, but is plural when the members of the collective body act individually. Examples of singular usage: “The company wants all its personnel to wear a uniform.” “The family takes a four-day picnic every summer.” Examples of plural usage: “The family are fighting over their inheritance.” “The team are divided on whether they should participate in the next Olympics.”

In British English, however, collective nouns like “company,” “organization,” and “committee” are normally treated as plural. Examples: “The company make a substantial donation to public charities every year.” “The company are at odds over the issue of Facebook usage during office hours.” “The committee are of the opinion that the increase in club fees is not warranted at this time.” “The committee are quarreling among themselves over the issue of meal allowances.”

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

Differentiating the use of “than” and “than that of”

Question from Forces20, Forum member (September 30, 2010):

Hello, Sir Joe!

Kindly help me understand the difference between “than” and “than that of” in achieving a logical and clear comparison.

Let’s consider this sentence as an example:

“As a teacher, his salary is even less than that of a driver.”

Why shouldn’t the sentence above be written instead as “As a teacher, his salary is even less than a driver.”

Also the sentence below:

“The new library is undoubtedly well-stocked and functional but no one can say that its atmosphere is like the old one.”

This should be revised as follows:

“The new library is undoubtedly well-stocked and functional but no one can say that its atmosphere is like that of the old one.”

My reply to Forces20:

The fundamental difference between the comparatives “than” and “than that of” is in the nature of the elements being compared. We use “than of” when we compare two objects or things directly with each other, as in “Your laptop is more powerful than my laptop” or, more succinctly, “Your laptop is more powerful than mine.” On the other hand, we use “than that of” when we compare not the two objects or things directly but an attribute, possession, or part of theirs, as in “The processor of your laptop is more powerful than that of mine.” This particular comparative construction is, of course, an elliptical, more succinct version of this sentence: “The processor of your laptop is more powerful than the processor of your laptop.” The pointing pronoun “that” takes the place of the name of the thing whose attribute, possession, or part is being compared with that of another’s, and the pronoun “mine” takes the place of the name of the other thing involved in the comparison.

Take note that if we simply use “than” instead of “than that of” when comparing the attribute, possession, or part of two objects or things, a semantic problem or ambiguity in meaning might result, as in this grammatically flawed construction: “The processor of your laptop is more powerful than mine.” Here, it’s not clear if the pronoun “mine” refers to the processor of the other person’s laptop or to his or her laptop itself. The use of the form “than that of” clarifies that ambiguity: “The processor of your laptop is more powerful than that of mine.”

Applying these considerations to the sentences you presented, we find that the sentence “As a teacher, his salary is even less than a driver” is grammatically flawed because it is illogically comparing the teacher’s salary to the driver, not to the driver’s salary. The comparative form “less than that of” fixes the problem: “As a teacher, his salary is even less than that of a driver.”

The same is true, of course, with the other sentence construction you presented that uses the comparative “like the old one”: “The new library is undoubtedly well-stocked and functional but no one can say that its atmosphere is like the old one.” It wrongly compares the atmosphere of the new library with the old library itself, when the real comparison should be between the atmospheres of both. The use of the comparative form “like that of” corrects and clarifies that comparison: “The new library is undoubtedly well-stocked and functional but no one can say that its atmosphere is like that of the old one.”

We must keep in mind, though, that the use of the form “than that of” may not be necessary in some comparative constructions involving possessives. Take a look at these two examples: “Albert’s grade in science is higher than Bert’s.” (The version that uses “than that of” for the comparison is cumbersome and awkward-sounding: “Albert’s grade in science is higher than that of Bert.”) “Our basketball team’s record is more impressive than our competitor’s.” (This is more concise and much better-sounding than “Our basketball team’s record is more impressive than that of our competitor.”)

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

Multiple use of the first-person “I” isn’t necessarily a redundancy

Questions sent in by e-mail by forces20, Forum member (September 9, 2010):

I approached my teacher in English and a journalism teacher to check my essay. The subject of that essay is “How I can make peace come alive in my world.” The journalism teacher put this note on the second draft of my essay: “If ever possible, avoid using the (redundancy) “I” same word in a sentence or paragraph.”

I met her this morning and she told me to avoid the overuse of “I” and to use so-called “imagery” instead so that although I am not using the word “I,” it will be clear that I am the one speaking in the essay. The idea of using “imagery” is something perplexing and difficult to me. Are there ways by which you can avoid the use of many “I’s” when writing an essay?

My second question is this: Which of these two constructions is correct: “the dignity of my fellowmen” or “the dignities of my fellowmen”?

My reply to forces20:

I must say at the outset that your journalism teacher gave you a very tall order by advising you to avoid overusing the first-person pronoun “I” in your essay. It’s actually a very sensible, well-meaning suggestion for professional writers and journalists, for the use of too many “I’s” in an essay or feature story can indeed be an eyesore when read silently and an assault to the ears when read aloud. But asking beginning writers to follow the minimal-“I” or no-“I” prescription often results in English that seems to be walking on tenterhooks—strained, contrived, and unnatural-sounding. In job application letters, for instance, people brainwashed by their teachers to practice total “I” avoidance usually come up with stilted constructions like “The undersigned has the honor to apply for the position of so and so.” Constructions like that efficiently suppress the “I’s,” but they also make sentences so staid and legal-sounding. I would rather encourage students or beginning writers to use “I” freely in their writing so they can naturally develop their facility for self-expression; as they mature and get exposed to more examples of professional writing, they will just naturally develop the facility for avoiding the use of too many “I’s” in their compositions.  

I am perplexed by your teacher’s suggestion to use “imagery” as a means for avoiding the repetitive use of “I” in your essay. Frankly, I don’t know what she means by that; I suggest you ask her to explain it in some detail. Perhaps this is some new writing technique that you and I and the members of this Forum can learn from her and profit from. As far as I know, however, the only practical and sensible way to grammatically reduce the usage of “I” is to combine sentences or clauses that individually use it. Take this statement, for example: “I love to read. I love to write. And I love to listen to music.” We can use “I” only once by combining the three sentences as follows: “I love to read, to write, and to listen to music.” We can render this combined sentence even more concisely as follows: “I love to read, write, and listen to music.”

There are some rhetorical forms, however, where clause combining to reduce “I” usage can be counterproductive or even destructive. Take this famous tricolon* of Julius Caesar: “I came, I saw, I conquered.” The combined version, “I came, saw, and conquered” is dull and tepid, having lost practically all of the drama and power of the original.

The point of all this is that the frequent use of “I” in essays and other forms of exposition isn’t always undesirable, and it certainly isn’t necessarily a bad thing to use it more than once or twice in a sentence or paragraph. It really all depends on the writer’s style and intent.  

As to your second question, the correct phrasing is “the dignity of my fellowmen.” The word “dignity” in the sense of “the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed” is a mass noun, so it need not take the plural form “dignities” when used in reference to two or more people. However, when used in the sense of “high rank, office, or position” or of “a legal title of nobility or honor,” it can take the plural form “dignities”—but this is obviously not the sense of the phrase “the dignity of my fellowmen” that you presented.

-------
*Tricolon – a sentence with three clearly defined parts of equal length usually independent clauses and of increasing power.

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

Tough questions about sentence structure and pronoun usage

Question e-mailed by forces20, Forum member (August 27, 2010):

Good evening, Sir Joe, I again have questions in English grammar that I (we) find confusing.

First, according to its structure, what kind of sentence is the one below?  

“By taking the test, the students should make sure that everything is well prepared.”

We are confused whether that sentence is complex or compound-complex. Either way, why is it so?

Secondly, what are the correct pronouns for the following sentences?

1. “She is not clever as_____(he,him).”
2  “No one could regret it more than __( I ,me).”

My reply to the questions raised by forces20:

“By taking the test, the students should make sure that everything is well prepared.”

Before I analyze this sentence structurally, let me say first that it is grammatically and semantically defective. To begin with, the preposition “by” is ill-chosen; it should more properly be the preposition “before” to make the modification logical. And then the use of the phrase “that everything is well prepared” gives the sentence a slippery, hard-to-grasp sense; indeed, it gives the wrong impression that the students are not the test-takers but are the ones administering the test. To make the sentence grammatically and semantically airtight, I would suggest rewriting it as follows:

“Before taking the test, the students should make sure that they are well prepared.”

Now, to make the analysis of the rewritten sentence easier, let’s render it in this equivalent form:

“The students should make sure that they are well-prepared before taking the test.”

It’s clear now that the sentence is a complex sentence that consists of the following:

1. The main clause “the students should make sure”
2. The subordinate clause “that they are well-prepared”
3. The prepositional phrase “before making the test modifying the subordinate clause.

By definition, of course, a complex sentence is one that consists of a main or independent clause and one or more subordinate clauses. In the particular sentence in question here, the prepositional phrase “before taking the test” isn’t another subordinate clause but simply a phrase modifying the subordinate clause; as such, it’s actually an integral part of the subordinate clause.

In contrast, a compound-complex sentence is one that consists of two or more main or independent clauses and one or more subordinate clauses, as in the following example:

“As the semester draws to a close and the students get ready to graduate from college, they should make themselves well-prepared for the final examinations and they should get ready for the graduation ceremonies.”

The sentence above is compound-complex because it consists of two main clauses and two subordinate clauses, as follows:

1. The first main clause “(the students) should make themselves well-prepared for the final examinations”
2. The second main clause “(the students) should get ready for the graduation ceremonies”
3. The first subordinate clause “as the semester draws to a close”
4. The second subordinate clause “(as) the students get ready to graduate from college”

The first and second clauses, which are joined by the additive function word “and,” form the compound main clause; on the other hand, the first and second subordinate clauses, likewise joined by the function word “and,” form the compound subordinate clause. Together all of these grammatically elements form the compound-complex sentence.

Now let’s take up your two questions about which pronoun is correct in the following two sentences:

1. “She is not clever as_____ (he, him).”
2. “No one could regret it more than __ (I, me).”

In informal usage, people do tend to use the objective pronoun “him” in constructions like Sentence 1 above; they find it easier to articulate the sentence that way. But the strictly formal usage—and the one I would recommend when you take English grammar tests or write essays as part of your schoolwork—is the nominative pronoun “he”: “She is not as clever as he.” This construction is actually the elliptical form of the sentence “She is not as clever as he is clever,” with the verb “is” and the adjective “clever” dropped for conciseness and ease of articulation. (Note further that the correct construction of the comparative is “as + adjective + as,” not “adjective + as.”)

Now, in sentence constructions involving the form “more than + pronoun,” the choice between the nominative pronoun and objective pronoun remains contentious to this day. There are grammarians who think that “than” in that construction is a conjunction, so they insist that the pronoun after the word “than” should be in the nominative case “I”: “No one could regret it more than I.” However, other grammarians insist that “than” in that construction is a preposition, so the pronoun after the word “than” should be in the objective case “me”: “No one could regret it more than me.” In their view—and I must admit that I’m partial to that view—“me” is logically the object of the preposition “than,” so it’s but correct and proper for it to be in the objective form.

You could get burned if you take sides either way, though, particularly if the side you take isn’t the grammar camp of your English professor or of the HRD specialist in charge of English-proficiency testing. I would say that the better part of valor if you absolutely need to use the still-hotly-debated form is to eliminate the ambiguity of your usage of “than” by recasting the sentence this way: “No one could regret it more than I do.” This is the simplest, surest way to prevent this contentious grammar issue from adversely affecting your grade or test score or your chances of employment.

Click to post a comment or view the comments to this posting

View the complete list of postings in this section