GET A STRONGER GRASP OF FREQUENT GRAMMAR MISUSES (2nd of weekly series)

[Joe Carillo]

GET A STRONGER GRASP OF FREQUENT ENGLISH GRAMMAR MISUSES
(Second of a weekly series)                                                            February 4, 2025

To further reinforce your English grammar footing in 2025, Jose Carillo’s English Forum is running every Tuesday starting last January 28, 2025 a series of very common English grammar misuses even by not just a few of its native speakers. This week we’ll continue the series by clarifying six more such misuses from about 480 that have been taken up in the Forum’s Use and Misuse board over the years, mostly in response to questions raised by Forum members and readers.

7. “The glaring superfluity of the phrase ‘regarding with your concern’”

In May 2022 Forum Member LTG, operations manager of a Philippine business process outsourcing company (BPO), asked the Forum for advice on how to curb the habitual use by some people of the phrase “regarding with your concern,” in such sentences as “Let me take over and provide you with some updates regarding with your concern. The issue when connecting your Paypal account is a known ..." 

My reply: The preposition "regarding" means "concerning" or "about," so it's obviously superfluous to use "regarding" again in the phrase "regarding with your concern." I thus suggested that ever so gently, he should encourage users of that tautologous phrase to simply replace "regarding" with "about," making it "about your concern" instead. Admittedly, I gave this advice against "regarding with your concern" solely due to its superfluity gaffe, unaware of how much more widespread its usage was elsewhere in in the world. Take a look at this snapshot above of a Google check that I subsequently did after my reply to LTG.

8. “Misuse of a comma for linking two independent coordinate clauses”

Question posted by Reli Elijah Aguilar in my Facebook Messenger board on October 30, 2018: “Hello, sir. I’m confused by this line from a book, “I’m not angry with you, I’m angry with myself.” Is this an example of a comma splice? That statement is composed of two independent clauses, so why did the author use a comma?”

My reply to Reli: Strictly speaking, the construction “I’m not angry with you, I’m angry with myself” is a comma splice as you’ve surmised. You’re correct that since what are being linked are two independent coordinate clauses,  the correct punctuation between them is a semicolon: “I’m not angry with you; I’m angry with myself.” In colloquial usage, though, particularly in conversations in narrative fiction, using the semicolon to link such coordinate clauses looks too excruciatingly formal. This is why not a few writers are tempted punctuate them with a comma without feeling guilty at all of any grammar violation.

9. “Those troublesome modifiers of countable or uncountable nouns!”

Question posted by Forum member Coolpipes in my Facebook Messenger board in May 2018: With this grammar item that I came across, I am torn between “a few” and “few.” I am guessing that “few” is the right answer. I am not 100% sure though: “It was wonderful, ____ could have done what he did.” (little, a little, a few, few)

My reply to Coolpipes: You guessed right about “few.” It’s the right word for the sentence that you presented: “It was wonderful; few could have done what he did.” Take note though that the correct punctuation between the clauses “It was wonderful” and “few could have done what he did” is a semicolon rather than a comma. This is because the two are independent clauses not connected by any conjunction; the logic of the statement they create can only be inferred. The comma is inadequate to punctuate the two clauses, resulting in what’s known as a comma splice or a fused sentence.

10. “Why the object in a sentence needn’t follow the verb 'told'”

A note sent to the Forum many years ago by an English-language speech specialist of a Makati City-based language institute who doubted the grammatical correctness of this sentence construction of mine: “That reminds me of an anecdote told to me by one of my staff”: “Isn’t it that when using the word ‘tell,’ it must be followed by a direct personal object? I went to several English grammar websites to make sure they all said the same thing, and they did. So your sentence should be: ‘That reminds me of an anecdote one of my staff told me.’ I could be wrong, though.”

My reply: Like the more common expression “a story told to me by . . .”, the form “an anecdote told to me by . . .” is not only grammatically and structurally correct but also widely accepted usage. As proof, I called her attention to the standard attribution given for articles or stories of someone written by another person. That standard attribution goes as follows: “(title of article) by (author) as told to (writer),” as in “‘My Life as a Recluse’ by Juan de la Cruz as told to Susan Reyes'.”

This usage clearly shows that the verb “tell” need not be followed by a direct object. Indeed, in the form “an anecdote told to me by…”, “told” is actually an intransitive verb in the passive past tense form acting on the object of the preposition “to,” and that object is, of course, the pronoun “me.”

11. “Common pitfalls in constructing negative ‘used to’ sentences”

Most of us feel comfortable with using the form “used to + verb” for a past condition or habitual practice, as in these sentences: “They used to be very close friends.” “She used to jog early in the morning.” In the first, “used to” conveys the idea of a past activity or condition that’s no longer true; in the second, “used to” conveys the idea of an old habit that had already stopped. In both cases, we’re hardly in any danger of stumbling in our grammar because “used to” is clearly functioning as it should—as an auxiliary verb affirming the sense of a past action or state of affairs that had already ceased.

             
But using “used to” in negative and interrogative statements, which both require the form to take the auxiliary verb “did,” raises serious questions about its grammatical validity. Indeed, how should the two “used to” sentences above be rendered in the negative? For the first, do we say, “They didn’t used to be very close friends” (“used” with the “d”) or “They didn’t use to be very close friends” (“use” without the “d”)? And for the second, do we say, “She didn’t used to jog early in the morning” or “She didn’t use to jog early in the morning”?

Then again, how do we put the two “used to” sentences in question form? For the first, do we say, “Did they used to be very close friends?” or “Did they use to be very close friends?” And for the second, do we say, “Did she used to jog early in the morning?” or “Did she use to jog early in the morning?”

The American English prescription is straightforward: take out the “d” from the verb in “used to” when this form works with the auxiliary verb “did” in negative and interrogative statements. Thus, the correct usage for negative “used to” statements is “They didn’t use to be very close friends,” and for questions, “Did they use to be very close friends?”

12. “The difference between ‘seeing’ and ‘watching’ a movie”

Forum member Sky posted this question in the Forum sometime in 2012: “Do these two sentences have the same meaning? ‘I am seeing a movie tonight.’ ‘I am watching a movie tonight.’ “An American friend of mine said that ‘seeing’ and ‘watching’ aren’t interchangeable at all even in the sense of the two sentences above.

My reply in a subsequent July 2017 Forum posting: I think that strictly speaking, your American friend is correct in saying that the verbs “seeing” and “watching” are not interchangeable in the two sentences you presented. The sense of “I am seeing a movie tonight” is that of going out of one’s way to watch that movie somewhere; one usually has to go to a theater to watch it—as a passive spectator among several others. In contrast, “I am watching a movie tonight” conveys the sense of viewing it on one’s own accord and without going out of one’s way to do so; in this case, viewing it is more likely a solitary act in the privacy of one’s home, perhaps on broadcast television, DVD, or YouTube.

Watch out for the 3rd of this series next Tuesday (February 11, 2025)!