The Great Big Grammar Help Thread

[Willravel]

Calling all grammar nazis!!!

Didn't see one of these, and as someone who reads better than he writes, I will need help from the talented TFP crowd.

Let us say you want to refer to a couple in which one party, the wife has a hyphenated last name (ex: Jane James-Smith). Would it be John and Jane James-Smith, John Smith and Jane James-Smith, or John and Jane (James) Smith? I used the first and was corrected with the last, but now I think it may be the second.

Any help would be appreciated!

[Cynthetiq]

My answer isn't from grammar but from wedding invitation ettiquette.

Use both full names John Smith and Jane James-Smith.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

My answer isn't from grammar but from wedding invitation ettiquette.

Use both full names John Smith and Jane James-Smith.

This makes the most sense to me.

[The_Jazz]

Cynthetiq is correct. It is both full names.

He's also correct that this isn't a grammar question; it is an ettiquette question.

[Sultana]

Well done!

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

My answer isn't from grammar but from wedding invitation ettiquette.

Use both full names John Smith and Jane James-Smith.

Treat it like she's completely kept her maiden name.

willravel = bridezilla?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Treat it like she's completely kept her maiden name.

willravel = bridezilla?

It was an anniversary celebration note for a company newsletter. I was just pissed because I was read the riot act (by a third party) over something I'm pretty sure the person was wrong about. I've checked with the couple and they don't care either way.

[vanblah]

Slight threadjack: I hate hyphenated last names -- at least from a practical viewpoint.

I am responsible for creating accounts (email and network access) where I work. Our policy is "lastname + first initial" for account names (John Smith = smithj@company.com).

We had a couple of names this year that give me carpal tunnel pain just thinking about them. We are talking compound, hyphenated loooong last names; for example: John Van Crackengeshenckmeyer-Del Rio de Loco is vancrackengeshenckmeyer-delriodelocoj@company.com. OK, so that is a little extreme but you get the point.

Rather than hyphenate your last name because you are so progressive and don't want the woman to lose her identity how 'bout being REALLY uber-progressive and don't change your last name at all? Or better yet, be as hip as humanly possible and take a few letters from each of your last names to create a new one! We have a married couple here who did that.

Sorry about the threadjack ... and yeah: when in doubt refer to both parties by the full name.

[ShaniFaye]

Another county heard from.....from an etiquette stand point you did it correctly, tell the naysayers to stop smoking crack and go read Mrs. Manners or something

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by vanblah

Slight threadjack: I hate hyphenated last names -- at least from a practical viewpoint.

I am responsible for creating accounts (email and network access) where I work. Our policy is "lastname + first initial" for account names (John Smith = smithj@company.com).

We had a couple of names this year that give me carpal tunnel pain just thinking about them. We are talking compound, hyphenated loooong last names; for example: John Van Crackengeshenckmeyer-Del Rio de Loco is vancrackengeshenckmeyer-delriodelocoj@company.com. OK, so that is a little extreme but you get the point.

Rather than hyphenate your last name because you are so progressive and don't want the woman to lose her identity how 'bout being REALLY uber-progressive and don't change your last name at all? Or better yet, be as hip as humanly possible and take a few letters from each of your last names to create a new one! We have a married couple here who did that.

Sorry about the threadjack ... and yeah: when in doubt refer to both parties by the full name.

I couldn't agree more. The hyphen seems totally superfluous.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

My answer isn't from grammar but from wedding invitation ettiquette.

Use both full names John Smith and Jane James-Smith.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

He's also correct that this isn't a grammar question; it is an ettiquette question.

Actually, it would be both a question of grammar and etiquette.

The error of writing "John and Jane James-Smith" is a syntactic error that suggests to the reader that both John's and Jane's last name is James-Smith, when, in fact, it is only Jane's.

It is a similar error as this: "It suggests to the reader that John and Jane's last name is James-Smith." Here, I have erroneously attributed the last name in question as belonging to both John and Jane by default. It is only by adding the second ['s] do I indicate John's and Jane's last names independent of each other.

[roachboy]

i have a hyphenated last name.
it made sense at the time.
problem is that all my academic credentials are in that name, but the marriage that spawned it is no more.
so it's kind of a pain in the ass now.
that is all.

i dont have anything to add to the grammar/etiquette question beyond saying that baraka guru is correct.

[Elphaba]

Hubby hyphenated my name without asking. Uh, no thanks...I'll keep my maiden name and you can keep your maiden name.

Had we spawned, however, I would have followed the European tradition of having my last name as the child's middle name (no hyphenation). Poor kid had that happened.

...and baraka guru is correct.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Hubby hyphenated my name without asking. Uh, no thanks...I'll keep my maiden name and you can keep your maiden name.

Had we spawned, however, I would have followed the European tradition of having my last name as the child's middle name (no hyphenation). Poor kid had that happened.

...and baraka guru is correct.

That's what I'm going to do to my kids...really. I'm planning on changing my name to [first name][middle name][maiden name][married name].

My brother's middle name is my mother's maiden name. I was going to have her maiden name added to my middle names when I was younger but never got around to it. It will probably be the middle name of one of my children, because my mother only has sisters.

Yes, this is more of an etiquette question than a grammar question, as none of the grammar or writing classes I've had to take (and as an English major I've had to take more than a few) have dealt with this subject. I think the only class that might mention this is business writing or technical writing, both of which teach students how to draft business-oriented correspondence.

And cynthetiq is correct.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

Yes, this is more of an etiquette question than a grammar question, as none of the grammar or writing classes I've had to take (and as an English major I've had to take more than a few) have dealt with this subject. I think the only class that might mention this is business writing or technical writing, both of which teach students how to draft business-oriented correspondence.

I didn't want to get too technical, but willravel's problem was essentially a problem of grammar that would cause an etiquette problem: it is basically a case of subject confusion. It is rooted in the syntax of the phrasing (syntax refers to order of words and other parts of a phrase, ordered logically to attain certain meaning). In this case, the syntax confusion occurs when we are uncertain of John's last name because it doesn't appear directly after his first name. And with the wrong phrasing, his last name will appear to be the exact same as Jane's. To avoid this is a logical problem (i.e. a problem of grammar).

Now if you meant it was mainly a question of etiquette because of the consequences of being incorrect, then fine, I agree with that.

But for the record, willravel was recruiting grammar nazis.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

I didn't want to get too technical, but willravel's problem was essentially a problem of grammar that would cause an etiquette problem: it is basically a case of subject confusion. It is rooted in the syntax of the phrasing (syntax refers to order of words and other parts of a phrase, ordered logically to attain certain meaning). In this case, the syntax confusion occurs when we are uncertain of John's last name because it doesn't appear directly after his first name. And with the wrong phrasing, his last name will appear to be the exact same as Jane's. To avoid this is a logical problem (i.e. a problem of grammar).

Now if you meant it was mainly a question of etiquette because of the consequences of being incorrect, then fine, I agree with that.

But for the record, willravel was recruiting grammar nazis.

Yes, yes, I see what you're saying. But what I'm telling you is that you will never learn this in a grammar class. And yes, I know what syntax is. I hope, for God's sake, that I've at least learned that in seven years of university.

Above all else, I can be a very strict grammarian. My significant other has the scars to prove it.

[Midnight]

Sorry, I have to chime in here... I'm a hyphenated woman.

*evil grin*

I had every intention of keeping my maiden name when I married.
My husband became so completely infuriated by this, that I created a legal nightmare for myself, leaving my social security card in my maiden name, but changing my drivers lisc to my married name (when he quite literally DRAGGED me into the DMV and started to create a very loud disturbance about it, in public. it was easier to change my name to his last name on my lisc than to deal with the impending bellowing. )
and having legal papers in both names, I proceeded to go by Ms. *first name* *my maiden name* - *his last name* for anything requiring my signature.

to introduce my husband (EX) and myself, it would be correct to say (using the above example names) "Ah Bob! Have you met my friends John Smith and his wife Jane James-Smith?"

a wedding invitation (and your newsletter) would correctly refer to us as:

Mr. John Smith and Ms. Jane James-Smith

Hope that helps!

[Baraka_Guru]

I want to revive this thread because I think it had a bit of a false start. Maybe I will think of a few tips every now and then for general help.

For those who don't know, grammar is a part of my job. I'm a book editor. I would like to go just beyond grammar in this thread too. Let's get into word usage as well.

I thought of the following word because I caught myself misusing it. The word is invest. I just posted in a thread about Wii Fit. I initially typed the following: "I would invest in the white pad thingy if...." The problem? Well, the white pad thingy would not be an investment. An investment is the purchase of a product or service from which you intend to make a return (a financial one). People misuse invest all the time....

"I invested in a bicycle so I will get into shape."
"I invested in the Playstation 3 because it's the best system out there."
"I need to invest in a new computer; the one I have now is getting pretty slow."
"I think that car was a good investment; now I can go anywhere I want, when I want."

These are all poor word choices. Bought, buy, and purchase would be more suitable. The items in the examples above aren't investments because they won't likely increase in value; they will almost certainly decrease. Also notice that the reasons for the purchases have nothing to do with any return on investment (ROI)—they were for other, more qualified reasons.

Don't take the word invest for granted. I would go into detail about the difference between invest and speculate, but that is more a topic for a finance thread.

[Willravel]

Investment does not necessarily mean a monetary return. Investing in a bike can have a return in better health. Actually, it can have a return in one realizing the opportunity cost of using a car fueled by gas.

[Redlemon]

I'm going to have to side with Willravel on "invest". The online dictionary even includes "To spend or devote for future advantage or benefit: invested much time and energy in getting a good education" as the second definition.

[Baraka_Guru]

I'm not going to say the usage is wrong; it's just informal compared to other choices. My suggestions in this thread won't typically refer to the colloquial use of language unless I want to directly address that. After all, this is a thread on grammar, and we have already made references to grammar nazis.

I strongly suggest avoiding this use of invest in writing other than that used in email, forums, instant messaging, text messaging, and other informal platforms.

[Willravel]

"I invested in a treadmill." Non-monetary, still completely correct.

[Martian]

But decidedly informal. It's a very slangy use of the word and wouldn't belong in any sort of formal communication.

I tend to think of grammar rules as context specific, and therefore don't get worked up about things like that within informal settings.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Willravel

"I invested in a treadmill." Non-monetary, still completely correct.

Informally, yes. Formally, it would be more correct to say "I purchased a treadmill."

If you invested in a treadmill, you'd better be operating a gym, or you might not get your capital back.

Even in a business sense, if I obtained equipment of any kind for operation purposes, it would be considered a capital expenditure. Though some accountants would call it a capital investment. It would be an "investment" if it were land and you were expecting it to appreciate. But if it were equipment, it would depreciate and would be more of an expenditure (even though you use it to benefit the company...using it to make money).

Originally Posted by Martian

I tend to think of grammar rules as context specific, and therefore don't get worked up about things like that within informal settings.

This is the key, and there are many levels within "formal" and "informal."

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Informally, yes. Formally, it would be more correct to say "I purchased a treadmill."

It's not talking about the purchase, but the intended benefit. The physical benefit.

As Redlemon pointed out, even the dictionary demonstrates that "investment" does not always refer to a monetary investment. It's more about an intended beneficial outcome after spending or devoting something now. As such, it's entirely proper.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's not talking about the purchase, but the intended benefit. The physical benefit.

As Redlemon pointed out, even the dictionary demonstrates that "investment" does not always refer to a monetary investment. It's more about an intended beneficial outcome after spending or devoting something now. As such, it's entirely proper.

Again, it's entirely proper....informally. The OED will tell you that specifically. The use of "investment" that you champion is a legitimate use of the word, but it is a poor choice if you were writing an essay, thesis, or business article in a prestigious magazine or journal.

What we are specifically debating here is the substitution of invest with buy. There are a few other uses of the word invest, but here it is informal and should be avoided in formal writing. Don't write invest when you really mean buy. The reader might take this as the writer being pretentious, which is to be avoided. In your case, you can virtually discard the word buy, as it can be argued that we buy things for an intended benefit pretty much every time we spend money. We wouldn't buy anything otherwise. (Of course, there are exceptions, depending on your spending habits.) This is why I consider this use of invest to be informal. The problem with informal word usage is that it can confuse or otherwise sit awkwardly with the reader. Informal language degrades what would otherwise be good, solid writing.

I have a saying when it comes to word usage: "Why utilize utilize when using use will do?"

[snowy]

For Baraka_Guru's sake, here is the second part of the entry of "invest" in the OED that he is referring to:

II. [after It. investire ‘..also, to laie out or emploie ones money vpon anie bargaine for aduantage’ (Florio, 1598). This sense is exemplified as early as 1333 in Vocab. della Crusca. It prob. passed through the Levant or Turkey Company into the East India Company's use.]

9. a. To employ (money) in the purchase of anything from which interest or profit is expected; now, esp. in the purchase of property, stocks, shares, etc., in order to hold these for the sake of the interest, dividends, or profits accruing from them.

b. absol. or intr. To make an investment, to invest capital; colloq. to lay out money, make a purchase. (So in It.)

c. To lay out money in betting on a horse race, or in football pools, etc.

Hope it clarifies his point for some of you; as you can see, the OED defines that particular usage of "invest" as a colloquialism, which as Baraka suggests, is a big no-no in serious writing.

[ipollux]

I work at a newspaper where in addition to reporting, I have to write obituaries and type wedding announcements.

That said, in a situation like yours, our format is to use the full name for both.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Again, it's entirely proper....informally. The OED will tell you that specifically. The use of "investment" that you champion is a legitimate use of the word, but it is a poor choice if you were writing an essay, thesis, or business article in a prestigious magazine or journal.

What we are specifically debating here is the substitution of invest with buy. There are a few other uses of the word invest, but here it is informal and should be avoided in formal writing. Don't write invest when you really mean buy. The reader might take this as the writer being pretentious, which is to be avoided. In your case, you can virtually discard the word buy, as it can be argued that we buy things for an intended benefit pretty much every time we spend money. We wouldn't buy anything otherwise. (Of course, there are exceptions, depending on your spending habits.) This is why I consider this use of invest to be informal. The problem with informal word usage is that it can confuse or otherwise sit awkwardly with the reader. Informal language degrades what would otherwise be good, solid writing.

I have a saying when it comes to word usage: "Why utilize utilize when using use will do?"

I'd even take it to mean that people forget that they are BUYING something, and thus when they don't get the intended investment benefit, they investment was wasted, and it is returns to just a purchase.

In simplest terms the idea of investment has become an marketing tool word to the tune of the mass market media control thread.

In continuing the analogy if the person invests in a treadmill to lose weight, when they do not lose the weight, the investment return is zero. So it was a bad investment.

Further, there are times where I've stopped listening when people use the investment track to convince themselves that the purchase they will make is actually something that they need more than they want. Using the word invest makes them feel like they are getting an additional benefit, when in reality, they are not.

[Baraka_Guru]

"Who" vs. "That" is another common error I'd like to point out.

It's quite simple, really. If the subject is a person, use "who"; if the subject isn't a person, use "that."

Examples:
She is the one who likes to dance. NOT: She is the one that likes to dance.

He works for the company that makes the BlackBerry. NOT: He works for the company who makes the BlackBerry.

[jorgelito]

On Investment: One could say, "I bought a treadmill as an investment in my health."

Who, whom, who's, whose are also frequently used incorrectly. Take it away Baraka.

Great post by the way Baraka, great idea.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Who, whom, who's, whose are also frequently used incorrectly.

This is a bit more confusing than "who" and "that." I can understand how some can get these mixed up. But there is an easy way to remember the difference.

1) To whom am I speaking?
2) Who's speaking?
3) Whose phone is it?

i) You are speaking to him.
ii) He is speaking.
iii) It's his phone.

Notes: If you recast (i.e. answer) the sentence and the form ends up being "him" or "her," then the proper word is whom. If the form ends up "he" or "she," then the proper word is who. (Or "them" and "they" respectively.)

"Whose" is used in possessive cases. (i.e. "To whom does it belong?" NOT "Who does it belong to?")—"Whose is it?"

[jorgelito]

I strongly suggest for people to purchase a copy of Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" as an investment in personal education and betterment of themselves. This book should really be on every student's syllabus and in every home. I highly recommend it.

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I strongly suggest for people to purchase a copy of Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" as an investment in personal education and betterment of themselves. This book should really be on every student's syllabus and in every home. I highly recommend it.

Seconded. I carry my copy with me. It's not just for students; it's for all writers.

What's one good thing about it? It's thin.

[snowy]

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Seconded. I carry my copy with me. It's not just for students; it's for all writers.

What's one good thing about it? It's thin.

Personally, I want this edition for my coffee table:

[Baraka_Guru]

*swn*

[Baraka_Guru]

I see this error quite a bit. It's common, so don't feel so bad if you do it all the time.

When speaking about a hypothetical situation, it's easy to use the wrong form of be:

"If it was my idea, I would have made it a reality by now."

In this sentence, the speaker is speaking hypothetically. Perhaps they are speculating on how they would have handled a situation differently from someone else.

The sentence may look correct, but it should be as follows:

"If it were my idea, I would have made it a reality by now."

When speaking this way, it is more correct to use were to imply that it wasn't, in fact, your idea, but someone else's. To use was implies that it might or might not have been your idea at one point, but someone might (or might not) have stolen it from you.

By using were, you are speaking speculatively. You are thinking about how you would have handled the situation differently if it were* you instead of someone else.

*as opposed to was

[dd3953]

So, I was just about to write a blog when a question came to me and look at this, I found a grammar thread!

Here is my question(s): Is 'sometimes' or 'sometime' words? can they be written like that all the time or just some of the time? Or is it always 'some times' and 'some time.'

[Jetée]

Originally Posted by dd3953

So, I was just about to write a blog when a question came to me and look at this, I found a grammar thread!

Here is my question(s): Is 'sometimes' or 'sometime' words? can they be written like that all the time or just some of the time? Or is it always 'some times' and 'some time.'

Both of the featured phrases, are, indeed, words.

There are some minute differences between the two, and their usages in different English-speaking countries (mainly the UK, Canadia, and Hong Kong, among a few others), but the two (maybe four) phrases are essentially interchangeable and still correct in grammar terms, though there are preferences for some.

sometime
courtesy of the The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

adv.

1. At an indefinite or unstated time: I'll meet you sometime this afternoon.
2. At an indefinite time in the future: Let's get together sometime.
3. Obsolete. Sometimes.
4. Archaic. Formerly.

adj.

1. Having been at some prior time; former: a sometime secretary.
2. Usage Problem. Occasional.

USAGE NOTE Sometime as an adjective has been employed to mean "former" since the 15th century. Since the 1930s, people have used it to mean "occasional": the team's sometime star and sometime problem child. This latter use, however, is unacceptable to a majority of the Usage Panel. See Usage Notes at someday.

---------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:56 PM ----------

--------------------

Now, as to my inquiry:
Is there a key participle, article or preposition I should be aware of that more easily helps one identify when and where to properly use the word 'whom'?

[Baraka_Guru]

Originally Posted by Jetée

Now, as to my inquiry:
Is there a key participle, article or preposition I should be aware of that more easily helps one identify when and where to properly use the word 'whom'?

Have you read post 32 yet?