|
The Grammar Wench 
MCRW's
crankiest member answers questions about commas, verb tense, house styles and
how to get rid of warts. Email grammarwench at mcrw.com and be sure to spell "grammar" correctly! Grammar Wench
articles:
The Grammar Wench's And Then?
And Then? The Grammar Wench's
Appositively Commas
The Grammar Wench's
Contest Judge Series: The Basics
The Grammar Wench's Contest Judge Series:
The Difficult Manuscript The Grammar Wench's Contest Rant
The Grammar Wench's
Dialogue Demo
The Grammar Wench's
Judging Tips
The Grammar Wench's
Punctuating Compound Predicates The
Grammar Wench's Why Present Participial Phrases are Evil
Grammy, What's a Run-on? by the Grammar Wench but not
about grammar per se:
Avoid Being a
Turkey with the Turkey City Lexicon
Maybelle's Archetypes
Dear Grammar Wench,
Sometimes grammar handbooks are useless. In the sentence
from "The Laughing Man," Salinger writes, "I stared at her, then
walked off in the direction..." Should there not be a comma after
"her"? And is "then" used as a coordinated conjunction in
this case if it connects two predicates?
Signed,
Confused
***
Hi there!
My Harbrace says that writers can choose to defy the laws of grammar as long
as they have very good reasons or are, you know, JD Salinger. Most folks would
not raise an eyebrow at that construction.
The comma-then construction is simply everywhere, and frankly, if it came to
using a comma or not using a comma in that sentence, I'd go for the comma.
I'd PRETEND the comma took the place of an understood "and I", just to
help myself through the grief of mispunctuation. I have spoken with
editors who actually think it's CORRECT! I have grown exhausted fighting
it.
But no, then is never a coordinating conjunction.
Sincerely,
GW
Hey Grammar Wench,
I read your article on punctuating compound predicates, and I have a question
for you. Can a modal auxiliary attached to the first verb in a compound
predicate modify the second verb as well? Example:
“Some of this information may see the light of day on security mailing
lists or eventually be disclosed as the result of a post-mortem analysis of a
compromised computer system.”
Do both my verbs agree with the subject in the sentence above?
Cheers,
Eric
***
Eric,
Yes, both verbs agree with the subject. You can also use "may" in
front of eventually if you want your readers to be without doubt that the
disclosure is still up in the air.
Sincerely,
GW
Dear Grammar Wench,
Would it be correct to always begin cover letters to potential editors with
the phrase "I'M A DOUBLE GOLDEN HEART FINALIST!!!!" in red letters?
Signed,
Two of Hearts
***
Dear Two,
Probably not, but if you insert the phrase as a pale grey watermark in the
background of your letter, I think the fact would act on them more subtly.
Signed,
GW
Dear Grammar Wench,
I have an apostrophe problem. Is it "Gwyneth Wells's trial"
or "Gwyneth Wells' trial"?
Signed,
Mad about Possessives
*
Dear Mad,
Either one is correct. "Gwyneth Wells's trial" may look
funny, but it's not wrong. The trick is to be consistent with how you do ALL
possessives of that ilk, not just Gwyneth. The most common way is to add only an
apostrophe to plural nouns ending in -s but to use the 's with
singular nouns, even ones ending in -s or taking a plural-seeming form
(i.e. Wells's). You won't be technically wrong if you always add that 's,
especially to the singular noun.
Of course then there are words like "McDonald's" which are singular
nouns but are already possessive. What do you do in this instance? My
first word of advice would be never go there, because then you won't have to
refer to it unless you're giving directions. My second would be to
rephrase your sentence so you aren't confronted with the issue. Instead of
writing "McDonald's' crappy hamburgers", say "the crappy
hamburgers from McDonald's".
Since this is an issue of house style to an extent, you can verify which your
editor or publisher likes. Some houses want an 's on the end of EVERY
possessive, no matter what comes before it.
Sincerely,
Grammar Wench
|
