Мы предлагаем всем нашим посетителям бесплатные онлайн уроки английского языка.
Они расчитаны на продвинутый уровень владения иностранным языком.
Уроки обновляются не реже чем 2 раза в месяц.

Данный учебный модуль является полностью автоматизированным и будет полезен вольнум слушателям.

Writing Guide http://www.englishrules.com/writing/ http://www.englishrules.com/writing/ http://www.englishrules.com/images/banners/erlogo.jpg Writing Guide Full Posts en-us 2009-02-25T14:40:38-05:00 hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 The End http://www.englishrules.com/writing/2009/the-end.php

I'm sure this comes as no surprise to anyone who has visited the writing guide here before, but I'd like to make official what has been painfully obvious for too long: this little experiment of a writing guide has come to an end.

It has been nearly 2 1/2 years since I last posted an entry here, and I have neither the time nor the motivation to post another any time soon. My interests, along with my profession, have changed quite a bit in the last five years, and I no longer feel qualified to make any kind of authoritative pronouncement about the English language. The entries will remain available for viewing, but comments will be closed. I've enjoyed seeing the discussion that a few of the entries have generated, but I'm afraid that leaving comments open invites the expectation that I will answer the questions of anyone who happens to ask. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to those discussions.

To those looking for help with English grammar, style, and usage, I hope you can find an answer in one of the previously posted entries or on another website.

Best wishes,

Karl Swedberg

Someone recently sent me an email asking about the proper use of who and that:

When followed by a verb, how does one know when to say "who" and when to say "that"? Ex: The lady that jumped on the couch or The lady who jumped on the couch?

I prefer to use who when referring to people, but that is merely a preference. My favorite online source for such usage questions, The American Heritage Book of English Usage, explains:

that instead of who

The man that wanted to talk to you just called back. Some people say that you can only use who and not that to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. But that has been used in this way for centuries. It is a quintessential English usage, going back to the Old English period, and has been used by our best writers. So it is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you.

You can read more about such pronoun issues in The American Heritage Book of English Usage at bartleby.com

I just got a very nice note from Andrew, who asked a good usage question:

Hi! I love reading your answers to the grammar questions. Recently, I got into a debate about 'lit' versus 'lighted'.

I lit a match.
I lighted a candle.

The room was lit by the flame.
The room was lighted by the flame.

Any advice?

Andrew, I do have some advice for you: Use whichever word you like. They're interchangeable both as past tense verbs and as past participles.

The only difference between the two words is that lit can be used to mean drunk, but lighted can't.

Extra Credit

Perhaps the most famous use of "lighted" in its adjectival form is in the title of Ernest Hemingway's short story A Clean Well-Lighted Place.

References

• The Columbia Guide to Standard American English
• The American Heritage Book of English Usage

Here is one of the many questions I've received recently:

I was reading a story in the paper and the writer wrote "He hanged himself." My coworkers and I thought it should be, "He hung himself." Are we all wrong or is the journalist?

Here is my answer:

I'm sorry to report that you are wrong, not the journalist. Pictures can be hung, but people are always hanged. It's an odd quirk of the English language. Here is a usage note on the word "hang" from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Hanged, as a past tense and a past participle of hang, is used in the sense of "to put to death by hanging," as in Frontier courts hanged many a prisoner after a summary trial. A majority of the Usage Panel objects to hung used in this sense. In all other senses of the word, hung is the preferred form as past tense and past participle, as in I hung my child's picture above my desk.

Someone recently wrote in with the following question:

I was recently reading a book that used the word "towards" many times. I have always said, "I went toward the lake." But, in this book the author wrote several sentences such as, "I went towards the lake." The author is a professor of liturature at John Hopkins. So, I'm wondering if I have always been incorrect. On the other hand, English is her second language. So, perhaps I am correct. Or, maybe there are times when it should be plural and others when it should be singular. Please advise.

The good news is that you are both correct. Because the word acts as a preposition, not a noun, adding the "s" doesn't make it plural. Frankly, I don't even know which form I use. It probably depends on the context, how it sounds with the words around it. However, the American Heritage Dictionary of English Usage claims that "toward" is used more often in American English, while "towards" is used more often in British English. So, if you are an American and the author is from outside of the U.S. and presumably learned a form of British English, that would explain why you and she use different forms of the word.

The difference between the American and British version of "toward(s)" follows a general pattern that I've noticed. It seems that when Americans and Brits spell words differently, or use slightly different words to express the same thing, the American version is shorter, leaner, with fewer letters than the more decorative British version:

Please note that this idea of mine is based only on casual observation, so I have no idea if it would hold up to closer scrutiny. Maybe someone will post a comment with either supporting or contrary evidence. That would be nice.

"The question concerns the appropriate use of the words historic and historical. When is one prefered over the other?"

This is a great question, for which the American Heritage Book of English Usage has an excellent answer:

Historic and historical have different usages though their senses overlap. Historic refers to what is important in history: the historic first voyage to the Moon. It is also used of what is famous or interesting because of its association with persons or events in history: a historic house. Historical refers to whatever existed in the past, whether regarded as important or not: a minor historical character. Historical also refers to anything concerned with history or the study of the past: a historical novel, historical discoveries. While these distinctions are useful, don't be surprised if you see these words used interchangeably, as in historic times or historical times.

Question: When do I use "to" or "too"? Example: too difficult or to stay

Answer: The word too has two common meanings: (1) "also" or "besides" and (2) "excessively." Sometimes people use it informally to mean (3) "very."

The word to is used in all other cases—too many for me to describe in detail. Here are the definitions as listed in the American Heritage Dictionary:

prep.

1. a. In a direction toward so as to reach: went to the city. b. Towards: turned to me.
2. a. Reaching as far as: The ocean water was clear all the way to the bottom. b. To the extent or degree of: loved him to distraction. c. With the resultant condition of: nursed her back to health.
3. Toward a given state: helping minority women to economic equality.
4. In contact with; against: their faces pressed to the windows.
5. In front of: stood face to face.
6. Used to indicate appropriation or possession: looked for the top to the jar.
7. Concerning; regarding: waiting for an answer to my letter.
8. In a particular relationship with: The brook runs parallel to the road.
9. As an accompaniment or a complement of: danced to the tune.
10. Composing; constituting: two cups to a pint.
11. In accord with: job responsibilities suited to her abilities.
12. As compared with: a book superior to his others.
13. a. Before: The time is ten to five. b. Up till; until: worked from nine to five.
14. a. For the purpose of: went out to lunch. b. In honor of: a toast to the queen.
15. a. Used before a verb to indicate the infinitive: I'd like to go. b. Used alone when the infinitive is understood: Go if you want to.
16. a. Used to indicate the relationship of a verb with its complement: refer to a dictionary; refer me to a dictionary. b. Used with a reflexive pronoun to indicate exclusivity or separateness: had the plane to ourselves.

adv.

1. In one direction; toward a person or thing: owls with feathers wrong end to.
2. Into a shut or closed position: pushed the door to.
3. Into a state of consciousness: The patient came to.
4. Into a state of action or attentiveness: sat down for lunch and fell to.
5. (Nautical.) Into the wind.

The Question

Which is correct?

1. None of us does
2. None of us do

The Answer

In replying to this question, I can do no better than to quote from the excellent book by Martha Kolln, Rhetorical Grammar:

One special problem occurs with the word none, which has its origin in the phrase not one. Because of that original meaning, many writers insist that none always be singular, as not one clearly is. However, a more accurate way to assess its meaning is to recognize none as the negative, or opposite, of all and to treat it in the same way, with its number determined by the number of the modifier.

Kolln provides a few examples to demonstrate the logic of her claim:

So, in the questioner's example sentence, it appears that the correct version would be the second: "None of us do..."

What do my fellow English geeks out there think?

Selline Odeny asked, "Please tell me about the subject-first and non-subject-first sentence patterns."

Thanks for the request, Selline. I'd love to tell you about these sentence patterns.

While it's true that sentences can begin with a dependent clause in which the beginning word is typically an adverb, I'll be focusing on the main part of the sentence, the independent clause.

Subject First

The most common sentence patterns in English have the subject first, followed by the verb. We first learn who or what the sentence is about, and then we discover what the person or thing does or is.

Non-Subject First

Less common are the sentence patterns that begin with a part of speech other than the subject (as is the case with this sentence, in which the adverb/predicate adjective pair "Less common" comes first). These inverted sentence patterns are used sometimes to delay revealing what the sentence is about and sometimes to create tension or suspense. Still other times, these patterns can be used to connect ideas between sentences more clearly.

Sentence 4, written by Ernest Hemingway, begins with the expletive ("It") and the verb ("was always"), followed by the complement ("pleasant") before finally arriving at the subject ("crossing bridges in Paris"). The sentence rewritten in the conventional subject-verb pattern would look like this: Crossing bridges in Paris was always pleasant.

Extra Credit

A great resource for learning more about the "inverted" sentence patterns, the ones with something other than the subject first, is Scott Rice's Right Words, Right Places, from which I took a few of these examples.

I've received a number of questions about the proper use of shall and will. Unfortunately, this issue is so difficult and convoluted that crafting an answer would take more time than I have at the moment. I usually go with my intuition, realizing that since I live in the United States I'll get away with making a mistake every now and then, as Americans seem to be a lot more relaxed about this rule than the British are.

For those of you who are more concerned about this rule than I am, you may want to read the entries in the following two usage books:

• In the U.S. – The American Heritage Book of English Usage
• In the U.K. – H.W. Fowler's The King's English. Keep in mind, though, that this one is an oldie, published in 1908, so the rules may have changed a bit.

Christina Moore asks, "Should a comma be placed after the last item that comes before the word "and" when listing three or more items in a sentence?"

Unless you are writing for a newspaper or magazine, or for another publication with a style guide that discourages its use, my advice is to use the serial comma.

The main reason for using the serial, or Oxford, comma is that it helps avoid a reader's momentary confusion. The classic example of this confusion, as noted in World Wide Words, comes from an apocryphal book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God." While we can be pretty sure that the author's parents are not Ayn Rand and God, the absence of the comma after "Rand" might make the reader pause or re-read.

In her excellent book Rhetorical Grammar, Martha Kolln claims that the absence of a serial comma "may imply a closer connection than actually exists between the last two elements in the series." She provides an example from The New York Times to demonstrate: "The agricultural and industrial revolutions were accompanied by new plagues, pollutants and weapons of destruction." In this sentence it's easy to see how the reader might think that there are two plagues—pollutants and weapons of destruction. A reader might also interpret the last two elements as being shorthand for "pollutants of destruction and weapons of destruction."

In his poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening," Robert Frost has this terrific line:

These woods are lovely, dark and deep

Here it makes sense to drop the comma before the "and" because Frost is saying that the woods are lovely in that they are dark and deep, rather than saying that the woods are lovely and dark and deep. In other words, the "dark" and "deep" describe the loveliness. Apparently, some poetry anthology editors have added the comma before the "and," even though Frost didn't include it in his published version of the poem. Can you see how that comma subtly changes the meaning of the sentence? Those editors should have left the comma out.

Resources

Here are a few other articles and weblog entries that discuss the serial comma:

• Discriminations: "The New York Times: A Serial Comma Offender"
• Capital Community College: "Rules for Comma Usage"
• World Wide Words: "Oxford Comma"
• Get It Right: "Comma Before 'and'" provides support from legal references for use of the serial comma

Roslyn Hamp asks:

When you write a name with a jr. after the last name, a comma is used. When you write III, do you put a comma after the name:

John Jones, Jr.
John Jones III (is a comma needed)?

You are correct that, at least traditionally, a comma is used with Jr. In fact, if Jr. appears in the middle of a sentence, a comma is used before and after it: "The abbreviations etc. and jr. are always preceded by a comma, and except at the end of a sentence, followed by one." (Strunk and White, The Elements of Style)

To answer your question, though, I'll refer to the Chicago Manual of Style:

Q. John Smith Jr. or John Smith, Jr.? John Smith III or John Smith, III?

A. Traditionally, it would be John Smith, Jr., and John Smith III. But beginning with the fourteenth edition of The Chicago Manual of Style (1993), the recommendation is to use no commas in either case (see paragraph 6.49 of the fifteenth edition):

John Smith Jr.

But please note that within text, if you decide to use the more traditional comma before Jr. or Sr., the function of the comma is to set off these abbreviations, so an additional comma is needed after the abbreviation if the sentence continues (as in my first sentence above).

The New St. Martin's Handbook doesn't recommend one way or the other for Jr., but it does note that writers are leaving the commas out:

Use commas to set off a title such as M.D., Esq., and so on from the name preceding it and from the rest of the sentence. The titles Jr. and Sr., however, are often not set off by commas.

• Jaime Mejia, Ph.D., will speak about his anthropological research.
• Martin Luther King Jr. was one of this century's greatest orators.

So, if you are a traditionalist, use the commas; if you are progressive, don't. As with many matters of grammar and punctuation, the most important thing is to be consistent.

Kanika recently asked, "When do we use 'rather than' and when do we use 'instead of'?"

The short answer is that in most cases, the two phrases are interchangeable, although "rather than" often has a more formal tone than "instead of."

The American Heritage Book of English Usage offers a much lengthier answer:

The phrase rather than consists of an adverb and a conjunction and often means "and not," as in I decided to skip lunch rather than eat in the cafeteria again. It is grammatically similar to sooner than in that it is used with a "bare" infinitive—an infinitive minus to: I would stay here and eat flies sooner than go with them.

Rather than can also be used with nouns as a compound preposition meaning "instead of": I bought a mountain bike rather than a ten-speed. But some people object to this use, insisting that than should be used only as a conjunction. They therefore object to constructions in which rather than is followed by a gerund, as in Rather than buying a new car, I kept my old one.

In some cases, however, rather than can only be followed by a gerund and not by a bare infinitive. If the main verb of the sentence has a form that does not allow parallel treatment of the verb following rather than, you cannot use a bare infinitive, and you must use a gerund. This is often the case when the main verb is in a past tense or has a participle. Thus, you must say The results of the study, rather than ending (not end or ended) the controversy, only added to it. If the main verb was in the present tense (add), you could use the bare infinitive end.

Curiously, when the rather than construction follows the main verb, it can use other verb forms besides the bare infinitive. Thus you can say The results of the study added to the controversy rather than ended it.

The overriding concern in all of this should be to avoid faulty parallels, as in sentences like Rather than buy a new car, I have kept my old one and Rather than take a cab, she is going on foot.

Clearly, it is grammatically defensible to follow rather than with a gerund, but if you prefer to avoid the controversy, use instead of with gerunds.

Simon asks,

I am trying to find information on the use of the sign '&' to replace 'and' in English. When is it acceptable to use this sign? I understood that it could only be used for Proper Nouns, eg. the name of a company 'Fox & Sons Ltd.' but never in a normal sentence such as 'this fees & charges handbook specifies the procedures to be followed.' I'd be happy to know what the rule is.

The ampersand (&) comes from an alteration of and per se and, & (the sign) by itself (means) and. The Associated Press Stylebook says that you should use it when it is part of a company's formal name, but never simply in place of and. Simon seems to have understood correctly.

A couple people have asked me recently about when to use figures for numbers (e.g. "25") and when to spell them out (e.g. "six").

One guideline is to spell out numbers one through nine and use figures for 10 or more. Another (the one I prefer) is to spell out numbers if they can be written as one or two words; otherwise, use figures. There are, however, exceptions to both rules:

• If a sentence begins with a number, either spell it out or rewrite the sentence with the number in a different position.
• Use figures for dates, addresses, percentages, fractions, decimals, scores, statistics, exact amounts of money, and the time.

Style guides disagree about whether you should maintain consistency within a sentence. Also, as Lunsford and Connors wisely note in The New St. Martin's Handbook, "Conventions for expressing numbers vary from field to field, and you will want to make sure you understand the conventions of your own field—and follow them closely."

Resources

• Capital Community College
• A Writer's Reference, Fifth Edition, by Diana Hacker
• The New St. Martin's Handbook by Andrea Lunsford and Robert Connors
• The Associated Press Stylebook

Приступить к занятиям

Узнай свой уровень

Английского языка на Netlanguage

Новостная рассылка

Это интересно

Англо-русский и русско-английский cловарь фразеологизмов, пословиц и поговорок  Рекомедуемые учебные материалы по английскому языку  Уроки английского  Рассказ об Америке

Новости

06.09.07 добавлены еженедельные уроки для учителей  01.09.07 добавлены ежемесячные уроки по грамматике  29.08.07 добавлен список рекомендуемых учебников по английскому языку  25.08.07 добавлен русско-английский словарь пословиц и поговорок

Все права на тексты принадлежат фонду "Магистр" © 2006-2009
Тел.: (495) 234-3842, 236-9823, 225-7624 (круглосуточно) | e-mail: netlanguages@magistre.ru