Guide to Grammar and Style -- S

From the Guide to Grammar and Style by Jack Lynch.
Comments are welcome.

Saxon Words.

See Latinate versus Germanic Diction.

Second Person.

See First Person.

Semicolon.

In this century, at least, the semicolon has only two common uses: to separate the items in a list after a colon (as in "The following books will be covered on the midterm: the Odyssey, through book 12; passages from Ovid's Metamorphoses; and the selections from Chaucer"), and to separate two independent clauses in one sentence (as in "Shakespeare's comedies seem natural; his tragedies seem forced"). The first is obvious enough. For the second use, a simple test is this: if you can use a period and a new sentence, you can use a semicolon. In this second use, the semicolon can always be replaced by a period and a new sentence. In the example, "Shakespeare's comedies seem natural. His tragedies seem forced" is correct, so a semicolon can be used. It's unsafe to use a semicolon anywhere else.

Sentences.

A sentence should contain one idea, though that can be a complex or compound idea. The most obscure sentences in academic writing are sentences filled to bursting. If your writing lacks clarity, check to see if a long, bad sentence might make two short, good ones.

This isn't to say that all sentences should be short. Long sentences add variety, and some ideas are too complicated to fit into seven words. But don't turn your simple ideas into monstrous sentences, devouring line after line without mercy. One idea, one sentence.

Sentence Fragments.

A sentence fragment is a group of words passing itself off as a sentence without having a subject and a verb. Like this. Which is a bad habit. Picked up from advertising. Not for formal writing.

Serial Comma.

See Commas.

Sexist Language and the Indefinite Third Person.

The movement away from potentially sexist language has been a mixed blessing. It has replaced the obviously exclusionary Workman's Compensation with Worker's Compensation, but it has also produced abominations such as waitperson instead of waiter or waitress. Most of the time it requires only a little sensitivity. But perhaps the most confusing issue is the use of the third person indefinite pronoun, as in "Each student is responsible for revising his/her/their/one's papers." Which pronoun is correct? This is a delicate question, and there is no one solution.

Each student is singular -- the is instead of are proves it -- so the colloquial their (a plural) doesn't agree with the verb, and is not grammatically correct. We use this often in speaking -- "A friend of mine called me." "What did they say?" -- but, although many writers have used it (see examples from Jane Austen), it often makes for bad formal writing today.

English once had an indefinite third person pronoun, one, that helped out in certain situations; but "One should do this" sounds too much like British royalty for informal writing, and the word has fallen out of general American use.

Some people now advocate a new set of gender-neutral personal pronouns: favorite sets are sie, hir, and hirs; zie, zir, and zirs; and ey, em, eir, and eirs. I find such neologisms merely irritating. Besides, readers who haven't yet been taught the code will have no idea what zirs means.

. . . Leaving his and her, or some combination of the two. "Each student is responsible for revising his papers" is the traditional usage, and assumes the masculine pronoun stands for everyone, but to some readers it suggests male chauvinism. "Each student is responsible for revising her papers" is another possibility, though it can sound patronizing (matronizing?) and seem to beat the reader over the head. "Each student is responsible for revising his or her papers" or "his/her papers" are grammatical and nonsexist, but become positively clumsy after fifteen or twenty appearances.

There are several ways out. One is to mix the occasional his or her together with his's and her's separately; this cuts down on suggestions of sexism without making your writing clumsy. Another is to use his sometimes, her at other times, although this doesn't feel natural to most writers (yet). Finally, you can avoid the problem altogether and make your subject plural whenever possible: "All students are responsible for revising their papers." (There's nothing wrong with recasting a sentence to dodge a problem.)

Ol' Doc Jack's advice: avoid their with singular subjects in writing, and shy away from his/her (see Slashes). His or her is probably the best solution, although you should work to avoid very clumsy sentences.

See Each and Every for singular nouns that require attention, and see a short piece by Carolyn Jacobson on Gender-Neutral Language. There's also a Web page devoted to Gender-Neutral Pronoun Frequently Asked Questions (GNP FAQ).

Shall versus Will.

There is an old distinction, more common in British than in American English, but which comes up from time to time. To wit: will is usually the simple future indicative: "this will happen," "you will be surprised." Shall is related to the subjunctive, and means "let it be so," which you might see in legal or business writing: "The employee shall produce all required documentation," "A committee shall be appointed," and so forth. (They're not just predicting that the employee's going to do it or the committee is going to form; they're declaring that they must, or at least should, happen.) But this rule works only for the second person (you) and the third person (he, she, it, they). The first person -- I and we -- reverses the rule, so "I shall do it" means I'm going to get around to it, while "I will do it" shows your mustering your resolve (let it be so).

A favorite example to clarify the two: "I shall drown, no one will save me!" is a cry of despair, simply predicting imminent death -- both are simple futures. "I will drown, no one shall save me!" is a suicide vow, a declaration that no one had better try to stop me.

I know, it's confusing, but it's nothing to worry about. Just don't throw shall around unless you know what you're doing.

Slashes.

Slashes are far too common, and almost always betray a lazy thinker: by yoking two words together with a slash, the writer tells us the words are related, but he doesn't know how. Replace the slash with and or or. In a phrase such as "Gulliver encounters people much bigger/smaller than he is," write "Gulliver encounters people much bigger or smaller than he is." Instead of his/her, write his or her. See And/Or.

So.

Avoid using "so" as an intensifier, as in "It's so hot," unless there's a that clause (though the word "that" needn't appear in less formal writing): "It's so hot that the asphalt is melting," "It's so hot I'm thinking of moving to Siberia." "So" on its own, where "very" belongs, is a no-no. [Entry added 11 July 1999]

So as to.

Often the word "to" alone will do the trick.

Spelling Checkers.

The spelling checkers built into most word processors leave a lot to be desired, but they're not all bad. Whereas grammar checkers tend to give at least as much bad advice as good, spelling checkers are usually right when they tell you a word is misspelled (only names and rare words are likely to be stopped incorrectly). The problem, though, isn't false positives, but false negatives -- when the spelling checker tells you something is right when it isn't. If you type to instead of too, the spelling checker will let it slip right through, since both are legitimate words. Typos are merely venial sins, but if you have any question about the meaning or usage of a word, use a real dictionary, not a spelling checker.

So there's nothing wrong with using a spelling checker to spot slips of the fingers. Just remember that a computerized spelling checker doesn't absolve you from the need to proofread everything carefully.

Split Infinitive.

An infinitive is the form of a verb that comes after to, as in to support or to write. A split infinitive -- a favorite bugbear of the traditionalists -- occurs when another word comes between the to and the verb. Some people prefer to keep the to next to the verb at all times, and though grammar experts are divided over this rule, it's probably better to avoid split infinitives whenever possible. Instead of "Matt seems to always do it that way," try "Matt always seems to do it that way."

Adverbs often insinuate themselves between the to and the verb, as in "To boldly go where no man has gone before," or "To always keep a watch on your bag."

Don't let split infinitives become an obsession; there are times when split infinitives are clearer or more graceful than their ostensibly more grammatical cousins.

Subjunctives.

Anyone who's studied a foreign language will be glad that English has almost entirely lost the subjunctive it once had. Grammarians have a hard time defining subjunctive; don't worry if you don't follow.

Unlike the indicative, which indicates that something is true, the subjunctive expresses a wish, a command, or a condition contrary to fact. Archaic English is full of subjunctives, as in "Would that it were" and "Thou shalt not."

The English subjunctive still shows up in a few places, most often in conditions contrary to fact, where we use were instead of is: "If this were any heavier [but it's not -- a condition contrary to fact], I couldn't lift it"; "If she were to say that [but she's not], I'd leave."

Some also classify shall as a subjunctive (see Shall versus Will).