Errors That Aren't: 12 Grammar Rules You Can Toss Out the Window
by Martha Brockenbrough
In an uncertain world, it's nice to be sure of a few things:
• Socks go on before shoes, and underwear, before pants;
• An apple, when dropped, will fall toward the earth; and
• It's a crime to start a sentence with a conjunction, or end one with a preposition.
There's a bit of a problem, though, at least when it comes to the so-called certainties of grammar.
Despite the insistence of teachers, starchy bosses, and more than a few well-meaning nuns, certain rules of grammar aren't actually rules at all. They're myths, the Loch Ness Monster of language foisted upon us, many times for reasons unknown.
The declarations against starting sentences with conjunctions and ending sentences with prepositions are two fine examples. And of course, there are quite a few more.
It can be upsetting to realize these solemn rules of writing don't exist, sort of like figuring out Santa and your mother have the same handwriting.
I still remember the time my high-school English teacher put a disapproving check mark beside a split infinitive, and the time a college-writing instructor told me not to use "like" as a conjunction. Those corrections are among my most vivid school memories, and in the years that followed, I took care not to make the same mistakes in my writing.
And now, I must accept that those instructional gems were fake.
At best, many commonly passed-down "rules" might politely be called convention. But even that's shaky, because crafty dictionary users can always dig up examples where respected writers have departed with said convention for literally hundreds of years.
That, alone, isn't a reason to discard a rule, of course. After all, people have been killing each other for millennia, and it's still not OK. Or, to use a less extreme example: Just because your grandfather did something one way doesn't mean he did it the right way simply because he was born before you.
The truth is that writers--even great, dead ones--sometimes make grammatical errors.
In Pride and Prejudice, for example, Jane Austen's narrator says, "Every body declared that he [Wickham] was the wickedest young man in the world; and every body began to find out that they had always distrusted the appearance of his goodness."
To be correct, she should have written "and people began to find out that they had always distrusted the appearance of his goodness."
This doesn't mean Jane Austen was anything less than a brilliant writer. Grammar is important, but it's not the hallmark of great writing. Rather, it's a tool to help us express ourselves and understand others.
It's what separates "Let's eat children!" from "Let's eat, children!" (If you can't see the difference there, please do not invite me to your house for dinner.)
Where rules help us say what we mean, they're worth learning and obeying. Where they get in the way and twist our syntax--or worse, change the meaning of a sentence--they should be rejected. Here are 12 grammatical "errors" that aren't actually wrong, according to my own judgment, and that of a variety of experts, including:
• Patricia T. O'Conner (Woe is I),
• Paul Brians (Common Errors in English Usage, and his Washington State University Web site),
• Ronald Wardhaugh (Proper English: Myths and Misunderstandings about Language), and
• Mark Liberman and Geoffrey K Pullum (Far from the Madding Gerund).
It Ain't So No. 1: It's wrong to end a sentence with a preposition.
The suffix pre means "before." This is perhaps where people got the idea that a "pre-position" couldn't be positioned last in the sentence. It's just not true, though. Even Shakespeare did it.
There are certain times, though, when it's ugly to do this. "Where's he at?" is one of those times. "Where is he?" is better form.
It Ain't So No. 2: You are not to split your infinitives.
The Roman Empire is long gone, but Latin's luster remains to a surprising degree. The ban on split infinitives--those "to-plus-a-verb phrases"--owes its existence to the idea that Latin grammar is superior to English.
Balderdash.
In Latin, you can't split infinitives because they're one word. In English, infinitives are two words, and it's not only fine to split them, it's sometimes necessary for the sake of clarity.
As Patricia T. O'Conner puts it in her book, Woe is I, there really is no other way to say "To more than double" your rent without splitting the infinitive. The landlord "expects more than to double your rent" just doesn't fly.
It Ain't So No. 3: Use "that" with restrictive clauses, "which" with nonrestrictive clauses.
I fed the dog that barked.
I fed the dog, which barked.
These two sentences have almost identical words, but their meanings are slightly different. The first one is restrictive--the only dog I fed is the one that barked. In the second sentence, the barking is incidental. It's not essential to the meaning of the sentence. Some people, including many publications, insist that writers use "that" with restrictive phrases (those not set off by commas), and "which" with nonrestrictive ones. It's not wrong to do this, and there is a certain amount of elegance to making that distinction.
But, you can say "I fed the dog which barked" and still be correct. It sounds a bit more pompous, but it's not wrong, not if we're to go by the example of many accomplished writers.
That said, it's not correct to write, "I fed the dog, that barked." "Which" can go both ways, but "that" can't.
It Ain't So No. 4: It's wrong to start a sentence with "and" or "but."
Writers have been doing this for more than 1,000 years, despite the hand-waving of frantic English teachers. And they're going to keep on doing it. I could have used a comma between the "teachers" and the "and," but the period gives a longer pause and more emphasis on the second sentence.
The conjunction still links the two ideas together; they just happen to be two sentences instead of one. It's fine to do with good reason, but your writing will be choppy if you do it too much.
It Ain't So No. 5: Don't say "hopefully." Say "I'm hopeful" or "It is hoped."
While many people still avoid the technical misuse of "hopefully," it's misused often enough that it sounds a bit stilted to say "I'm hopeful," and even worse to say, "It is hoped."
Language does evolve, and this is one of those cases where the incorrect use has won out. It doesn't mean you have to say "hopefully" yourself, but holding out the hope and expectation that people will stop doing this is the equivalent of being outraged that people are no longer holding up their socks with garters.
It Ain't So, No. 6: Thou shalt not say healthy food.
Extreme language purists still insist that we describe nutritious food as "healthful." But if you don't want to sound as though you've just snapped on a fresh pair of sock-garters, you don't have to. It's fine to describe food as being "healthy." That said, the two words are not interchangeable. As Bill Walsh points out in Elephants of Style, a "healthy" appetite is not always "healthful."
It Ain't So No. 7: None comes from "not one" or "no one," and is therefore always singular.
Actually, it just might have come from "not any of them," which is plural. "None" is very often plural. None of the sorority girls have hair, for example. If you're talking about something that can't be divided into units, then make it singular. None of their hair is real.
Another way to remember: If "of it" could be swapped in for whatever follows "none," use the singular. If "of them" could be swapped in, use the plural.
It Ain't So No. 8: "Since" must always refer to time.
Many people are under the impression they cannot correctly use "since" as a synonym for "because." That's crazy-talk, because it's been used this way since at least 1450. While it's nice to keep distinctions of meaning between words, it's not a crime against language to use "since" for "because," even if you can't use "because" for "since." Like healthful and healthy, and which and that, they can be synonyms even if they're not interchangeable.
It Ain't So, No. 9: Don't use "like" as a conjunction.
Is it wrong to say, "I feel like a million bucks"? Or is it better to say, "I feel as though I am worth a million bucks"? If you were to say the latter, anyone in earshot would be perfectly justified in making fun of you. It's been used as a conjunction since at least 1200, according to the Oxford English Dictionary [OED]. That said, many people--such as my college writing teacher--bristle at this usage. In formal contexts, this is a rule worth obeying, just so people don't think you're a rube.
It Ain't So, No. 10: When answering the phone, you must say, "This is I" or "This is she."
"It is I," and "This is she" are two phrases that reek of eau de pomposity. At least 400 years before Shakespeare wrote "O, Woe is me," we've used that particular expression in English. That's ample precedent.
Where you do want to be careful, though, is with sentences such as this: "He likes chocolate more than me." Do you mean he likes chocolate more than you do? Or he likes chocolate more than he likes you?
If he prefers you to chocolate, then you're better off saying, "He likes chocolate more than I do." If you're second in his heart, well, here: Have some chocolate. It'll make you feel better.
It Ain't So No. 11: You must always use "whom" when it's the object of a sentence.
Remember that Noah Webster guy? The one who wrote the first dictionary of American English? Even way back when, he had the sense to advocate "Who did you speak to?" over "Whom did you speak to?" Sometimes, "whom" is just a bit too stuffy. This doesn't mean it's not nice to know the rule--use "who" as the subject of the sentence, and "whom" as an object--but you can break this rule on occasion with Mr. Webster's blessing.
It Ain't So No. 12: Ain't isn't a word.
It is. Right here, see? And it isn't just a lower-class expression; once upon a time it was an upper-class colloquialism the OED reports--the cousin of won't, don't, can't and shan't. Keep it to music lyrics, musical titles, and appropriate rhetorical sprees. Even with its centuries-long pedigree, it just ain't a word to bring with you to fancy places.
