Thine Editor Appeareth!pipisafoatDecember 28 2009, 22:59:59 UTC
An excellent article for an all-too-frequent problem! It looks pretty well-written overall, but let's see what sort of improvements we can bring about.
First of all, let's just look at the big picture. Your first two examples ("John hits Carol" and "Carol hits John") could be confusing because they use the same verb and the same two people. I am a fan of keeping the examples similar throughout the article, as you did, but I would mix it up enough to avoid this confusion. Also, because you mention the exception of "personal pronouns," let's try to put something in other than just names. How about something like "John hits the woman. The woman hits her dog."? This is less confusing - there is no concern for non-native speakers that this is the same sentence said two different ways - as well as offering an example that is neither a name nor a personal pronoun.
For your second example, I would recommend putting the personal pronouns in an altered text of some sort - italicized or bolded - to call attention to it. After all, not all readers will know what a personal pronoun is.
In the later examples, the ones involving relative clauses, I would recommend splitting these sentences into two to demonstrate your meaning. Thus, you would have: Carol hit me. Carol hits John. Carol, who hit me, hits John. This should also help demonstrate to what the pronoun is referring, which would further clear up any who/whom confusion.
Like the personal pronoun, the relative pronoun changes based on whether it is a subject or an object. If it is used as a subject, it is who. If it is used as an object, it is whom. So: I think to make this more effective, you should have two examples here. Maybe something like this: Subject: John hit me. John hits Carol. John, who hit me, hits Carol. Object: I hit John. John hits Carol. John, whom I hit, hits Carol.
Because the present and past tense of "to hit" look so similar, I would recommend using another verb to demonstrate. Consider perhaps "to hate" (hates, hated), "to like" (likes, liked), or "to seat" (seats, seated). Catches and caught are also obviously different. Just a thought, and of course feel free to ignore it!
Therefore, the simple trick is to break off the clause, restate it as its own sentence, and see whether a subject pronoun or an object pronoun is right. In the case of the second person pronoun, well … look, if you want to say "you, whom are about to die, will tell me everything about the missing Chagal," I'm not going to complain about your grammar. First of all, I wouldn't use an incorrect example anywhere in an informative article. With my luck, that would be the one thing someone would remember from the article, and all of their whos and whoms would be wrong for the rest of eternity. Also, it's simple enough to pretend the sentence is 3rd person ("she, who is about to die…") and figure out the proper case that way. It would be more helpful to readers to explain that rather than use an incorrect example.
The only time the trick doesn't work is with verbs of being, but that is actually not a case of the trick not working insomuch as it is a case of another rule of grammar interfering. I'm afraid I don't understand this. Verbs of being always require the subjective case (in this example, "who"), don't they?
Re: Thine Editor Appeareth!pipisafoatDecember 28 2009, 23:00:57 UTC
(continued, sorry to be so long-winded)
Now, there are a couple places I would consider changing the wording:
Okay, fine, I'll explain it further, and even teach you a trick so that you can do it without even thinking about the underlying grammar. Because there is not a subject after the and, you need to remove the comma immediately preceding it.
"Who" a relative pronoun. "Who" is a relative pronoun.
Like the personal pronoun, the relative pronoun changes based on whether it is a subject or an object. If it is used as a subject, it is who. If it is used as an object, it is whom. There are just an awful lot of "it is"s around here. I would contract some of them to create a mixture of "it is"s and "it's"s.
The only thing to remember is that it is the relative pronoun's use within the clause that determines whether it is who or whom. Reword for easier accessibility for nonnative speakers/further clarity: The only thing to remember is that the relative pronoun's use within the clause is what determines whether it is who or whom.
"Carol" is the object of the main clause of the sentence. However, in the relative clause, it is the subject ("Carol hit me"), so "who" is appropriate. Here, "it" technically refers to the word "Carol" - I would change it to "the pronoun"
All but the second personal pronoun changes whether it is a subject or an object. For clarity's sake, All personal pronouns but the second change dependent on whether they are subjects or objects.
she/he or him/her?". If she/he, then who. If him/her, then whom. This is just me being neurotic here - Why are we looking at this female/male for subject pronouns and male/female for object pronouns? I personally would like to see this consistent, gender-wise, but I freely admit my neurosis; most people probably wouldn't notice or care.
(If 'it,' well, why are you using who?) Who is that neutered dog? It is Rufus. (but hey, now I'm just being a smartass.)
And this time, that's really it. One last little nitpick - you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction.
Overall, well-written, well explained, and a much-needed article. A job well done, says I. Thank you so much for your contribution.
Re: Thine Editor Appeareth!mister_troperJanuary 2 2010, 17:21:54 UTC
"I am a fan of keeping the examples similar throughout the article, as you did, but I would mix it up enough to avoid this confusion."
What if I string them into their own narrative? I could even set out the whole article with the story that then breaks down. Would that work to keep things together, or just add another level of confusion?
"Because the present and past tense of "to hit" look so similar, I would recommend using another verb to demonstrate."
This is why it's always so interesting. In an earlier draft I considered this, but then drew the opposite conclusion, that framing things in a sentence where things otherwise changed as little as possible was better, in a sort of "controlled experiment" sense.
"First of all, I wouldn't use an incorrect example anywhere in an informative article...It would be more helpful to readers to explain that rather than use an incorrect example."
Ah, that's a very good point that I will carry forth.
First of all, let's just look at the big picture. Your first two examples ("John hits Carol" and "Carol hits John") could be confusing because they use the same verb and the same two people. I am a fan of keeping the examples similar throughout the article, as you did, but I would mix it up enough to avoid this confusion. Also, because you mention the exception of "personal pronouns," let's try to put something in other than just names. How about something like "John hits the woman. The woman hits her dog."? This is less confusing - there is no concern for non-native speakers that this is the same sentence said two different ways - as well as offering an example that is neither a name nor a personal pronoun.
For your second example, I would recommend putting the personal pronouns in an altered text of some sort - italicized or bolded - to call attention to it. After all, not all readers will know what a personal pronoun is.
In the later examples, the ones involving relative clauses, I would recommend splitting these sentences into two to demonstrate your meaning. Thus, you would have:
Carol hit me. Carol hits John.
Carol, who hit me, hits John.
This should also help demonstrate to what the pronoun is referring, which would further clear up any who/whom confusion.
Like the personal pronoun, the relative pronoun changes based on whether it is a subject or an object. If it is used as a subject, it is who. If it is used as an object, it is whom. So:
I think to make this more effective, you should have two examples here. Maybe something like this:
Subject: John hit me. John hits Carol. John, who hit me, hits Carol.
Object: I hit John. John hits Carol. John, whom I hit, hits Carol.
Because the present and past tense of "to hit" look so similar, I would recommend using another verb to demonstrate. Consider perhaps "to hate" (hates, hated), "to like" (likes, liked), or "to seat" (seats, seated). Catches and caught are also obviously different. Just a thought, and of course feel free to ignore it!
Therefore, the simple trick is to break off the clause, restate it as its own sentence, and see whether a subject pronoun or an object pronoun is right. In the case of the second person pronoun, well … look, if you want to say "you, whom are about to die, will tell me everything about the missing Chagal," I'm not going to complain about your grammar.
First of all, I wouldn't use an incorrect example anywhere in an informative article. With my luck, that would be the one thing someone would remember from the article, and all of their whos and whoms would be wrong for the rest of eternity. Also, it's simple enough to pretend the sentence is 3rd person ("she, who is about to die…") and figure out the proper case that way. It would be more helpful to readers to explain that rather than use an incorrect example.
The only time the trick doesn't work is with verbs of being, but that is actually not a case of the trick not working insomuch as it is a case of another rule of grammar interfering.
I'm afraid I don't understand this. Verbs of being always require the subjective case (in this example, "who"), don't they?
Reply
Now, there are a couple places I would consider changing the wording:
- Okay, fine, I'll explain it further, and even teach you a trick so that you can do it without even thinking about the underlying grammar.
- "Who" a relative pronoun.
- Like the personal pronoun, the relative pronoun changes based on whether it is a subject or an object. If it is used as a subject, it is who. If it is used as an object, it is whom.
- The only thing to remember is that it is the relative pronoun's use within the clause that determines whether it is who or whom.
- "Carol" is the object of the main clause of the sentence. However, in the relative clause, it is the subject ("Carol hit me"), so "who" is appropriate.
- All but the second personal pronoun changes whether it is a subject or an object.
- she/he or him/her?". If she/he, then who. If him/her, then whom.
- (If 'it,' well, why are you using who?)
- And this time, that's really it.
Overall, well-written, well explained, and a much-needed article. A job well done, says I. Thank you so much for your contribution.Because there is not a subject after the and, you need to remove the comma immediately preceding it.
"Who" is a relative pronoun.
There are just an awful lot of "it is"s around here. I would contract some of them to create a mixture of "it is"s and "it's"s.
Reword for easier accessibility for nonnative speakers/further clarity: The only thing to remember is that the relative pronoun's use within the clause is what determines whether it is who or whom.
Here, "it" technically refers to the word "Carol" - I would change it to "the pronoun"
For clarity's sake, All personal pronouns but the second change dependent on whether they are subjects or objects.
This is just me being neurotic here - Why are we looking at this female/male for subject pronouns and male/female for object pronouns? I personally would like to see this consistent, gender-wise, but I freely admit my neurosis; most people probably wouldn't notice or care.
Who is that neutered dog? It is Rufus. (but hey, now I'm just being a smartass.)
One last little nitpick - you shouldn't start a sentence with a conjunction.
Reply
Reply
What if I string them into their own narrative? I could even set out the whole article with the story that then breaks down. Would that work to keep things together, or just add another level of confusion?
"Because the present and past tense of "to hit" look so similar, I would recommend using another verb to demonstrate."
This is why it's always so interesting. In an earlier draft I considered this, but then drew the opposite conclusion, that framing things in a sentence where things otherwise changed as little as possible was better, in a sort of "controlled experiment" sense.
"First of all, I wouldn't use an incorrect example anywhere in an informative article...It would be more helpful to readers to explain that rather than use an incorrect example."
Ah, that's a very good point that I will carry forth.
Reply
Leave a comment