|
This column wraps up this 20-part series on the ten
types of grammar errors that I consider most annoying, namely (1)
footloose modifiers, (2) mangled idiomatic expressions, (3)
operative verbs far detached from their subject, (4) subject-verb
disagreements, (5) intransitive verbs forced to act as transitives,
(6) wrong pronoun usage, (7) misuse of participles, (8) misuse of
prepositional phrases and prepositional idioms, (9) wrong use of
basic verbs such as “come” and “go,” and (10) fused
sentences.
Along the way, I presented my
bill of particulars for all of these grammar misuses, giving examples
taken from news stories, feature articles, and print advertising
in leading newspapers and magazines. I then dissected each type of
grammar error and discussed the correct or prescribed usage, a
process that I trust has enhanced the readers’ facility for
avoiding these errors in their own writing.
Before leaving the subject,
however, I would like to take up a question raised by a reader,
Douglas Maliszewski, regarding this comma splice that I took up in
my November 24 column: “Being a working grandmother is not as easy
as it seems, I have to fulfill my tasks as a career woman and at the
same time maintain sanity in the household.” I pointed out that
the comma in that sentence is inadequate to the task of punctuating
the two clauses and is unable to establish the logical connection
between them.
I then offered two grammar fixes
for that comma splice, the first using the coordinating conjunction
“for” and the other using the subordinating conjunction
“because”: (1) “Being a working grandmother is not as easy as
it seems, for it involves fulfilling my tasks as a career woman even
as I try to maintain sanity in the household.” (2) “Being a
working grandmother is not as easy as it seems because it involves
fulfilling my tasks as a career woman even as I try to maintain
sanity in the household.”
Now, Douglas wondered if the
quickest and most elegant method to fix the original comma splice
wouldn’t be to simply replace the comma with a semicolon: “Being
a working grandmother is not as easy as it seems; I have to fulfill
my tasks as a career woman and at the same time maintain sanity in
the household.”
The semicolon can in a great many
instances properly link two independent clauses to form a single
sentence. It is particularly suitable for linking similarly
structured clauses in parallel: “You scratch my back; I scratch
yours.” It also works perfectly when the logical connection
between the independent clauses is unmistakable even if not
explicitly stated: “The failed coup is over; now’s the time to
clean up the mess.”
There’s actually a rule of
thumb for finding out if a semicolon linking two clauses is
appropriate: if you can replace the semicolon with a period and make
the second clause a new sentence, and the resulting statement
remains logical and meaningful, then it’s all right to use a
semicolon. The two sentences I presented above clearly pass this
test: “You scratch my back. I scratch yours.” “The failed coup
is over. Now’s the time to clean up the mess.”
As to Douglas’ suggested
construction, however, I’m not too sure if it passes that same
test: “Being a working grandmother is not as easy as it seems. I
have to fulfill my tasks as a career woman and at the same time
maintain sanity in the household.” The two sentences just don’t
seem to connect and correlate. Like the original two clauses linked
by a semicolon, this two-sentence construction is unable to
establish clearly that the first-person narrator is actually the
same person as the working grandmother. This shows that the
semicolon is inadequate for effecting the logical connection between
the two clauses.
Indeed, in such cases, we need an
appropriate conjunction to make that logical connection.
(Next: The reign of the dreadful
clichés)
j8carillo@yahoo.com
|
