To do perfect sentences, we need to identify antecedents properly

One surefire thing in English grammar is that people who don’t fully understand the grammar of antecedents will always end up with faulty sentence constructions. An antecedent, we will recall, is simply the noun, noun phrase, or noun clause that the pronoun refers to in a sentence, and it’s very important to make sure that the pronoun that refers to this antecedent agrees with it in person (whether first, second, or third person), in case (whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive), and in number (whether singular or plural). When this isn’t achieved in all respects, what results is, of course, what’s known in English grammar as a subject-verb disagreement error.

In an essay I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in June last year, “The Grammar of Antecedents in English,” I discussed the basic guideposts for identifying antecedents in sentences, for making the correct pronoun choices for them, and for making sure that the form of the operative verb agrees with both the pronoun and its antecedent. I think Forum members and guests will similarly find those guideposts helpful in constructing grammar-perfect sentences, so I have decided to post that essay in this week’s edition of the Forum. (January 29, 2011)        

The grammar of antecedents in English

Do you have a clear idea of what an antecedent in English grammar is?

Recall now that an antecedent is the noun, noun phrase, or noun clause that a pronoun refers to in a sentence. It’s normally found in a sentence before a pronoun, but it can sometimes also come after that pronoun. In any case, the grammar rule is that any pronoun that refers to this antecedent must agree with it in person (whether first, second, or third person), case (whether nominative or subjective, objective, or possessive), and number (whether singular or plural). For example, the noun “Roberto” is the antecedent of the pronoun “he” in this sentence: “Roberto finally found the book he had been looking for.”

An antecedent need not be a noun; it can also be a noun phrase, as in this sentence: “The basic computer course that Ana wants to take is currently offered by the school, but it costs twice her budget for it.” Here, the antecedent is the entire noun phrase “the basic computer course that Ana wants to take,” and the pronoun “it” refers to that antecedent.

And an antecedent can also be a noun clause, as in this sentence: “What transpired during his long meeting with his boss disturbed Armando, and it gave him bad dreams for several nights.” Here, the noun clause “what transpired during his long meeting with his boss” is the antecedent of “it” in that sentence. In the noun clause, the noun “Armando” is the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which modifies the nouns “long meeting” and “boss.”

When the antecedent is in plural form or is a compound—meaning two or more nouns—the pronoun that refers to that antecedent must also be in plural form, as in this sentence: “His manager and his wife are demanding quality time from Steve, and they both won’t accept compromises.” Here, “his manager and his wife” is a compound antecedent, so the pronoun referring to it is the plural-form “they.” Note that the noun “Steve” is itself the antecedent of the possessive pronoun “his,” which is used twice in the noun phrase.

Now test your understanding of antecedents by answering the test question below in a practice test for the SAT Reasoning Test, the standardized college admissions test in the United States. The item was sent to me recently by a member of Jose Carillo’s English Forum, who asked for an explanation of the correct answer and the grammar behind that answer.

“__________ the orchestra for six concerts, Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony was scheduled.”

(A) After conducting

(B) After his conducting

(C) While conducting

(D) Although he had conducted

(E) After he had conducted

Which answer is correct?

Here’s my analysis of the answer choices: 

It couldn’t be B because the pronoun “his” in the subordinate phrase “after his conducting the orchestra for six concerts” doesn’t have a proper antecedent noun or pronoun that, logically, should denote a musical conductor. “Beethoven’s” couldn’t be that antecedent because it’s in the possessive case, and neither could it be “Ninth Symphony,” being an inanimate object.

Neither could A and C be correct because both don’t have an antecedent noun doing the action; for the same reason as in B above, “Beethoven’s” and “Ninth Symphony” couldn’t be that antecedent noun. D couldn’t be correct either, for its subordinating conjunction, “although,” makes the statement illogical.

The only answer that’s both grammatically and logically correct is E. With E as subordinate phrase to the main clause, the nominative pronoun “he” is properly supplied as doer of the action of conducting the orchestra, and the past participle “had conducted” is the correct tense for the repeated action in the indefinite past. With E, the sentence works properly because both the main clause and the subordinate phrase are properly constructed, then logically linked by the subordinating conjunction “after.” (June 19, 2010) 

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 19, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

How to deal with superiors who use the “regard” idioms wrongly

Perhaps without even becoming conscious of it, some people of higher organizational rank or educational attainment than us habitually use in their writing or speech either or both of these nonstandard “regard” idioms—“with regards to…” and “as regards to…” Of course, we get the strong urge to correct the wrong usage for their own good; understandably, though, we don’t do this for fear of slighting them and putting our personal career plans in jeopardy. These people therefore guilelessly keep on using their bad English for the rest of their professional lives, spreading it and predisposing even their more English-savvy subordinates to play along with the bad usage to keep their jobs out of harm’s way.

Like me at one time in my career, one such subordinate found herself in that bind and asked me for advice in 2007 how to deal with it. In response, I wrote an essay, “With regard to ‘with regards to’,” and published it in June of that year as an open letter in my English-usage column in The Manila Times. I am now posting that essay in the Forum for the benefit of those who might be similarly situated and wondering how best to deal with the problem. (January 22, 2011)

With regard to “with regards to”

A few days ago, a reader who described her job as drafting letters and taking the minutes of meetings sent me e-mail about an all-too-familiar English usage predicament: “May I request you to write a column on the usage of ‘regard’, ‘regards’, and ‘regarding’? Is it correct to use ‘as regards to the…’ or ‘with regards to the…’? You see, every time I use ‘with regard to…’, my superior always adds ‘s’ to it and I can’t explain to him why the word ‘regard’ in that usage shouldn’t have an ‘s’.”

Here’s my open reply to that reader:

Many years ago, I encountered a similar predicament about the “with regards to…” idiom. One of my superiors in the company where I used to work had the imperious habit of using “with regards to…”—with “s” always affixed to the word “regard”—every time he wrote a memo: “With regards to your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” The usage sounded so stiff to me, and I thought that “regarding,” “concerning,” or “about” would have done a more natural-sounding job: “Regarding your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” “Concerning your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” “About your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…”

Indeed, when I checked, I found out that “with regards to…” (along with its other dubious variant, “in regards to”) is actually nonstandard usage—what one language authority, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, called a “shibboleth,” or a use of language regarded as distinctive of a particular group. In other words, it isn’t generally accepted usage; the standard usage is “with regard to…”: “With regard to your memo dated June 9, please be informed that…” As in your case, however, I knew my place in the scheme of things and made no attempt to correct my superior. (After all, you shouldn’t lose your job for having English grammar that’s better than that of your boss.)

So I imagine that until today, that boss of mine still blissfully foists “with regards to…” on superiors and subordinates alike in his memos wherever he’s working now. You see, people who acquire such questionable usage often need the hammer-and-anvil of experience—perhaps a strong-minded superior who knows his or her English usage better —to finally correct themselves.*

Other than “regarding,” of course, two other “regard” idioms are considered standard usage: “as regards…” and “in regard to…”: “As regards your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” “In regard to your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” As an advocate for plain and simple English, however, I would advise against their use. Even if many lawyers, bureaucrats, and corporate types find them useful for giving an officious edge to their memos, I think that our memos would sound much more pleasant and engaging—and get better results—if they used just plain “regarding,” “concerning,” or “about” instead: “Regarding your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” “Concerning your request for transfer, please furnish us with…” “About your request for transfer, please furnish us with…”

Now, if “with regards to…” and “in regards to” are indeed substandard usage, why is it that people fall into the often-intractable habit of using them? I think it’s because there are actually three similar-sounding “regards” idioms that are standard usage: “give my regards,” “extend my regards,” and “with my regards.” These idioms, however, are not in the same semantic league as “with regards to…” and “in regards to.” Instead, they are expressions of good wishes, the stuff of conventional closings for letters and for other situations that require parting words, as in these expressions: “Give my regards to your wife and children.” “Please extend my regards to the staff.”

And I’ll now use the third such “regards” expression to close this open letter of mine:

With my best regards,

Joe Carillo

(June 11, 2007)

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 11, 2007 © 2007 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

*I wish to note for the record here that that former boss of mine passed away in 2009. Whether or not he had eventually realized that “with regards to” is nonstandard English and subsequently avoided its usage, may his soul have eternal rest.

Really now, how good are you in handling the comparatives?

How good are you in handling the English comparatives? Perhaps you find it as easy as pie to form the simplest comparatives by adding the suffix “-er” to certain kinds of adjectives or by putting the modifiers “more,” “less,” or “fewer” ahead of other kinds of adjectives, but let me ask you pointblank: Are you as good in handling comparatives for two-clause sentences? And can you say without batting an eyelash that you no longer fumble when faced with the choice between using the comparatives “fewer” and “less”?  

Mastery of the grammar of making comparisons is a very good indicator of one’s English proficiency. To help fortify the capability of English learners in handling them, I therefore did a quick review of the English comparatives in my English-usage column in The Manila Times in May last year. I thought that some of you might need a quick review of the comparatives yourselves, so I decided to post that essay in this week’s edition of the Forum.

Come take a look. (January 15, 2011)    

A quick review of the English comparatives

The urge to size up and compare things is no doubt one of humankind’s strongest instincts, so it’s really no surprise that every language evolves a well-defined grammar for comparatives. In English, of course, the comparative is normally formed in either of two ways: (a) by adding the suffix “-er” to the positive form of an adjective (or adverb), as in “sweeter” for “sweet,” or (b) by putting the modifiers “more,” “less,” or “fewer” ahead of a polysyllabic adjective derived from a foreign language, as in “more lucrative,” “less delicious,” and “fewer candidates.”

Then, to complete the comparative form, the subordinating conjunction “than” is placed between the two elements being compared: “The oranges in this orchard are sweeter than those grown across the river.” “Her business is more [less] lucrative than mine.” “The vacant position attracted fewer applicants than we expected.” Note that in these comparative constructions, the first element is a clause that expresses the difference (as in “The oranges in this orchard are sweeter”), and the second element is introduced by the subordinating conjunction “than” (“than those grown across the river”).

In two-clause sentences, however, the following two-part subordinating conjunctions are used instead of “than”: (a) “as/not as…as,” as in “Our Baguio branch is as [not as] big as our Cebu branch”; (b) “not so/not as…as,” as in “Her second novel is not as [not so] exciting as her first one”; (c) “the same…as,” as in “Her dress that night was the same design as the party host’s”; and (d) “less/more…than,” as in “The trip cost more [less] than he had planned.”

These comparatives are already second nature to most of us, but when it comes to the comparatives “fewer” and “less” in particular, not a few native and nonnative English speakers still fumble in their choice. Indeed, precisely under what circumstances should “fewer” or “less” be used?  

The choice between “fewer” and “less” depends on whether the noun to be modified is countable or noncountable. When something is countable, of course, we can figure out without great difficulty how many of it there are; we then use “number” as an indefinite measure for it, as in “the number of voters” and the “a number of recipes.” In contrast, something is noncountable if it’s in bulk form and counting its constituent units would be insufferably difficult or impossible; we then use “amount” as a measure for it, as in “the amount of sunlight” and “a great amount of labor.”

Now, the word “fewer” is used as a comparative for plural count nouns, or things that use “number” as measure, as in “There are fewer buyers of hats now than last month” and “She found fewer grammatical errors in the latest student essays.” On the other hand, “less” is used as a comparative for singular mass nouns, or things that use “amount” as measure, as in “We consumed less electricity this month than last month” and “Our new supervisor is less strict in attendance than his predecessor.”

Usually, a comparative statement would ping our ears if it wrongly uses “less” for “fewer” or vice versa, as in “Less contractors than anticipated are bidding for the irrigation dam construction” or “Our customers are showing fewer tolerance for the saltiness of our spaghetti.” (Now feel the pleasant autocorrection when “less” is replaced with “fewer” in the first sentence, and “fewer” with “less” in the second: “Fewer contractors than anticipated are bidding for the irrigation dam construction.” “Our customers are showing less tolerance for the saltiness of our spaghetti.”)

Some exceptions, though: When a plural count noun is thought of as an aggregate, “amount” instead of “number” can be used as a measure for it, as in “They’ll supply us with whatever amount of smoked ham we need.” Also, in certain cases, it’s grammatically correct to use a singular mass noun in the plural-count sense, like “cement” in the following sentence: “We need to reduce the number of kilos of cement that we are ordering monthly.” (May 29, 2010)

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, May29, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Do better than a calculated guess in handling conditional sentences

I know for a fact that a lot of writers and editors—including myself when I still didn’t know any better—often draw a blank in their grammar when dealing with conditional sentences that have an “if”-clause. For the result clause of such sentences, many of us simply couldn’t be absolutely sure whether to use “will” or “would” plus the base form of the verb…or perhaps just its simple present tense. Somehow the basis for the choice isn’t adequately taught or learned in school, so many of us end up just hazarding a calculated guess that at best only has a 33.33% probability of being correct. 

Check this hypothesis of mine by testing yourself with these three multiple-choice questions:

1. “If water is heated to 100 degrees Centigrade, it (will boil, would boil, boils).”

2. “I (will qualify, would qualify, qualify) for the post if I’m a civil service eligible, but I’m not.”

3. “If you pass the qualifying test, you (will get, would get, get) a full scholarship.”

How did you fare? I would consider a score of 66.66% a passing grade.

Anyway, to help improve the capability of native and nonnative English users alike in handling conditional sentences, I wrote an essay on the subject, “The four types of conditional sentences,” in my English-usage column in The Manila Times in the middle of last year. I am posting that essay now in this week’s edition of the Forum to provide everybody a firmer and more reliable basis for constructing them. (January 8, 2011)  

The four types of conditional sentences

One important aspect of English grammar that I don’t recall having discussed fully yet is the conditional sentence. This is the type of sentence that conveys the idea that the action in the main clause can take place only if the condition in the subordinate clause—the “if”-clause—is fulfilled.

The simplest form of the conditional sentence has this structure: the “if” clause states the condition in the present simple tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the result clause in the form “will + base form of the verb,” as in this example: “If you meet your sales quota, we will give you a fat bonus.”

But there are actually four types of conditional sentences, each type indicating the degree of certainty or likelihood that the stated condition will be fulfilled. They are the so-called first conditional or real possibility, the second conditional or unreal possibility, the third conditional or no possibility, and the zero conditional or certainty.

The first conditional (real possibility)

The first conditional talks about a high degree of possibility that a particular condition or situation will happen in the future as a result of a possible future condition. This is the case with the first conditional sentence given earlier: “If you meet your sales quota, we will give you a fat bonus.” As with all types of conditional sentences, of course, the result clause can also be stated ahead of the cause clause, as in this example: “We will give you a fat bonus if you meet your sales quota.”

The second conditional (unreal possibility)

The second conditional talks about a possible but very unlikely result that the stated future condition will be fulfilled; in short, the stated outcome is an unreal possibility. This type of conditional has the following sentence structure: the “if” clause states the future condition in the simple past tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the future result clause in the form “would + base form of the verb,” as in this example: “If I finished law school, I would be a lawyer.” (“I would be a lawyer if I finished law school.”) The speaker here is talking of an unreal possibility because he didn’t finish school and didn’t become a lawyer.

The third conditional (no possibility)

The third conditional talks about a condition in the past that didn’t happen, thus making it impossible for a wished-for result to have happened. This type of sentence has the following structure: the “if” clause states the impossible past condition using the past perfect tense “had + past participle of the verb,” is followed by a comma, then followed by the impossible past result in the form “would have + past participle of the verb,” as in this example: “If I had saved enough money, I would have bought that house.” (“I would have bought that house if I had saved enough money.”) The speaker here is talking of an impossible situation because he had not saved enough money and has not bought that house.

Third conditionals could sometimes also use the modal forms “should have,” “could have,” and “might have,” as in these modal variants of the example above: “If I had saved enough money, I should have bought that house.” “If I had saved enough money, I could have bought that house.” “If I had saved enough money, I might have bought that house.” In all three cases, of course, none of the wished-for situations in the past had taken place.

The zero conditional (certainty)

Finally, the zero conditional or certainty talks about a condition whose result is always true and always the same, like a scientific fact. It has the following sentence structure: the “if” clause states the condition in the simple present tense, is followed by a comma, then followed by the result clause also in the simple present tense, as in this example: “If people don’t drink water, they get dehydrated.” (“People get dehydrated if they don’t drink water.”) (June 12, 2010)

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, July 10, 2010 © 2010 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Settling the often-derided usage of “celebrant” once and for all

Today, January 1, being the birthday of the Year 2011 in the Western world, perhaps it’s a good time to resolve the frequently derided usage of “celebrant” when referring to someone holding a birthday party or marking some other personal milestone. I know, of course, that most people think that “celebrant” is a wrong word choice and that “celebrator” is the only correct usage—but is this conventional wisdom really wise and sustainable?

I wrote an essay about the subject last July in my English-usage column for The Manila Times after attending a birthday party where someone who had called the birthday party host a “celebrant” was savagely if good-naturedly excoriated for his word choice. I thought of posting that essay, “No need to hold ‘celebrant’ in a straightjacket,” in this week’s edition of the Forum in the hope of helping settle this long-standing word-usage issue once and for all. 

I wish everyone a Happy and Prosperous New Year! (January 1, 2011) 

No need to hold “celebrant” in a straightjacket

The Philippines being a predominantly Roman Catholic country, there’s a tendency for the supposedly English-savvy among us to scoff at people who describe as a “celebrant” someone celebrating a birthday or some other auspicious occasion. “Oh, no, that isn’t right!” they would often cut off and gleefully heckle the speaker. “The right word is ‘celebrator’; ‘celebrant’ means a priest officiating the Holy Mass!”

But are people who use the word “celebrant” in that context really wrong? Do they really deserve all that heckling?

Although I don’t usually join the wicked ribbing that often follows, I myself used to think that people who call birthday celebrators “birthday celebrants” are—if not actually unsavvy in their English—at least ill-advised in doing so. Indeed, my Merriam-Webster’s 11^th Collegiate Dictionary defines “celebrant” as “one who celebrates; specifically the priest officiating the Eucharist.” Likewise, the Collins English Dictionary—Complete and Unabridged defines “celebrant” as “a person participating in a religious ceremony” and, in Christianity’s ecclesiastical terms, as “an officiating priest, esp at the Eucharist.”

On the authority of these two dictionaries, I had never really bothered to check the validity of the conventional wisdom that anybody who’s not a priest or cleric should never be called a “celebrant” but only a “celebrator.” By “celebrator,” of course, practically everybody uses it in the context of someone observing or taking part in a notable occasion with festivities.

Recently, though, after witnessing yet another savage if good-natured ribbing of someone who used “celebrant” to describe the birthday party host, I decided that perhaps the issue was serious enough to look deeper into. I therefore resolved to check the usage with at least two other lexicographic authorities, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (AHD).

The OED gives two definitions of “celebrant,” first as “a person who performs a rite, especially a priest at the Eucharist,” and, second, citing North American usage, as “a person who celebrates something.” For its part, the AHD primarily defines “celebrant” in essentially the same vein as the first OED definition, as (a) “A person who participates in a religious ceremony or rite”; (b) “A person who officiates at a religious or civil ceremony or rite, especially a wedding”; and (c) “In some Christian churches, the cleric officiating at the celebration of the Eucharist.” Like the OED, the AHD also makes a second definition of “celebrant” as “A participant in a celebration.”

Then the AHD goes one step further and makes the following usage note for “celebrant”: “Although ‘celebrant’ is most often used to describe an official participant in a religious ceremony or rite, a majority of the [AHD] Usage Panel accepted the use of ‘celebrant’ to mean ‘a participant in a celebration’ in an earlier survey. Still, while ‘New Year’s Eve celebrants’ may be an acceptable usage, ‘celebrator’ is an uncontroversial alternative in this more general sense.”

This being the case, I think people who use “celebrants” to describe people celebrating birthdays and other special occasions aren’t really wrong, and they certainly don’t deserve to be cut down and needled when using that word. And there’s no need for anyone to get upset either when called a “celebrant”—whether as principal or guest—during such occasions. I dare say that “celebrant” is as good a word as “celebrator” in such contexts, and except perhaps in the company of hidebound Christian fanatics, we need not hold the word “celebrant” in a straitjacket to describe only the Christian clergy doing their rituals.

In short, we can freely use “celebrators” to describe people celebrating or attending a birthday party or any other happy occasion, and I think the English-savvy among us need to get used to the idea that the usage of “celebrants” is actually par for the course and doesn’t deserve all that bashing as if it were bad English.  (July 3, 2010)

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, July 3, 2010 © 2007 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Misuse of “lie” and “lay” punctures many writers’ command of English

In the English language, there are some sound-alike and spelled-alike verb pairs that often cause a lot of confusion, and the most troublesome of them is arguably the verb pair “lie” and “lay.” Indeed, who hasn’t been tripped yet by this treacherous verb pair? Over the years, I would often come across writing even by professionals—essays, business reports, position papers, news and feature stories—where “lie” is mistaken for “lay,” and vice versa. The semantic damage to the sentence might be slight, but the misuse of either word nevertheless shows a glaring hole in the writer’s command of English.

In a series of essays about vexing errors in English that I wrote for my English-usage column in The Manila Times in 2007, I explained the grammatical reason behind the profound tendency of people to fumble when using “lie” and “lay.” I’m sure that reading the essay will clarify whatever doubts Forum members and guests might have about the usage of these two words, so I have decided to post that essay in this week’s edition of the Forum. (December 25, 2010)  

 

Why we often get into trouble using the verbs “lie” and “lay”

As I’m sure you must have already encountered in your own newspaper or magazine readings, some similar-sounding or somewhat similarly spelled pairs of verbs often get annoyingly misused because it’s not so easy to figure out whether they are being used intransitively or transitively. Among these verb-pairs, easily the most troublesome are the intransitive verb “lie,” which means to stay at rest horizontally, and the transitive “lay,” which means to put or set something down.

The intransitive “lie” is most commonly misused when it’s forced to function as a transitive verb in sentences like this one: “The ousted manager went to his office and laid on the couch.” The correct usage here is, of course, the intransitive past tense “lay”: “The ousted manager went to his office and lay on the couch.” On the other hand, the intransitive, past tense “lay down” is often mistakenly used in sentences like this: “The rebels surrendered and lay down their arms.” This time, the correct usage is the transitive, past-tense “laid down”: “The rebels surrendered and laid down their arms.”

Often, too, the intransitive present tense verb “lay” is misused in sentences like this one: “The geographers are checking precisely where the islands detected recently by satellite lay in the Pacific Ocean.” The correct usage here is the transitive, plural present tense “lie”: “The geographers are checking precisely where the islands detected recently by satellite lie in the Pacific Ocean.”

Why are “lie” and “lay” such problematic verbs? To find out, let’s once again clearly distinguish between intransitive and transitive verbs.

A verb is intransitive when it doesn’t need a direct object to work properly in a sentence, as is the case with “yawned” in this sentence: “During his trial, the unrepentant criminal often yawned.” Here, “yawned” is clearly intransitive. It doesn’t need a direct object, and the sentence is complete without one.

On the other hand, a verb is transitive when it absolutely needs a direct object to receive its action, as is the case with “grip” in this sentence: “He gripped my arm.” Drop the direct object of such verbs and the sentence no longer makes sense: “He gripped.”

Now, the problem with “lie” and “lay” is that apart from the fact that they have somewhat overlapping meanings, they are also highly irregular verbs that inflect or change forms in such unpredictable, confusing ways.

The intransitive “lie,” in the sense of staying at rest horizontally, inflects as follows: “lies” for the singular present tense, as in “She chokes when she lies down”; “lie” for the plural present tense, as in “They choke when they lie down”; “lay” for the past tense, whether singular or plural, as in “She got tired and lay down”; and the past participle “lain” in the perfect tenses, as in “She has lain all day while her husband is away.” None of the usages of “lie” above has a direct object.

Now here’s how the transitive “lay,” in the sense of setting something down, inflects: “lays” for the singular present tense, as in “She meticulously lays breakfast for us”; “lay” for the plural present tense, as in “They meticulously lay breakfast for us”; “laid” for the past tense, as in “We laid our laptops on the table”; and the past participle “laid” for the perfect tenses, as in “They had laid their laptops aside by the time their manager arrived.” Here, every usage of “lie” has a direct object.

Take note that among these inflections, the past tense form of the intransitive “lie”—“lay”—is exactly the same as that of the present tense plural of the transitive “lay”—also “lay.” It is this quirk of the language that makes it difficult for us to see whether “lie” or “lay” is being used transitively or intransitively, so we must be very careful indeed when using these two highly irregular verbs. (September 15, 2007)

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, September 15, 2007 © 2007 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.

Using the serial comma isn’t just a matter of stylistic preference

It might seem like it’s just a matter of personal stylistic preference, but unlike most journalists and writers, I am a consistent user of the serial comma in both my private correspondence and published work. The serial comma is, of course, the comma placed immediately before the conjunctions “and,” “or,” or “nor” that precedes the final item in a serial list of three or more items, as in this sentence: “The European tourist visited Manila, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Bangkok last summer.” Most newspaper writers and editors do away with that serial comma, though, and would write that sentence this way: “The European tourist visited Manila, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Bangkok last summer.”

Now the question is: Am I just being dense or bullheadead in using the serial comma when most everybody else routinely gets rid of it? I had the occasion to defend my preference when it was challenged by a foreign reader of my English-usage column in The Manila Times over a year ago, and I thought of posting that defense in this week’s edition of the Forum for the appreciation of those who still have an open mind about the matter. (December 18, 2010)      

Why I consistently use the serial comma 

Sometime ago, a foreign reader of my column in The Manila Times raised an eyebrow over my use of the comma before the conjunction “and” in this sentence: “The [author] unravels the various mechanisms and tools of English for combining words and ideas into clear, logical, and engaging writing.”

He commented: “There is a comma after the second to the last adjective, and I noted that you do this all the time. Has some authority changed convention?”

That comma that made him uncomfortable is, of course, the serial comma, which is also called the Oxford comma and the Harvard comma. It’s the comma placed by some writers like me—but avoided by most editors of Philippine newspapers and magazines—immediately before the conjunction “and,” “or,” or “nor” that precedes the final item in a list of three or more items. Admittedly, its use has remained debatable up to this day among writers and editors in various parts of the world.

Here’s how I justified my consistent use of the serial comma to that foreign reader:  

Yes, I use the serial comma all the time as a matter of stylistic choice. I just happen to have imbibed the serial-comma tradition from Strunk and White’s The Elements of Style, the Chicago Manual of Style, and H.W. Fowler’s Modern English Usage. However, during my early days as a campus journalist and later as a reporter for a daily newspaper, I would routinely knock off my serial commas because the newspaper I was working with had adopted the no-serial-comma preference of American print media, particularly The New York Times and the Associated Press. If I didn’t knock off those serial commas myself, my editors would do so anyway and sullenly admonish me not to foist my personal preference over the house rule.    

But no, the convention on whether or not to use the serial comma hasn’t changed at all. I’m aware that the no-serial-comma tradition remains a widespread stylistic practice of the mass media in the United Kingdom as well as in Canada, Australia, and South Africa. But personally, I just want to be consistent after making a personal choice based on my own experience with the problems of punctuation over the years.

Of course, the usefulness of the serial comma might not be readily apparent and appreciated when the items in a sentence with a serial list consist only of a single word or two, as in the following sentences:

“She bought some apples, oranges and pears.”

“For the role of Hamlet, the choices are Fred Santos, Tony Cruz, Jimmy Reyes and George Perez.” 

But see what happens when the listed items consist of long phrases with more than four or five words:

“The major businesses in the domestic pet services industry are traditional veterinary services, fancy pet grooming and makeover shops, a wide assortment of animal and bird food, freshwater and marine fish of various kinds and aquarium equipment and supplies for industrial and home use.”

Now, try to figure out where each enumerative item ends and begins in the phrase “freshwater and marine fish of various kinds and aquarium equipment and supplies for industrial and home use.”

In contrast, see how clear and unequivocal the last two items in the list become when we deploy a serial comma between “various kinds” and “aquarium equipment,” as follows:

“The major businesses in the domestic pet services industry are traditional veterinary services, fancy pet grooming and makeover shops, a wide assortment of animal and bird food, freshwater and marine fish of various kinds, and aquarium equipment and supplies for industrial and home use.”

I therefore think it’s best to use a serial comma by default in such situations regardless of how long the phrase for each item is in the enumerative sequence. This way, we can consistently avoid confusing readers and avoid violating their sense of rhythm and balance. (July 4, 2009)

-------------------

From the weekly column “English Plain and Simple” by Jose A. Carillo in The Manila Times, June 4, 2009 © 2009 by the Manila Times Publishing Corp. All rights reserved.