Dr. Shades's Grammar Lesson of the Day

[_Who Knows]

To set a bunch of text into a box, thus indicating that it's quoted material, place the following tag immediately before the text you wish to quote, but without the spaces:

[ quote ]

Likewise place the following tag immediately after the text you wish to quote, but, again, without the spaces:

[ /quote ]

You may want to add that the quote - at least the first quote in a post - should contain the poster's name. You do that by inserting ="name" immediately after the word quote. ie.

[ quote="Shades"] blah blah blah [ /quote] (but without the spaces)

would show up as:

blah blah blah

just a pet peeve of mine. hope i explained that well.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I always get confused with "who" and "whom."

[_Mary]

Shades, you're an angel...and I'm having to think real hard as I write this...

Okay, what about Jesus's? and Jesus'? I heard there was an exception there somewhere?

Also, just as an aside, my hubbie told me to remember Shade his dog was barking so Shade's dog was barking

Did I get it right!!!???? (please, pretty please)!!

[_Dr. Shades]

Next up - its vs. it's!

Your wish, too, is my command. Let's use today to catch up:

GRAMMAR LESSON #5: "ITS" vs. "IT'S" and "WHO" vs. "WHOM"

ITS: "It," possessive, but without an apostrophe! This one breaks the rule for apostrophe "s" for singular possessive, probably to keep it from being confused with "it's" (coming up next). EXAMPLES: "The cat keeps licking its paws." "My car was totalled, but I was able to salvage its muffler." "MormonDiscussions is having its best week yet."

IT'S: Contraction of "it is." EXAMPLES: "It's hard to keep from being banned from MA&D." "I asked about MA&D and she said it's not worth my time." "So much for this meeting; it's running late."

(The English major in me is standing and applauding our dear Dr. Shades).

If you're an English major, would you like to take over the grammar lessons?

I always get confused with "who" and "whom."

Not after today you won't:

WHO: An interrogative when used as the subject of a sentence. Since English has a subject-verb-object pattern, this will typically be near the beginning of a sentence. In other words, "who" is, er, who the sentence is all about. EXAMPLES: "Who got banned from MA&D this time?" "I asked him, 'Who are the moderators at MA&D?'" "Who does Juliann think she is?"

WHOM: An interrogative when used as the object of a sentence. In other words, "whom" is, er, who receives the action of a sentence. EXAMPLES: "To whom was the present given?" "For Whom the Bell Tolls." "I forgot the name of the person on whom I spent so much money."

To make the above simpler, think of the difference between "he" and "him." "He" is always the subject, whereas "him" is always the object. For example, you'd say "He did the best job, so I gave the prize to him." You wouldn't use "he" and "him" in the wrong places, would you? The words "whom" and "him" both end with the letter "M," so where you'd use one, you'd use the other.

Shades, you're an angel...

Why, thank you! But there's a whole message board full of people over at MA&D who would vehemently disagree with you.

Okay, what about Jesus's? and Jesus'? I heard there was an exception there somewhere?

Sort of. This brings up the question, "What is language?" Simply put, a language is a form of communication mutually recognizable between two or more people. Who can say what is or isn't "standard" or "proper" when it comes to languages, as long as everyone understands each other? People chosen as the experts are, at the end of the day, arbitrarily designated as such, since what if everyone understands each other's communication, yet he/she says they're "wrong?"

So, with that in mind, language is always in a state of flux. Standardizing it is not so much legitimizing a particular form of communication as, uh, standardizing it so that more people can be "in the loop." So it is with the example you gave: Formerly, when a singular noun ended with a natural "s," it was considered proper to add a single apostrophe afterward when used as a possessive. Nowadays, however, the language is moving in the direction of requiring a second "s" after the apostrophe, which is the way I described it in that lesson.

So yes, "Jesus'" is probably still grammatically acceptable, especially among the older generations, but it's ever-so-gradually moving toward "Jesus's."

So, as of now, technically both ways are correct.

Also, just as an aside, my hubbie told me to remember Shade his dog was barking so Shade's dog was barking

Did I get it right!!!???? (please, pretty please)!!

It depends on whether "Shade" is the name of the dog or the name of the dog's owner. (The phrase "Shade his dog" sounds like you meant "Shade, his dog," but forgot the commas.)

If "Shade" is the dog's owner, then yes, you're correct.

[_skippy the dead]

(The English major in me is standing and applauding our dear Dr. Shades).

If you're an English major, would you like to take over the grammar lessons?

Heck no - you're doing a masterful job.

[_asbestosman]

Sort of. This brings up the question, "What is language?" Simply put, a language is a form of communication mutually recognizable between two or more people. Who can say what is or isn't "standard" or "proper" when it comes to languages, as long as everyone understands each other? People chosen as the experts are, at the end of the day, arbitrarily designated as such, since what if everyone understands each other's communication, yet he/she says they're "wrong?"

So, with that in mind, language is always in a state of flux. Standardizing it is not so much legitimizing a particular form of communication as, uh, standardizing it so that more people can be "in the loop." So it is with the example you gave: Formerly, when a singular noun ended with a natural "s," it was considered proper to add a single apostrophe afterward when used as a possessive. Nowadays, however, the language is moving in the direction of requiring a second "s" after the apostrophe, which is the way I described it in that lesson.

So does this mean that there's no such thing as a grammar error (if the intent is understood)? I guess I can throw out all critic arguments about grammatical mistakes in the Book of Mormon, right?

On the other hand, I still get a kick out of that letter I got as a missionary that told me our trials make us sore (misspelling of soar).

WHO: An interrogative when used as the subject of a sentence. Since English has a subject-verb-object pattern, this will typically be near the beginning of a sentence. In other words, "who" is, er, who the sentence is all about. EXAMPLES: "Who got banned from MA&D this time?" "I asked him, 'Who are the moderators at MA&D?'" "Who does Juliann think she is?"

WHOM: An interrogative when used as the object of a sentence. In other words, "whom" is, er, who receives the action of a sentence. EXAMPLES: "To whom was the present given?" "For Whom the Bell Tolls." "I forgot the name of the person on whom I spent so much money."

To make the above simpler, think of the difference between "he" and "him." "He" is always the subject, whereas "him" is always the object. For example, you'd say "He did the best job, so I gave the prize to him." You wouldn't use "he" and "him" in the wrong places, would you? The words "whom" and "him" both end with the letter "M," so where you'd use one, you'd use the other.

That's great shades except for tricky archaic constructions like Object verb Subject. I read in my KJV in Isaiah 6:8 the question, "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" I suspect this is the source of much confusion, but I think I can see how to resolve it by trying to replace it with he or him. Thanks for that.

[_Dr. Shades]

So does this mean that there's no such thing as a grammar error (if the intent is understood)?

That's tough to answer. There's only an "error" to the extent that it deviates from what's considered "standard." However, what's standard and what isn't standard is, when it comes to language, arbitrary.

Think of it this way: If a teacher tells her students to write in black or blue ink, but one of her students ignores her and writes in red ink instead, is the student's writing erroneous? Yes, it technically is, even though his words are 100% understandable to anyone who reads them.

I hope that makes a modicum of sense.

I guess I can throw out all critic arguments about grammatical mistakes in the Book of Mormon, right?

Interesting that you should mention that, since that's precisely the argument that Royal Skousen, Book of Mormon original manuscript expert extraordinaire, makes. He says that God isn't constrained by man's ideas of what's right or wrong in a language, and therefore translated according to what was understandable.

Of course, critics can just as easily make the counter-argument that writing in standardized English would've made the text more accessible to more people in the long run. So the battle-lines remain unmoved.

That's great shades except for tricky archaic constructions like Object verb Subject.

That's known as "Yoda speak."

I read in my KJV in Isaiah 6:8 the question, "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" I suspect this is the source of much confusion, but I think I can see how to resolve it by trying to replace it with he or him. Thanks for that.

You're welcome. Another way to determine the correct use of who/whom is to rearrange the subject back into subject-object-verb format. For example, when "whom shall I send?" is reverse-engineered to "I shall send whom?", the correct who/whom choice becomes clearer.

[_asbestosman]

That's great shades except for tricky archaic constructions like Object verb Subject.

That's known as "Yoda speak."

Germanic roots--live long may they.

I read in my KJV in Isaiah 6:8 the question, "Whom shall I send and who will go for us?" I suspect this is the source of much confusion, but I think I can see how to resolve it by trying to replace it with he or him. Thanks for that.

You're welcome. Another way to determine the correct use of who/whom is to rearrange the subject back into subject-object-verb format. For example, when "whom shall I send?" is reverse-engineered to "I shall send whom?", the correct who/whom choice becomes clearer.

And yet if I'm right, it's also generally accepted to ask the question "who should I choose" as well as "whom should I choose" with the latter often sounding pretentious or awkward instead of erudite. But then again, that's probably just my opinion since I never did well on English tests.

[_gramps]

Hi Shades.

Please help us all with "affect" and "effect"; and to be "affected" by and to "effect" a change, for example.

[_Yoda]

Hi Shades.

Please help us all with "affect" and "effect"; and to be "affected" by and to "effect" a change, for example.

I'll tackle this one. Shades can correct me if I'm wrong. ;)

"Affect" is always a verb. "Effect" can either be a verb or a noun, but is more commonly used as a noun.

Example:

Inflation affects the buying power of the dollar.

The drug had an immediate effect on the pain.