Category Archives: Grammar

How to Write – Review

Herbert E. and Jill M. Meyer. How to Write. Storm King, 1986.

Back in the eighties I had a boss at school who played golf sometimes with a corporate CEO who had connections. Once he played golf with this CEO and a friend who was a speechwriter for then President George H. W. Bush. My boss asked him if he could recommend a book on writing. He recommended How to Write.

This is not written in textbook format. Indeed, it is much simpler. The authors call it a handbook. It is less than 100 pages, but it really does tell us all the basics we need to know to write effectively. I can summarize it in a few short paragraphs so that even reading this review can help us write better.

First, they tell us, organize. That means both gathering and arranging. Gather the information or evidence you need to say what you want to say. Then arrange the information or evidence in a logical manner. Textbooks would go into various methods of organizing such as familiar to unfamiliar, weakest to strongest, chronological, spatial, clustered contrast, and so on. This book does not break it down into that kind of detail, but simply tells us to organize it so it is clear and the reader can follow it.

Second, once you have an outline of some kind, write your first draft. The authors give a lot of encouragement here. Getting out all that you want to say clearly can be hard. It is OK to take a break. It is OK to reorganize. The important thing is to get it down on paper (or some other medium).

Third, take your draft and polish it. The authors give some things to look for. Often writers simply think in terms of grammar and spelling, but perhaps even more important are accuracy and precision. They give a simple example of someone writing—probably a typographical error—that the United States declared its independence in 1876. If that is not corrected, the reader is probably not going to take anything else in such a presentation seriously.

Be precise also in your language. Make sure it says what you want it to say. Use the most specific language that you can without being confusing. It is one thing, for example, to say that the world’s population is in the billions. It is more precise to note that the United Nations Department of Educational and Social Affairs announced that the world’s population surpassed eight billion on November 15, 2022.

This book is not specifically for academic writing. One author is a college teacher. The other has mostly worked as a government official , journalist, and editor. Their advice works for anything from a book to a thank you note. It is worth a look.

The only slight shortfall of the book is simply that some of the examples are dated. After all, the edition I am reviewing came out in the eighties. It speaks of word processors and the Soviet Union. The examples may not be exactly current, but the writing samples that refer to them clearly demonstrate the authors’ points. An updated version came out in the nineties that may reflect some changes. For something that is direct, simple, and clear, it is hard to beat the Meyers’ How to Write. That professional speechwriter knew what he was talking about.

The Benefits Of Learning English By Listening To Audio

The Benefits Of Learning English By Listening To Audio
Guest Contributor – Karoline Gore


Audio Cassette
Photo Courtesy of Pexels

While it’s important to practice reading and writing when learning English as a second language, that’s not all you need to do to become proficient. Listening is also an essential skill which helps you understand English in its spoken form (complete with rhythm and intonation) and get the accent right. In one Swiss study, researchers found participants who simply listened to audio of a foreign language while they slept were significantly better at recalling words than participants who slept in silence. But there are many other ways listening to English language audio can help progress your speaking abilities.

Speeds up the learning process

Research has shown people learn languages best by listening — even if it’s not your usual preferred method of learning. In particular, two studies (one in the Journal of Acoustical Society of America and the other in the Journal of Memory and Language) show you can learn a language faster by listening to it outside of your normal study time. As you passively listen to the audio, your brain picks up on words and phrases you’ve previously studied, which reinforces the language in your mind.

Improves language comprehension

Listening to English language audio regularly improve your listening comprehension — a difficult skill to grasp. Listening comprehension is generally harder than reading comprehension as it requires your brain to work at a quicker speed to keep up with the speaker. Using audio to familiarize yourself with spoken English will train your ear and help you keep up with what’s being said in any conversation.

Flexible and convenient

Using audio to learn English is flexible and convenient for your schedule. You can listen to CD’s, mp3’s, or apps with audio clips during your commute or have it on in the background at home. Your brain will still pick up the language even if you’re simply listening passively. At home, you can also use high-quality audio equipment to enhance your listening experience. A sound bar, for example, will deliver exceptional sound to help you pick up on the nuances of the English language.

Listening to audio is therefore an effective way to learn English as a second language. Be sure to listen to audio apps or even English language radio, podcasts, or TV shows in your spare time. But that’s not to underplay the importance of going to class and studying either. Combining both active practice and passive exposure is the best way to advance your English skills.

Prepositional Phrases as Modifiers

Dear NT:

You wrote:

>1-For young men looking good is important.
>2-For young men to look good is important.
>3-For young men, looking good is important.
>4-For young men, to look good is important.

>I think all of the sentences 1-4 are ambiguous and could have any >of the following meanings:

>a-Young men think it is important that they look good
>b-Young men think that it is important that others or certain others (presumably women) look good
>c-The speaker believes that it is important that young men look good.

>Is that correct?

First of all, there is no difference between 1 and 3 or 2 and 4. Introductory prepositional phrases are often set apart by commas; however, many authorities (including English Plus) say that it is optional if there are fewer than four words in a single phrase. Still, some authorities do use commas even for shorter phrases. (Note that all authorities note the need for a comma in order to avoid ambiguity.)

It is impossible to stretch the meaning of the words given to say “b,” unless it is a short statement or answer given in context. There is no subject for “looking good” or “to look good,” so it would not mean “b.”

They could mean “c,” but without context, they would have to mean “a.” If the speaker meant “c,” he would put the prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence, closer to the word it modifies.

Remember, most prepositional phrases modify words or phrases they are next to. Sometimes introductory adverbial phrases will modify the verb, but that is unlikely here with just a linking verb unless the phrase is one of time or place.

Perhaps in certain contexts, such sentences could mean “b” or “c,” but without any context, the only meaning that makes sense given the words and word order is “a.”

Various Infintive Forms and How They Are Used

Dear Navi,

You wrote:

Which of the lettered interpretations correspond to which of the numbered sentences below:

 1-He was happy to finish the project.

c – however it could be d if the context allowed it

2-He was happy to be finishing the project. –

a – rarely b if the context allowed it

3-He was excited to finish the project.

Same as 1

4-He was excited to be finishing the project.

Same as 2

a-He was happy/excited that he was in the process of finishing the project

b-He was happy/excited that he was going to finish the project in the future

c-He was happy/excited that he had finished the project

d-He would willingly accept to take on the task of finishing the project.

“To be finishing” amounts to a progressive infinitive, so that means continuous or continuing action. Since there is no future infinitive in modern English, #2 could mean b if the context made it clear. Usually, however, the verb would be in the future tense as well: “He will be happy to finish the project tomorrow.”

More Questions on Phrases

Dear N:

You wrote:

1-He took the saw to use in the workshop.

2-He took the saw to be used in the workshop.. Isn’t there a difference in the meanings of these sentences? Could one use ‘2’ if ‘he’ was the only one who was going to use the saw?

While the context could change the meaning slightly, #1 means that he took the saw so that the saw would be used in the workshop. #2 means that he took the saw that was meant to be used in the workshop as opposed to another saw.

3-They beat him up to scare him.

4-They beat him up to be scared. Is sentence ‘4’ correct?

It really does not make much sense. Usually people do not beat others up in order to scare themselves.

5-They took the body to bury it in the cemetery. 

This means “They took the body in order to bury the body in the cemetery.”

6-They took the body to bury in the cemetery.

This means “They took the body in order to bury it in the cemetery as opposed to another burial site.”

7-They took the body to be buried in the cemetery.

This means, “They took the body meant for burial in the cemetery as opposed to another body.”

Since 5, 6, and 7 are close in meaning, the context could change the meaning, but by themselves, these are the closest interpretations.

Using Infinitives instead of Clauses

Dear N:

You wrote:

 1-I did not leave the house to see her.

2-I did not leave the house in order to see her.

Can’t these sentences have three meanings: a-I was supposed to leave the house in order to see her, but I did not do that. b-I left the house but not in order to see her. I left the house for another reason. c-I stayed in the house in order to see her. If I had left, I would not have seen her.

Could one use a comma after ‘house’ to make it clear that meaning ‘c’ is intended?

You are correct for sentence #2. It would depend on context. The comma does not really do much, but you are correct that putting a comma there would suggest an elliptical clause. Remember, these sentences in English are much clearer using clauses rather than phrases. Indeed, I doubt if any native English speaker would even say #1, though technically the grammar is OK. The expression “leave something to,” especially a piece of property like a house usually suggests an inheritance. For example, my aunt left her house to my sisters and me.

The short answer is, yes, you are technically correct, but English speakers seldom speak that way.

 

 

 

Using Only and Just in Different Places in the Sentence

Dear Mr. T:

You wrote:

1-We only don’t have to wash the dishes.

2-We don’t only have to wash the dishes.

3-We don’t have to only wash the dishes.

4-We just don’t have to wash the dishes.

5-We don’t just have to wash the dishes.

6-We don’t have to just wash the dishes.

Which of the above mean:

a-We don’t have to wash the dishes but we have to do everything else.

Which mean:

b-We can do other things as well. We do not need to limit ourselves to washing the dishes.

and which mean:

c-Not only do we have to wash the dishes, we have to do other things as well.

Again, this may vary slightly depending on context. In each case ask which word is the “only” modifying?

 1-We only don’t have to wash the dishes. This is awkward because it modifies a negative. It really serves little purpose here. Perhaps it suggests “a,” but there is but there is not enough context to say for sure.

2- We don’t only have to wash the dishes. This would normally be followed by another clause or sentence. The implication is certainly “c” because “only” modifies the imperative “have to.”

3-We don’t have to only wash the dishes. This also would normally be followed by another clause or sentence. Because “only” modifies “wash,” it might suggest that you have to do something else to to the dishes, i.e., We have to dry them and put them away. However, depending on the context, it could be seen as modifying the whole expression “wash the dishes,” so that it is suggesting that you not only have  to wash the dishes, you have to do other chores as well.

4-We just don’t have to wash the dishes. This depends on the emphasis. It could mean the same as #1, but the word “just” is a little stronger here so it could be spoken with emphasis. It does not suggest that we have to do anything else when spoken with emphasis.

5-We don’t just have to wash the dishes. Same as #2.

6-We don’t have to just wash the dishes. Same as #3

When Participial Phrases Do Not Work

Dear N:

You wrote:

Is this sentence correct:

1-I did not open the door, letting the cat go out.

Meaning: I did not open the door and let the cat out.

#1 sounds downright silly: How could you let cat out if you did not open the door? Did the cat go through a closed door?

Remember, English tends to prefer clauses over verbal phrases.

Be Direct in Your Language

Dear N:

You wrote:

 Which of these sentences are correct? They are all supposed to mean: “Just because a man hated the victim of a crime does not mean he is guilty. We know that he hated the victim, but we cannot conclude from that that he is guilty.”

1-A man is not guilty because he hated the victim of a crime.

This is OK.

2-A man is not guilty SIMPLY because he hated the victim of a crime.

This is better, perhaps more common would be JUST instead of SIMPLY, but either is fine.

3-It is not because he hated the victim of a crime that a man is guilty.

This is technically OK, but it is hard to follow.

4-It is not SIMPLY because he hated the victim of a crime that a man is guilty.

This also is technically OK but harder to follow.

Phrases as Restrictive Modifiers

Dear N:

You wrote:

1-That was his first movie with Sidney Poitier.

2-That was his first movie, with Sidney Poitier.

In 1 it is clear that ‘his first movie with Sidney Poitier’ forms a single noun phrase. (It was not his first movie. It was his first movie with Sidney Poitier.) Does the comma in 2 make ‘with Sidney Poitier’ non-restrictive? Does 2 correspond to

3-That was his first movie, in which Sidney Poitier had a role.

Good question. The short answer is yes, the comma in #2 implies the phrase is nonrestrictive.

However, sentence #3 needs a word like “also” or “too.” Such a word might help #2 as well. There are ways to make the sentence #2 clearer, e.g. “That was his first movie, and Sidney Poitier was in it, too.” While the restrictive/nonrestrictive rule is clearer with clauses, it does apply to phrases as well.