We interrupt this blog...

Remember Tuesdays with Morrie? Well, I think this needs to move to a Wednesdays with Mignon type thing. Daily is causing great neglect of my other blogs...so, we'll go weekly. Wednesdays...starting next week.

Too, two, to troubles

Even though this seems like an easy enough mistake to avoid, it appears that it is not. Too many times you will find the inappropriate use of a homonym (sound alike word). This does not only occur with too, two and to. Their, they're and there are also BIG offenders. It seems people just cannot keep them straight. So, for the record:
TO

• Preposition expressing movement Maude walked to the store.
• Part of a verb phrase Maude refused to be intimidated by the mean-eyed man. (refused to be is the verb phrase)
• With verbs of communication Maude listened to Ben with out saying anything.

TWO

• When expressing numbers. There are two men in Grandma Rose's house.

TOO

• Adverb meaning excessive or also. Maude was too tired and too sore to move much.

Getting fancy with the homonyms!
Maude and Ben, two kids too worried about a friend to ignore the evidence.

They're, their and there. Ah yes, these are misused so often it is frightening.

THEY'RE

• They are. They're going to visit Grandma Rose this weekend.

THEIR

• Possessive of they. Grandma Rose was their friend.

THERE

• A place. Let's sit over there.

Seriously...what is so hard about that? And yet, those are some of the most commonly confused words. So just keep an eye open. I know I will. :)

Irregardless of the facts....

So while we are talking about people using words that really aren't words, let's discuss irregardless, as in :
Irregardless of what they thought, "irregardless" is NOT a word.

Probably it is a hybrid of irrespective, meaning "in spite of everything" and regardless, which means the same.

This can easily segue our conversation into the descriptive and prescriptive way our language grows. As Xan mentioned in comments from yesterday's discussion about alright, the language is ever changing. A descriptive linguist is concerned about how language is actually spoken and used, while a prescriptive linguist would be more concerned with the rules and codex of grammar and syntax and how it is being used.
So a prescriptive linguist would claim, "No! Irregardless is not a word! It uses a double negative pairing of the prefix Ir-(meaning not) and the suffix -less (meaning, you guessed it, without). " Of course, I am sure that a linguist would explain it much better, but you get the basic idea.
And we all remember about double negatives, right? They cross each other out like some mathematical term. So the saying "We don't need need no education," in the famous Pink Floyd song is really saying they don't need "no education," meaning they need education.
Clear as mud?

Now I do not have an OED (Oxford English Dictionary) to check with, but according to wikipedia, American Heritage (1991), Websters (2004), and Merriam-Webster all recommend to use regardless instead. And since I don't particularly care about irregardless, I guess I will just ditch it.

Every Little Thing is Going to be Alright. Or All Right?

Did you know that there is a debate going on whether or not "alright" is a word. Grammarians argue that it is not--that it should always be "all right." But *I* have to argue with that. To me, "all right" means one thing, while "alright" means something different.
The distinction, in my mind, is slight, but there. I don't think I would say, "All right, let's get moving." But to me, "Alright, let's get moving!" is acceptable.

Merriam-Webster says that "all right" means:
all right
adjective
1. satisfactory, agreeable <Whatever you decide is all right with me.>
2. safe, well <He was sick, but he is all right now.>
3. good, pleasing --often used as a generalized term of approval. <He was an all right guy.>

So which definition would fit in the previous sentence? None of them, really. Unless you mean it is agreeable to get moving, but that just isn't what it means to me in that context. So then the next question is, what *does* it mean to me in that context? And my answer: I don't really know. Scary, huh? I've been using a word, that is not *really* a word and I don't really know how to define it either.

Upon further research, I found this at "The Free Dictionary."

all right

adj.

1.

a. In proper or satisfactory operational or working order: checked to see if the tires were all right.

b. Acceptable; agreeable: Delaying the repair is all right by me.

c. all-right (ôlrt) Informal Satisfactory; good: an all-right fellow; an all-right movie.

2. Correct: Your answers are all right.

3. Average; mediocre: The performance was just all right, not remarkable.

4. Uninjured; safe: The passengers were shaken up but are all right.

5. Fairly healthy; well: I am feeling all right again.

adv.

1. In a satisfactory way; adequately: I held up all right under pressure.

2. Very well; yes. Used as a reply to a question or to introduce a declaration: All right, I'll go.

3. Without a doubt: It's cold, all right.

Usage Note: Despite the appearance of the form alright in works of such well-known writers as Langston Hughes and James Joyce, the single word spelling has never been accepted as standard. This is peculiar, since similar fusions such as already and altogether have never raised any objections. The difference may lie in the fact that already and altogether became single words back in the Middle Ages, whereas alright has only been around for a little more than a century and was called out by language critics as a misspelling. Consequently, one who uses alright, especially in formal writing, runs the risk that readers may view it as an error or as the willful breaking of convention.

But M-W says that "alright" is gaining some acceptance. As does Mignon. But they also claim that it is not accepted yet.

Moral of the story? I guess it would be don't use "alright" because it isn't a word.
That makes me sad, somehow.

It's unbelievable! Or is that its?

This is going to be a quick and easy post. Mainly because I was unable to work on my computer all day (stupid malware!) and I need to get the kids to bed. So, refresher course on "it."

IT is a pronoun, used to replace a noun in the sentence.
Which shows the correct form of a possessive "it?"
Maude put the book on its side.
Maude put the book on it's side.

If you said the first sentence, kudos to you! In this ONE case, the possessive does not use an apostrophe s. It'S has a COMPLETELY different meaning.

"Its about time you got here."
"It's about time you got here."

What is the correct form in this sentence? If you said "It's" another kudos--you got this down!

It's ALWAYS means IT IS (or it has). It never means the possessive of it. So, only use it to mean it is (or it has).

Are you using it correctly? If you can stick an "It is" into the sentence and it still makes sense, then yes.

Maude put the book on [it is] side. Nope. Makes no sense. So the it in this sentence would be its.
"[It is] about time you got here." Yep! Got it! So that one should be it's.

See? That isn't so bad.

Simpsons bringin' in the D'Oh!

Yea, this week has been heavy on the grammar. Got a bit intense with the verbs, eh? Sheesh! Today's light and fluffy post is brought to you by Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies (which is a perfectly lovely book and hysterical as well. June Casagrande wrote it, in case you are wondering).

Did you know that the Simpsons are very grammatically correct? According to the author of Grammar Snobs, who conducted her own "scientific research," the show features correct grammar, linguistic superiority and sheer brilliance. And they single-handedly coined the term "D'oh," which now appears in the Oxford Dictionary.
Lisa often interjects a linguistics lesson when she coaches Homer on the correct word usage. It is just all together a well written, well animated show and deserves the long time it has spent in the spotlight. Even after 20 years on the air, the show still finds a way to amuse people. Go Simpsons!

As proof, I submit the following:
In episode "Take My Wife, Sleeze" (Season 11, ep. 8) Marge and the leader of a biker gang, Hell's Satan's, engage in a discussion about how to pronounce "resume." (I tried to find a clip, but couldn't, so here is an excerpt from the quotes on iMDb.

Meathook: Alright Satans, we roll out at dawn.
Marge Simpson: Where are we going?
Meathook: To the Biker's Jamboree in South Dakota. You'll love it. Mickey Rourke is comin' and we're gonna jump him.
Marge Simpson: You know, there's more to life than boozing and roughhousing.
[entire gang looks around at each other, confused]
Marge Simpson: Haven't any of you had a dream?
Ramrod: Yeah, I had a dream! I was in this beautiful garden... pounding the crap out of a shopkeeper. Then...
Marge Simpson: Noo! I mean the dream of a good job, a loving family, and a home in the suburbs.
Meathook: Aww man, to get all that you'd have to kill live fifty people!
Marge Simpson: Noooo, you don't have to kill anyone! Not if you have jobs. And the first step is an eye-catching resume.
Ramrod: Nah, actually it's called résumé.
Meathook: Actually, both are acceptable.

Loses something with just the words, but still humorous to think of Marge and a biker discussing pronunciations.

Jane Casagrande also points out the use of such brilliant words. For instance:

"perspicacity" (Season 6, ep. 1):

Lisa: Relax? I can't relax. Nor can I yield, relent, or... Only two synonyms? Oh my God, I'm losing my perspicacity. Aaaaa!
Homer: Well, it's always in the last place you look.

"phallocentric" (Season 11, ep. 16)
Lisa: I propose to you that your heir not need be a boy. In this phallocentric society of ours--
Mr. Burns: I don't know what phallocentric means, but no girls!
Milhouse: (dressed as a girl) So much for Plan B!

and "crapulence." (Season 7, ep. 1)
Mr. Burns: Smithers had thwarted my earlier attempt to take candy from a baby, but with him out of the picture, I was free to wallow in my own crapulence.

And since language is ever evolving, the Simpsons have left their mark on linguistic history as well. In addition to d'oh, Cracked has a sweet review of the top 12 words we now have in our vocabulary. Be warned, however. Cracked is a very addicting site.

And as final proof I offer this clip, from this season. "Thursdays With Abie" features a clip where Nelson is instructing Bart to write about his weekend with the stuffed lamb of the classroom. "Tell the diary how special he makes you feel." Instructs Nelsin to Bart. Then as Bart is writing, Nelson chastizes, "More adjectives....that's an adverb." And punches him in the shoulder.
Here is the episode, but I cannot figure out how to do clips, so check out 6.09-6.24 of the video.

What is YOUR favorite Simpson's episode(s)? I doubt I can narrow it down to just one...

Verb-al Part 2

Don't worry! Tomorrow will be MUCH lighter in topics. I am thinking linking verbs! (Kidding. Those are kind of complex too!)

One more tense. That's all. Bear with me here, then we will go over it all again.

Perfect Progressive.

Maude has been climbing trees since she was five. (Present Perfect Progressive. The action (climbing trees) began in the past, continues in the present and might continue into the future. This tense is formed by using has/have been and the present participle of the verb (the verb form ending in -ing).

Before she met Grandma Rose, Maude had been dreading the move. (Past Perfect Progressive. The action, dreading the move, was a past, ongoing action. She was dreading it for a while, not just once. The action-- in this case the dreading, was completed--also in the past. She was dreading the move before she met Grandma Rose, but then she met her and the dreading was over. This tense is formed by using will have been and the present participle of the verb (the verb form ending in -ing).

By the time Maude starts school in the fall, she will have been living in her new house for a month. (Future Perfect Progressive. Awkward, I know. It describes a future, on-going action that occurs before a specified time. In this case, the on-going action is living in the house, the specified time is in the fall. This tense is formed by using will have been and the present participle of the verb (the verb form ending in -ing).

And I am going to do some breaking down of it now. Will you ever need to know what verb tense you are using? Probably not. We generally can get by using words that we think sound right together. But the potential for grammatical errors increases the more fancy you get with the tenses. That being said, it makes for boring writing (and reading) to have just subject/verb/object in simple tenses.

Maude jumped from the tree. She walked across the yard. She opened the door. She walked inside.

See? By the end of the last sentence you want to push Maude off a cliff to get her to do something interesting. So *knowing* the basics of the verb tenses can be helpful so you can express yourself more creatively. Studying them so you can parse your co-worker's e-mail or boss's memo is just plain not worth it. Unless you are a Grammar Snob and a great big meanie!

I am borrowing a table from here to have everything listed in one place.

Active Verb Tenses

Simple Present
Present or Action Condition	General Truths
Maude jumps out of the tree.	August is a really hot month.

Present Progressive
Activity in Progress	Verbs of Perception
Maude is jumping out of the tree.	She is feeling sleepy.

Simple Past
Completed Action	Completed Condition
Maude jumped out of the tree.	It was very hot last week.

Past Progressive
Past Action that took place over a period of time	Past Action interrupted by another
Maude grew taller.	Maude was jumping out of the tree when she spotted the cat.

Future
With will/won't — Activity or event that will or won't exist or happen in the future	With going to — future in relation to circumstances in the present
Maude will be jumping out of the tree as soon as the bee comes close.	Maude is hungry so she is going to get something to eat.

Present Perfect
With verbs of state that begin in the past and lead up to and include the present	To express habitual or continued action
Maude has climbed the tree since they moved in.	Maude has read since she was four.

Present Perfect Progressive

To express duration of an action that began in the past, has continued into the present, and may continue into the future

Maude has been climbing trees since she was five.

Past Perfect
To describe a past event or condition completed before another event in the past	In reported speech
By the time Maude arrived at the house, Grandma Rose had disappeared.	Maude said that she had gone to Grandma Rose's house.

Future Perfect

To express action that will be completed by or before a specified time in the future

By the time Maude makes it to seventh grade, she will have solved a mystery.

Does that help? Or make things worse?

Let's Get Verb-al

So yesterday I wrote about subject and object--today I will talk about verbs. Pretty elementary, but bear with me. No good grammar discussion can occur without going over the basics. Besides, there are so MANY different kinds of verbs that it makes ones head spin! Add that to the fact that in order to be a complete sentence, every sentence needs a verb, and you can see why this needs covering.
Today we will talk about the basic, simple, garden variety action verbs. Easy peasy, right?
Well, kind of.
You have your basic, straightforward action verbs: jumped, kicked, hit, (wow these are all violent! Think I live with small kids or what?). Action verbs are easy work. They are easily distinguishable. They stand out. They breath life into a sentence. They make it move. They MAKE the sentence.
Verbs also have another important aspect to them--they have to fit the subject, as well as the time frame, and this is where the trouble begins.

Simple Tenses

• Maude jumps out of the tree. (Present tense.)
• Maude jumped out of the tree. (That wasn't so bad, right? Maude exited the tree in the past.)
• Maude will jump out of the tree to get a cookie. (Future. She will be jumping, but right now she is lounging.)

So those forms are pretty straight forward. Subject (Maude) performing an action (jumping) with the verb giving a sense of time of when the action happens (now, yesterday, tomorrow). Seems pretty straight forward...especially with action verbs.
Then we start getting fancy with the tenses.

Progressive Tenses

• Maude is jumping out of the tree. (Right now! She is moving right now! Present Progressive. This tense is formed by using am/is/are with the verb form ending in -ing.)
• Maude was jumping out of the tree when she spotted the cat. (Past progressive. Action was occurring when something else happened. She was jumping when she saw the cat. This tense is formed by using was/were with the verb form ending in -ing.)
• Maude will be jumping out of the tree as soon as the bee comes close. (Future progressive. She will be doing something. This tense is formed by using will be or shall be with the verb form ending in -ing.)

Perfect Tenses

• Maude has climbed the tree since they moved in. (Present Perfect. Her behavior began in the past and continues into the present. This tense is formed by using has/have with the past participle of the verb.)
• By the time Maude arrived at the house, Grandma Rose had disappeared. (Past perfect. The tense describes an action that took place in the past (Maude arrived) before another past action(Grandma Rose disappeared). This tense is formed by using had with the past participle of the verb.)
• By the time Maude makes it to seventh grade, she will have solved a mystery. (Future perfect tense. It describes an action (Maude making it it to seventh grade) that will occur in the future before some other action(solving a mystery). This tense is formed by using will have with the past participle of the verb.

Still with me? My eyes are glazing over too. Let's leave it there for now and we will rejoin verbs tomorrow. This one kind of snuck up on me. I thought--ah, verbs. Actions verbs--what could be easier? Apparently I was wrong!
I am generously borrowing information from this site today. They explain everything pretty straightforwardly.

Also, I am really excited to mention that I checked out four more books on grammar from the library, so Mignon and Strunk might not be my only gurus. So far I am LOVING "Grammar Snobs are Great Big Meanies" by June Casagrande. She is FUNNY!

So, watch a movie or something to unglaze your eyes. This post was a doozy!

Bonus post for today--and grammar is optional!

Kidding about the grammar part. But this is not going to be a grammar post. What it IS going to be is a post about following your bliss, following said bliss and what is going to happen if you achieve this bliss. In order to bring success into my blogging life, I hope to win tickets to the 2010 Blissdom Conference, in a giveaway brought to us by SteaZ.
Well, I have three blogs at the moment--a craft blog, this blog, and THE blog.
This blog, Grammar with Mignon, is about improving my writing. I need to hone my skills if I am going to achieve my ultimate goal--and that is to have THE blog published. That blog, Maude's Mysteries, is my brain-child. Maude is a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure in the 21st century type deal. My goal is to engage kids in reading--to really get them involved in the story, to have them own the tale--by letting THEM help write the story. Yes, that is what I said--the READERS get to help choose the course of the plot. I publish a chapter segment Sunday through Thursday. Voting opens Thursday and closes Sunday when the next chapter starts. And I am having a BALL with it. THIS is my bliss, my dream, my baby.
However, no matter what an interesting idea it is, no matter how engaging it is, no matter how involved the readers get, it does not succeed if there are no voters. And that is where I am now. People vote, but not many. Traffic is slow. And as a blogger, I value traffic. I treasure readers. I covet them. I want them! (Who doesn't?) Success, for me, would be having (dare I dream) 500 voters!
So, I want to discover tips and tricks about how to expand my audience base, how to reach out and touch that tween over there (but not in a creepy-old-guy way--in a good way, an inspiring way) that is desperate for some non-vampire related book to read. This is what I believe Blissdom: The Conference can do for me. It can help me find new ways to reach out. It can grant me knowledge of the blogosphere that I currently lack, and yet so desperately need. It will fill me with tips, tricks and tactics that I can use to get the attention of the readers I want.
And as a bonus, an extra special bonus, there is a session on Getting Published that I would love to attend.

I object! Or is that object?

Let's go back to grammar school for a minute and revisit the Subject and Object. Don't worry--this is a quick and easy lesson!
The subject is the main player in the sentence. The leading actor. The person (or thing) without whom the sentence would not be able to function. For instance, check out the following sentence:
Maude picked up the books.
Maude IS the subject. Without Maude, there would be no books being picked up. They would stay on the table, or wherever they were.

The object of the sentence is having something done to it. Without the object, the subject would just be standing there, mid-stage, an actor without a prop. In the previous sentence the books would be the object, since they are having something done to them (they are being picked up).

Simple, right? In theory, yes. But when the sentences get long and convoluted, sometimes it is more difficult to parse out the noun and the subject. And, quite frankly, unless you are an editor or an elementary school teacher, generally you don't NEED to. Even then, the need is sketchy. When this becomes important is when you are writing. You should always know where your subject and object are.
It's nine o'clock. Do you know where your subject is? (Why yes, I am operating on little sleep today--why do you ask?)

So, there was my brief covering of subject and object. They are important to know when constructing sentences--they the foundation upon which the sentence is built. Well, the subject, object and verb, but we'll talk about verbs tomorrow.

In spite of myself...despite myself...uh what?

In spite of my best efforts, this blog is late today.
Despite the other blog entries I wrote today, I still have the desire to write here too.
Writing in this blog has been very enjoyable for me, despite what you might think. I enjoy learning about the ins and outs of this funky language of ours, in spite of the fact that it can be confusing.

Uh, okay.

So, which is the correct usage? In spite of or despite? They are both correct, actually. The only incorrect usage would be "in despite of" which is a marriage of the two, but incorrect.

Some people prefer to use despite, since it is shorter, but there really is no correct way. They mean the same, so they are interchangeable.

In spite of this repetitious post, I hope that you come back for more!

Why a Grammar Blog, exactly?

Recently I found myself in need of brushing up on my grammar for a test. I had only two days--and I failed. It was humbling, quite frankly, since English is kind of my thing. Writing...apparently NOT editing. So, I decided to jump in with both feet and go hog wild (mixing metaphors for two hundred, Alex). I added two books by Mignon Fogarty, aka Grammar Girl, to my collection and a brand new (hardback!) edition of Strunk & White. And since I am apparently addicted to blogging (who could have guessed?)--well, I thought I would take you along on the journey.
Mignon has a book called The Grammar Devotional which has daily tips for improving writing. So, I am reading that, and blogging here about what she suggests. Because you know, to learn, you need to read, and write, the material. At least I do.
So, today's topic, which I am actually taking from Strunk & White, is rule one of the Elementary rules--possessives.
I am afflicted with a relatively good education. I say afflicted because, see, this education makes me think I know things that, really, I am 'misremembering'. (Thanks for that addition to the lexicon, Dubya!) So, I was (mistakenly) appalled when Bridget Jones's Diary made its appearance in 2001.
"No, no, no!! If you are making a possessive of a name ending in an "s" you just add the apostrophe--no extra "s" is needed!" I cried indignantly.
And, I was wrong. Maybe.
Strunk says to add an 's no matter what the final consonant.
Except when you don't. (See, it's NOT all that easy!)
Mignon says BOTH forms are correct. It is a personal choice. Or the choice of whatever style you choose to use. Strunk says it is always apostrophe s. AP Stylebook (Associated Press) disagrees.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten into the debate (Kansas's or Kansas'). There is still no resolution. So I was wrong, in that the title was right. But I was also right. (See now why writing this all out is helpful?)
Sometimes, people choose which form to use by whether or not the extra "s" is pronounced. In Jones's, the extra "s" is pronounced, so 's it is.
When the second "s" is not pronounced, such as in King Ramses' Tomb, there is no extra "s."
Whether you make it an apostrophe s or not, really, is up to you.
Of course, you could always just say "The Diary of Bridget Jones" and avoid the issue altogether.

Sending out the Former and Welcoming the Latter; Good-Bye 2009!

Nope, not ladder--latter! And I don't know about you, but I always get a trifle confused when reading this phraseology and often, okay--always, have to return to the previous sentence (the former one) to figure out what they are referring to.
Say someone writes something along the lines of, "Sam ate eggs and bacon for breakfast. The former made him ill, the latter raised his cholesterol."
Which is which? Which raised his cholesterol and which made him ill? The Former--or the First item in the list, eggs, made him ill. The Latter, or the Last item, bacon, raised his cholesterol.

According to Mignon Fogarty, though, in The Grammar Devotional the terminology in general should be used rarely, if at all, in writing and never in speaking. You cannot refer back to the previous sentence with speech, so it makes it really hard to follow what you mean.

Making your readers work for the entertainment can lose the interest of the reader, especially if done frequently...so skip former and latter and use other methods of distinguishing between choices.

So, what is a preferable? Finding a way to avoid the need to use them altogether. Rewriting the sentence above could be done like this: "Sam ate eggs and bacon for breakfast. The eggs made him ill, the bacon raised his cholesterol."

Rephrasing it means less work for the reader, or listener, and therefore a more easily understood passage or speech.