Writing - 'Pon My Word https://ponmyword.com We Bring Writing To Life Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:48:39 +0000 en-AU hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5 https://ponmyword.com/wp-content/uploads/cropped-SiteIcon-32x32.jpg Writing - 'Pon My Word https://ponmyword.com 32 32 Free Proofreading Offer – Make Your Writing Right https://ponmyword.com/free-proofreading-offer-make-your-writing-right/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=free-proofreading-offer-make-your-writing-right Sun, 21 Jan 2024 05:47:44 +0000 https://ponmyword.com/?page_id=1544 Free Proofreading Offer – Get Your Writing Right Did Someone Say Free Proofreading Offer ? At-A-Glance Guide New to ‘Pon My Word? Existing Client? Or Maybe Don’t Quite Fit At-A-Glance Guide? Interested? Up to (around) 4,000 words English – Spelling convention choice Some Style Manual guidelines considered It’s FREE. This unique, limited time Introductory Offer can’t last. Relax being both satisfied and proud of your creation! Matching one-time discounts on offer. If you’ve been thinking about it, now’s the time to do it (not just proofreading – check out our price guide.) Apply below –We’ll promptly agree on the specifics – and get cracking! Yes Alistair – Please assess my situation, and promptly get back to me, so we can nail it down and get cracking!

The post Free Proofreading Offer – Make Your Writing Right first appeared on 'Pon My Word.

]]>
Proofreading and Editing

Free Proofreading Offer - Get Your Writing Right

Did Someone Say Free Proofreading Offer ?

At-A-Glance Guide

New to ‘Pon My Word?

Existing Client? Or Maybe Don’t Quite Fit At-A-Glance Guide?

Interested?

  • Up to (around) 4,000 words
  • English – Spelling convention choice
  • Some Style Manual guidelines considered

It’s FREE. This unique, limited time Introductory Offer can’t last. Relax being both satisfied and proud of your creation!

Matching one-time discounts on offer. If you’ve been thinking about it, now’s the time to do it (not just proofreading – check out our price guide.)

Apply below –We’ll promptly agree on the specifics – and get cracking!

Yes Alistair - Please assess my situation, and promptly get back to me, so we can nail it down and get cracking!

The post Free Proofreading Offer – Make Your Writing Right first appeared on 'Pon My Word.

]]>
SEO: As A ‘Medium’ Writer, How Vital Is It For Your Success? https://ponmyword.com/seo-as-a-medium-writer-how-vital-is-it-for-your-success/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=seo-as-a-medium-writer-how-vital-is-it-for-your-success https://ponmyword.com/seo-as-a-medium-writer-how-vital-is-it-for-your-success/#respond Thu, 20 Jan 2022 06:29:39 +0000 https://ponmyword.com/?p=1716 Consider The Pros And Cons Of How Things Really Work Behind The Scenes Search Engine Optimization. Read that phrase again. It means what it says. Optimizing your creations to make it easy for Search Engine robots (‘bots’) and crawlers to analyse your content. Medium is not a search engine. The likes of Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo are. So how much effort should you expend on it? What’s your ROI? Also, how much of it can you actually apply to your Medium article? To start with, there is both On-Page-SEO and Off-Page-SEO. Off-Page-SEO is not really anything you have much control over. It relates to an “authority”, or “trustworthy” measure gleaned largely from the quantity and quality of “backlinks” to your article. A “backlink” is another site referencing your article –possibly not noteworthy if this is a relatively new article. Accordingly, let’s stick to On-Page-SEO …and it’s not just about keywords. On-Page-SEO includes other items such as: Time on site – how long the visitor stays reading; Page load speed – how long before you actually see anything; Article structure – a big blob of text or a series of flowing “subsections”; Relevance –don’t target ducks, and talk mostly about ferrets; Mobile-friendly – can it be comfortably read on a mobile ‘phone screen; Image optimization; Broken links; and Other stuff – apparently Google has a couple of hundred factors it considers – forget that! You’re just trying to present an engaging article, not analyse the bejesus out of it to satisfy Google. The problem is, Google adds up all these factors, and there’s not a lot you can do to directly influence them – certainly not all of them. Remember, Google ‘bots’ are not human. They need to be able to identify tags in the source code of your article, and examine their contents. These are called ‘metatags’, containing descriptive and structural information about your content. That’s why, for example, when creating a subheading in your article, don’t just bold it. Select it and mark it as a small capital ‘T’. That makes it a Heading metatag that Google can recognize. Also, although the ‘bots’ can ascertain the existence of a series of “subsections”, they haven’t got a clue as to whether they flow or not. Making your creation flow, and keeping your readers engaged – that’s your skill. Which leads to my proposition… Applying copywriting practices, will naturally apply SEO practices By that I mean, applying a variety of tried and true copywriting guidelines, will result in coverage of relevant SEO measures. For example: A well-crafted Title and Subtitle will entice the reader to give it a go in the first place. Have you heard of the ‘4 U’s’? Check out this Medium article by Kathy Widenhouse. The first ‘Lead’ paragraph also needs to be well-crafted. What is your promise/benefit for the reader? What is your ‘big idea’ here? A well-crafted ‘Body’ – subsections with alluring, curiosity-inducing subheadings. Relevance – ‘ducks’, not ‘ferrets’, if ‘ducks’ is your lure. Of course, the whole thing needs to be interesting – vivacious even. Don’t let SEO constrain your creative expression. Look, Ma, No Keywords! How often have you cringed when reading the advice “…make sure you get your keyword into your Title – preferably up the front…”? What ‘keyword’?. Do you have one particular word or phrase you’re supposed to splatter all over your creation? Kinda stifles your expressive diversity, doesn’t it? Just for your information, HTML (your page’s source code) does have a ‘keyword’ metatag in its arsenal. Trouble is, Google largely ignores it, and has for some time. People used to stuff the metatag full of keywords, sometimes irrelevant, just to get higher up in the SERPs (Search Engine Results Pages). Nowadays, Google is much more clever. It uses a “word-vector” approach to scanning your text, and gleaning its relevance to a topic, picking out synonyms, related words, phrases and entities. Very smart. This does not stop you from having a main phrase. If your article is about ‘pigs’, use the word, but if you talk naturally, using related phrases (swine, pork, swill, boar, bacon), Google will pick that up. Advice: Don’t sweat over specific keywords. Sweat over making your article relevant and engaging. Keep that visitor reading right to the end. Finally, who actually benefits from your spending time specifically targeting SEO? SEO helps Search Engines. If, as a result of your SEO efforts, you get a visitor from an external source (external to Medium), and that visitor avidly reads your creation to the end, you won’t get paid for it! Not from the Medium Payment Pool anyway. Medium articles are not free to read by the general public (apart from 2 free articles a month). Who might benefit? Medium might, if it can entice a visitor to join. You might, if you entice a visitor to join, but think about this: if you do, you receive a portion of the new member’s monthly subscription, reducing the amount that would normally go into the overall Payment Pool, hence reducing the amount available for distribution to other members. You might, if you are monetizing your article (e.g. through an affiliate link). So, when you engage in all that SEO, whose side are you on? Will you improve your writing skills? Will you get more Medium followers? Will your professional credentials get a boost (to help with other endeavours)? Will you get rich? Depending on your responses to such questions, the main message of this article is: don’t unnecessarily bust a gut on SEO. Instead, rely on your own copywriting skills, your own natural expressive diversity, your own writing vivacity, to capture those quality readers and followers. Not sure where to start? Well start here… Glenn had to learn the hard way. You don’t. Get cracking now with his DIY Guide.

The post SEO: As A ‘Medium’ Writer, How Vital Is It For Your Success? first appeared on 'Pon My Word.

]]>

Consider The Pros And Cons Of How Things Really Work Behind The Scenes

SEO Complexity

Search Engine Optimization. Read that phrase again. It means what it says. Optimizing your creations to make it easy for Search Engine robots (‘bots’) and crawlers to analyse your content.

 

Medium is not a search engine. The likes of Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo are.

 

So how much effort should you expend on it? What’s your ROI?

 

Also, how much of it can you actually apply to your Medium article?

 

To start with, there is both On-Page-SEO and Off-Page-SEO.

 

Off-Page-SEO is not really anything you have much control over. It relates to an “authority”, or “trustworthy” measure gleaned largely from the quantity and quality of “backlinks” to your article. A “backlink” is another site referencing your article –possibly not noteworthy if this is a relatively new article.

 

Accordingly, let’s stick to On-Page-SEO

 

…and it’s not just about keywords. On-Page-SEO includes other items such as:

 

  • Time on site – how long the visitor stays reading;
  • Page load speed – how long before you actually see anything;
  • Article structure – a big blob of text or a series of flowing “subsections”;
  • Relevance –don’t target ducks, and talk mostly about ferrets;
  • Mobile-friendly – can it be comfortably read on a mobile ‘phone screen;
  • Image optimization;
  • Broken links; and
  • Other stuff – apparently Google has a couple of hundred factors it considers – forget that! You’re just trying to present an engaging article, not analyse the bejesus out of it to satisfy Google.

 

The problem is, Google adds up all these factors, and there’s not a lot you can do to directly influence them – certainly not all of them.

 

Remember, Google ‘bots’ are not human. They need to be able to identify tags in the source code of your article, and examine their contents. These are called ‘metatags’, containing descriptive and structural information about your content.

 

That’s why, for example, when creating a subheading in your article, don’t just bold it. Select it and mark it as a small capital ‘T’. That makes it a Heading metatag that Google can recognize.

 

Also, although the ‘bots’ can ascertain the existence of a series of “subsections”, they haven’t got a clue as to whether they flow or not.

 

Making your creation flow, and keeping your readers engaged – that’s your skill.

 

Which leads to my proposition

 

Applying copywriting practices, will naturally apply SEO practices

 

By that I mean, applying a variety of tried and true copywriting guidelines, will result in coverage of relevant SEO measures.

 

For example:

 

  • A well-crafted Title and Subtitle will entice the reader to give it a go in the first place. Have you heard of the ‘4 U’s’? Check out this Medium article by Kathy Widenhouse.
  • The first ‘Lead’ paragraph also needs to be well-crafted. What is your promise/benefit for the reader? What is your ‘big idea’ here?
  • A well-crafted ‘Body’ – subsections with alluring, curiosity-inducing subheadings.
  • Relevance – ‘ducks’, not ‘ferrets’, if ‘ducks’ is your lure.

 

Of course, the whole thing needs to be interesting – vivacious even. Don’t let SEO constrain your creative expression.

 

Look, Ma, No Keywords!

 

How often have you cringed when reading the advice “…make sure you get your keyword into your Title – preferably up the front…”?

 

What ‘keyword’?. Do you have one particular word or phrase you’re supposed to splatter all over your creation? Kinda stifles your expressive diversity, doesn’t it?

 

Just for your information, HTML (your page’s source code) does have a ‘keyword’ metatag in its arsenal. Trouble is, Google largely ignores it, and has for some time. People used to stuff the metatag full of keywords, sometimes irrelevant, just to get higher up in the SERPs (Search Engine Results Pages).

 

Nowadays, Google is much more clever. It uses a “word-vector” approach to scanning your text, and gleaning its relevance to a topic, picking out synonyms, related words, phrases and entities. Very smart.

 

This does not stop you from having a main phrase. If your article is about ‘pigs’, use the word, but if you talk naturally, using related phrases (swine, pork, swill, boar, bacon), Google will pick that up.

 

Advice: Don’t sweat over specific keywords. Sweat over making your article relevant and engaging. Keep that visitor reading right to the end.

 

Finally, who actually benefits from your spending time specifically targeting SEO?

 

SEO helps Search Engines.

 

If, as a result of your SEO efforts, you get a visitor from an external source (external to Medium), and that visitor avidly reads your creation to the end, you won’t get paid for it! Not from the Medium Payment Pool anyway.

 

Medium articles are not free to read by the general public (apart from 2 free articles a month).

 

Who might benefit?

 

  • Medium might, if it can entice a visitor to join.
  • You might, if you entice a visitor to join, but think about this: if you do, you receive a portion of the new member’s monthly subscription, reducing the amount that would normally go into the overall Payment Pool, hence reducing the amount available for distribution to other members.
  • You might, if you are monetizing your article (e.g. through an affiliate link).

 

So, when you engage in all that SEO, whose side are you on?

 

Will you improve your writing skills?

Will you get more Medium followers?

Will your professional credentials get a boost (to help with other endeavours)?

Will you get rich?

 

Depending on your responses to such questions, the main message of this article is: don’t unnecessarily bust a gut on SEO.

 

Instead, rely on your own copywriting skills, your own natural expressive diversity, your own writing vivacity, to capture those quality readers and followers.

Not sure where to start? Well start here...

Glenn had to learn the hard way.

You don’t.

Get cracking now with his DIY Guide.

The post SEO: As A ‘Medium’ Writer, How Vital Is It For Your Success? first appeared on 'Pon My Word.

]]>
https://ponmyword.com/seo-as-a-medium-writer-how-vital-is-it-for-your-success/feed/ 0
We Do Grammar Right https://ponmyword.com/we-do-grammar-right/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=we-do-grammar-right https://ponmyword.com/we-do-grammar-right/#respond Tue, 02 Feb 2021 06:29:49 +0000 https://ponmyword.com/?p=819 A Gaggle Of Grammar Facts That Will Keep You Up At Night I know! I know! The Title’s a bit sus. ‘Right’ is an adverb, qualifying the verb ‘Do’. Probably should have been ‘Correctly’. Even ‘Do’ is uninspiring. But would you have clicked on “We Apply Grammar Correctly”? (Old Chap!) This article is a grab bag of grammatical and English mentionables. (My use of “mentionables”, by the way, is termed nominalization, but we’re definitely NOT going to get in to that!) A. Let’s start with some easy oddities… irregardless – Now, I know what ‘regardless’ means. Similarly ‘relevant’, ‘responsible’, and their respective opposites – ‘irrelevant’, ‘irresponsible’ – ‘irrespective’. So, ‘irregardless’ must mean ‘regardful’, or, e.g., ‘mindful’. Not what was intended, I’m sure. Action: Don’t use it. In a contract, it can be challenged. It’s ambiguous. mitigate against – makes my head go into a recursive loop. I’ve heard and seen it used in the sense of ‘being an impediment to…’. Such as: “The newly implemented policy could mitigate against our main project outcomes, but they should be low risk.” But ‘mitigate’ means to lessen the impact of: to make things better. What could ‘mitigate against’ possibly mean? ‘…lessen the impact against…’? ‘…make things better against…’? Head’s spinning. The correct term is ‘militate against’. ‘militate’ means to give strength to. ‘militate against’ means to give strength to the negative connotation. As in: “The new presidential Executive Order could militate against the perceived independence of the Justice Department.” (Probably happens all the time.) Action: Get it right. it’s – It’s a contraction. It’s simply short for something. I’ll even tell you what it’s short for: it’s short for ‘it is’. Now you know. Next time you see “it’s”, expand it out. Does it make sense? “The Board is waiting for it’s Mining Report”. “The Board is waiting for it is Mining Report”. Utter nonsense. “it’s” has nowt to do with the possessive case. It’s just a short form. We have a perfectly good word to use for the possessive when it comes to things. and it’s “its”. Just like ‘his’ for males. No such luck for females, though – just use ‘her’ – we have to have exceptions, don’t we! Hence we have: “The Board is waiting for its Mining Report”. Correct. Well done. To paraphrase the much used expression we hear a lot of these days: “It’s what it’s!” Action: Given how physically difficult this little section is to read (all those single and double quote marks), I would suggest thinking twice before contracting ‘it is’ in the first place. B. Agreements – Subject your object to objective scrutiny… One of those widgets that… – Consider the sentence: “This is one of those cranes that has enormous height capability.” “What’s wrong with that sentence?”, I hear you cry. Well, it’s the “has” that’s wrong. It should be agreeing with “cranes”, not “one”. Separate out the clause “…cranes that has enormous height…”, and you’ll get my drift. You wouldn’t normally say that would you?. It should be “…cranes that have enormous height…”, and the crane under discussion is just one of them. Action: None really. Just realize that it’s wrong, and try to avoid it. The sentence’s meaning will probably be adequately conveyed anyway. A word to the wise, though – although this mistake is unlikely to have any contractual ramifications, there are educated readers out there who will spot the flub at once, potentially militating against their normally high regard for the quality of your work. Just a thought. The Government are… – Strictly speaking, Collective Nouns (nouns denoting a group of some sort) are singular. ‘The Government is…’. (At least anecdotally, there is evidence to suggest that American English is more adherent to the rule than British English.) Context can confuse. For example: ‘The Board are divided on the proposition’. Better to be clear, e.g.: ‘Board members are divided on the proposition’. One absolute no-no is to mix up the agreements in the same sentence. It happens. Take for example: ‘The Department is an ass, but they are working on it.’ Action: As a rule, and to protect your reputation, I would stick to the established guideline – collective nouns are singular. However, follow any normally accepted practice. Probably not wise to say: “The Police is…”. Same for sporting teams. Technically they are teams, and ‘team’ is singular, but you won’t hear a sports commentator calling out: ‘The Penrith Panthers is…’. none/each – These are both singular, from an ‘agreement’ perspective. In meaning, ‘none’ is short for ‘not one’. Would you say ‘not one are’? If not, neither would you say ‘none are’. The verb agrees with ‘none’, regardless of how many things you stuff between them. ‘None of the stars in the Milky Way is…’. Same with ‘each’. It’s singular. Saying ‘each are’ is another head spinner. ‘Each of the stars in the Milky Way is…’. Action: Get it right. C. Subject/Object – 2 observations, but will you change? than me – How often have you heard: “Yes, but she is smarter than me”? No gender bias intended. If you care to finish the sentence, you’ll get: “Yes, but she is smarter than me am”. Correctly, this should read: “Yes, but she is smarter than I am”, the slightly shorter version being: “Yes, but she is smarter than I”. I know some folks who can’t bring themselves to say ‘than I’. Sounds overly posh. But it’s correct. This seeming oddity comes about because the verb ‘to be’ doesn’t follow the ‘subject/object’ paradigm. You can’t ‘is’ anyone. It’s more of an equivalence. The case doesn’t change. So the ‘me’ in the previous example is still in the subjective case. You can’t use ‘me’ as a subject. “Yes. Me went to the pictures yesterday”. (Me no save?) Action: Over to you. Just finish the sentence, and you will comfortably stay out of trouble. The possessive gerund – The WHAT? Sounds like a precocious wild animal. Stick with me on this – same theme as the previous little section. Unpretentiously, a gerund is a verb form ending in ‘-ing’. Glad I cleared that up? Consider this sentence: “We’re worried about him going into this important meeting.”. Clearly ‘going’ is the gerund (not ‘meeting’, which is not a verb form). So what’s wrong with this sentence? Well, it’s the ‘him’. ‘him’ is always an object. ‘him’s have things done to them. ‘him’s can’t actually do things themselves. “Where’s Hugh?”. “Oh, him just went into that meeting, and we’re worried.” So ‘him going’ is a nonsense. The fact is, they’re not worried about Hugh (him) at all. He’s probably a nice enough fellow – just the wrong man for the job. What they’re actually worried about is his going into the blessed meeting. Who knows what he might mess up. ‘his going’ – the old possessive gerund! Note also that this discussion applies not only to pronouns (in this case ‘him/his’), but also to any subject – e.g. Hugh himself: “We’re worried about Hugh’s going into this important meeting.”. The potential issue with getting this wrong, is that contractually (legally) it could be argued that the ‘worry’ (in this case) refers only to the specified object (Hugh, here), and not to what the object is actually doing, which is where the crux of the problem probably lies. Action: If you need to be precise, weed out all those missing possessive gerunds. D. “If she was to do that…” – The Subjunctive Do you really need to know what it’s called? Subjunctive? Probably not (impress your acquaintances), but it’s such a common error, clarification is called for. The problem with beginning a sentence with ‘If…’, is that it introduces a scenario that hasn’t happened yet. A future possibility. To quote the OED (Oxford English Dictionary): “The subjunctive is used to express situations which are hypothetical or not yet realized, and is typically used for what is imagined, hoped for, demanded, or expected.” The word ‘was’ is the past tense of the verb ‘to be’. Describing a future scenario cannot be framed in the past tense. So, “If she was to do that…” needs to be recast as “If she were to do that…”. The verb ‘were’ is said to be in the subjunctive mood. Probably better to have said “Had she done that..”. Not convinced? Consider: “I wish I was taller than I am.”. Does this mean she wishes she used to be taller than she actually is now (for whatever reason – might have joined the army), but now everything is fine? That’s how it reads, or at least can be read. Make it clear. Stick to the future – “I wish I were taller than I am.”. Action: Apply the subjunctive mood to avoid any ambiguity. E. That’s enough of a gaggle for one day… There’s plenty more I could rabbit on about, but we’ll leave that for another day. Maybe you’d love to hear about ‘nominalization’?. Gadz! (I know you can’t wait to be the GGG – ‘Go to’ Grammar Guy – Read on…) Ernest Arthur G. to keep it simple – and Henry Watson F. to be precise Ernest A. Gowers’ PLAIN WORDS keeps you honest, and Henry W. Fowler’s MODERN ENGLISH USAGE keeps you out of trouble.

The post We Do Grammar Right first appeared on 'Pon My Word.

]]>

A Gaggle Of Grammar Facts That Will Keep You Up At Night

Grammar rules are easy to comprehend

I know! I know! The Title’s a bit sus. ‘Right’ is an adverb, qualifying the verb ‘Do’. Probably should have been ‘Correctly’. Even ‘Do’ is uninspiring.

But would you have clicked on “We Apply Grammar Correctly”? (Old Chap!)

This article is a grab bag of grammatical and English mentionables. (My use of “mentionables”, by the way, is termed nominalization, but we’re definitely NOT going to get in to that!)

A. Let’s start with some easy oddities…

  • irregardless – Now, I know what ‘regardless’ means. Similarly ‘relevant’, ‘responsible’, and their respective opposites – ‘irrelevant’, ‘irresponsible’ – ‘irrespective’.
    So, ‘irregardless’ must mean ‘regardful’, or, e.g., ‘mindful’. Not what was intended, I’m sure.
    Action: Don’t use it. In a contract, it can be challenged. It’s ambiguous.
  • mitigate against – makes my head go into a recursive loop. I’ve heard and seen it used in the sense of ‘being an impediment to…’. Such as: “The newly implemented policy could mitigate against our main project outcomes, but they should be low risk.
    But ‘mitigate’ means to lessen the impact of: to make things better. What could ‘mitigate against’ possibly mean? ‘…lessen the impact against…’? ‘…make things better against…’?
    Head’s spinning.
    The correct term is ‘militate against’. ‘militate’ means to give strength to. ‘militate against’ means to give strength to the negative connotation.
    As in: “The new presidential Executive Order could militate against the perceived independence of the Justice Department.” (Probably happens all the time.)
    Action: Get it right.
  • it’s – It’s a contraction. It’s simply short for something. I’ll even tell you what it’s short for: it’s short for ‘it is’. Now you know.
    Next time you see “it’s”, expand it out. Does it make sense? “The Board is waiting for it’s Mining Report”. “The Board is waiting for it is Mining Report”. Utter nonsense.
    “it’s” has nowt to do with the possessive case. It’s just a short form. We have a perfectly good word to use for the possessive when it comes to things. and it’s “its”. Just like ‘his’ for males. No such luck for females, though – just use ‘her’ – we have to have exceptions, don’t we!
    Hence we have: “The Board is waiting for its Mining Report”. Correct. Well done.
    To paraphrase the much used expression we hear a lot of these days: “It’s what it’s!”
    Action: Given how physically difficult this little section is to read (all those single and double quote marks), I would suggest thinking twice before contracting ‘it is’ in the first place.

B. Agreements – Subject your object to objective scrutiny…

  • One of those widgets that… – Consider the sentence: “This is one of those cranes that has enormous height capability.”
    “What’s wrong with that sentence?”, I hear you cry. Well, it’s the “has” that’s wrong. It should be agreeing with “cranes”, not “one”.
    Separate out the clause “…cranes that has enormous height…”, and you’ll get my drift. You wouldn’t normally say that would you?.
    It should be “…cranes that have enormous height…”, and the crane under discussion is just one of them.
    Action: None really. Just realize that it’s wrong, and try to avoid it. The sentence’s meaning will probably be adequately conveyed anyway.
    A word to the wise, though – although this mistake is unlikely to have any contractual ramifications, there are educated readers out there who will spot the flub at once, potentially militating against their normally high regard for the quality of your work. Just a thought.
  • The Government are… – Strictly speaking, Collective Nouns (nouns denoting a group of some sort) are singular. ‘The Government is…’. (At least anecdotally, there is evidence to suggest that American English is more adherent to the rule than British English.)
    Context can confuse. For example: ‘The Board are divided on the proposition’. Better to be clear, e.g.: ‘Board members are divided on the proposition’.
    One absolute no-no is to mix up the agreements in the same sentence. It happens. Take for example: ‘The Department is an ass, but they are working on it.’
    Action: As a rule, and to protect your reputation, I would stick to the established guideline – collective nouns are singular. However, follow any normally accepted practice. Probably not wise to say: “The Police is…”. Same for sporting teams. Technically they are teams, and ‘team’ is singular, but you won’t hear a sports commentator calling out: ‘The Penrith Panthers is…’.
  • none/each – These are both singular, from an ‘agreement’ perspective.
    In meaning, ‘none’ is short for ‘not one’. Would you say ‘not one are’? If not, neither would you say ‘none are’. The verb agrees with ‘none’, regardless of how many things you stuff between them. ‘None of the stars in the Milky Way is…’.
    Same with ‘each’. It’s singular. Saying ‘each are’ is another head spinner. ‘Each of the stars in the Milky Way is…’.
    Action: Get it right.

C. Subject/Object – 2 observations, but will you change?

  • than me – How often have you heard: “Yes, but she is smarter than me”? No gender bias intended.
    If you care to finish the sentence, you’ll get: “Yes, but she is smarter than me am”. Correctly, this should read: “Yes, but she is smarter than I am”, the slightly shorter version being: “Yes, but she is smarter than I”.
    I know some folks who can’t bring themselves to say ‘than I’. Sounds overly posh. But it’s correct.
    This seeming oddity comes about because the verb ‘to be’ doesn’t follow the ‘subject/object’ paradigm. You can’t ‘is’ anyone. It’s more of an equivalence. The case doesn’t change.
    So the ‘me’ in the previous example is still in the subjective case. You can’t use ‘me’ as a subject. “Yes. Me went to the pictures yesterday”. (Me no save?)
    Action: Over to you. Just finish the sentence, and you will comfortably stay out of trouble.
  • The possessive gerund – The WHAT? Sounds like a precocious wild animal. Stick with me on this – same theme as the previous little section.
    Unpretentiously, a gerund is a verb form ending in ‘-ing’. Glad I cleared that up?
    Consider this sentence:
    “We’re worried about him going into this important meeting.”. Clearly ‘going’ is the gerund (not ‘meeting’, which is not a verb form).
    So what’s wrong with this sentence? Well, it’s the ‘him’. ‘him’ is always an object. ‘him’s have things done to them. ‘him’s can’t actually do things themselves. “Where’s Hugh?”. “Oh, him just went into that meeting, and we’re worried.” So ‘him going’ is a nonsense.
    The fact is, they’re not worried about Hugh (him) at all. He’s probably a nice enough fellow – just the wrong man for the job.
    What they’re actually worried about is his going into the blessed meeting. Who knows what he might mess up.
    his going’ – the old possessive gerund!
    Note also that this discussion applies not only to pronouns (in this case ‘him/his’), but also to any subject – e.g. Hugh himself: “We’re worried about Hugh’s going into this important meeting.”.
    The potential issue with getting this wrong, is that contractually (legally) it could be argued that the ‘worry’ (in this case) refers only to the specified object (Hugh, here), and not to what the object is actually doing, which is where the crux of the problem probably lies.
    Action: If you need to be precise, weed out all those missing possessive gerunds.

D. “If she was to do that…” – The Subjunctive

Do you really need to know what it’s called? Subjunctive? Probably not (impress your acquaintances), but it’s such a common error, clarification is called for.

The problem with beginning a sentence with ‘If…’, is that it introduces a scenario that hasn’t happened yet. A future possibility. To quote the OED (Oxford English Dictionary):

The subjunctive is used to express situations which are hypothetical or not yet realized, and is typically used for what is imagined, hoped for, demanded, or expected.

The word ‘was’ is the past tense of the verb ‘to be’. Describing a future scenario cannot be framed in the past tense. So, “If she was to do that…” needs to be recast as “If she were to do that…”. The verb ‘were’ is said to be in the subjunctive mood. Probably better to have said “Had she done that..”.

Not convinced?

Consider: “I wish I was taller than I am.”. Does this mean she wishes she used to be taller than she actually is now (for whatever reason – might have joined the army), but now everything is fine? That’s how it reads, or at least can be read.

Make it clear. Stick to the future – “I wish I were taller than I am.”.

Action: Apply the subjunctive mood to avoid any ambiguity.

E. That’s enough of a gaggle for one day…

There’s plenty more I could rabbit on about, but we’ll leave that for another day. Maybe you’d love to hear about ‘nominalization’?. Gadz!

(I know you can’t wait to be the GGG – ‘Go to’ Grammar Guy – Read on…)

Ernest Arthur G. to keep it simple - and Henry Watson F. to be precise

Ernest A. Gowers’ PLAIN WORDS keeps you honest, and Henry W. Fowler’s MODERN ENGLISH USAGE keeps you out of trouble.

The post We Do Grammar Right first appeared on 'Pon My Word.

]]>
https://ponmyword.com/we-do-grammar-right/feed/ 0