Stop! Grammar Time...

...Whoa-ohh...Whoa-ohh...etc.

WARNING: This is our most boring post ever.

Seeing as we grew so impassioned over grammar debates regarding Pat's previous post, I thought a quick post on grammar rules might be appropriate.

"But how is a post on grammar rules appropriate for a sports blog?" you ask.

Easily. For one, I figure that if ESPN can show spelling bees and poker, we can talk grammar. Hell, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather watch people debate grammar on TV Around the Horn-style than watch the World Series of Poker--or Around the Horn itself (but not the National Spelling Bee; that kicks ass).

But more importantly, we should discuss these topics on YCS for the simple reason that we often criticize the grammar--and writing on the whole--of nationally published authors. As such, we should be mindful of word-usage in our own writing.

For now, I will only address the few topics brought up in the last post.

Who/Whom: I think we all know the basic rule--"who" takes the place of a subject noun, and "whom" takes the place of an object noun. But Nate makes a good point about the importance of this rule: we rarely use "whom" in conversation, so who cares? Why not just use "who" all the time?

As the one person on this blog who has criticized a sportswriter for improper "who" use, I will admit I mostly agree with Nate's sentiment. (I would have never pointed out the transgression had I not been so annoyed with the author and his lame best buys-worst buys chart.)

However, if one is to misuse "who" or "whom," most anyone would agree to err on the side of "who." Simply, a misuse of "whom" stands out more, as it is the less frequently used word. To be sure, proper uses of "whom" often sound awkward to a listener or reader for this reason (e.g. "Whom do you like better--Woody Paige or Skip Bayless?"). Although "whom" may be grammatically correct, "who" has become the choice of the unwashed commoners, and our standards for this rule have adjusted accordingly.

How-EV-ah [in Stephen A. Smith voice]...I would still argue that proper "whom" usage immediately following a preposition should be observed (e.g. "Dave Winfield entered the Hall of Fame as a member of the Padres, the team with whom Winfield began his career.") As this sentence construction is virtually never used in conversation, it carries a more formal and deliberate tone. That being the case, no vernacular-based argument can rightly justify an improper "who," and the misuse only comes across as sloppy disobedience of the rule.

Preposition at the end of a sentence: Again, I agree that the merits of this rule are overvalued. In many cases, ending the sentence with a preposition is fully necessary in order to express a common phrase in the most efficient way possible (e.g. "The NHL was locked out. Or was it on strike? I don't really care about hockey.")

However, [with Stephen A. Smith attitude] unnecessary abuses of this rule should always be avoided, particularly when we tack a preposition that adds no meaning onto the end of a sentence (e.g. "I can't imagine where Zidane's mind was at.")

The relevant issue with this rule is not so much the ending of a sentence with a preposition as it is the use of a preposition without an object. If the object sounds more natural (a judgment call) before the preposition, write it that way.

In short, feel free to say, "Who did you go to the Lansing Lugnuts game with?" but never, "I only went to the Cubs game to see Greg Maddux, a man for who I would do anything...around."

If you do, I'll slap your hand with a ruler and curse you in the name of "La Madonna." Be warned.


Split infinitives and dangling/misplaced participles: Technically, these are both "style" issues rather than grammar rules, but on some level, both are the same anyway. (So nuts to the labels.)

Speaking strictly from experience, the latter "rule" is a total judgment call. See how I did that? Obviously, "speaking [...] experience" refers to "I" or "me," even though neither word appears in the sentence. Yes, the phrase is dangling, but any reader would understand the meaning of the sentence just as easily as if I had incorporated myself as a subject.

The so-called "misplaced" participle is merely a matter of proximity and common sense. For example, suppose I write, "Michael Barrett quickly avenged the collision, rightfully punching A.J. Pyrzynski in his ugly, goofy-assed, Polish face." In this case, any reader would understand that "punching [...] face" refers to "Michael Barrett" and not "collision," so the usage is perfectly fine. Now, suppose I write, "Noticing a rat at the feet of broadcast partner Tim McCarver, Joe Buck poured a pot of boiling tea on the broadcast booth floor, thankfully scalding the worthless vermin." As we can see, this situation is far more ambiguous and should be avoided.

In regard to split infinitives, I have never, ever understood the argument against their use. Does one even exist? Besides "don't do it," I have never actually heard a rationale for this rule. In fact, I often feel that the split infinitive sounds far better than an in-tact infinitive (or whatever the opposite is called). Observe:

"For one fully to understand Scoop Jackson's writing, he must possess powerful mind-reading skills."
"For one to fully understand Scoop Jackson's writing, he must possess powerful mind-reading skills."
"For one to understand fully Scoop Jackson's writing, he must possess powerful mind-reading skills."
"For one to understand Scoop Jackson's writing fully, he must possess powerful mind-reading skills."

The first and third examples sound hideous, and the fourth example sounds choppy. Also note that this sentence contains another "misplaced" modifier example but should never be written anyway. "To" could replace "For one," and "one" could replace "he."

But I will reserve that topic for my next writing mechanics post, "Resume! Grammar Time."


(P.S.: Who else is with me on the grammar debate show thing? I think I'm gonna pitch it to PBS tomorrow.)