(Updated Aug. 12, 1996)
by Celeste
Believe it or not, there is at least one college instructor in the United States who uses my grammar notes with his class. He says it's the best way he's ever found to make grammar interesting. Since it's back-to-school time, I figured this wouold be a good time to repost my Advanced Celestial Grammar.
My Grammar Notes are incomplete. The basics are in Celestial Grammar 1.3, which I am posting at the same time that I post these Advanced Notes.
While the examples are often silly, I assure you that the rules and concepts expressed herein are almost always correct. You can pass important tests by knowing, understanding, and applying these rules.
The following concepts are currently covered in Advanced Celestial Grammar:
A restrictive phrase or clause is one that is so essential to the meaning of the sentence (or clause) that it cannot be omitted without substantially changing the meaning of the sentence (or clause). Restrictive phrases and clauses are NOT set off by commas. In general, when we say these phrases and clauses orally, we do not pause when we speak them. On the other hand, non-restrictive phrases or clauses are not considered by the writer to be essential to the meaning of the sentence - they just add additional information. Non-restrictive information is set off by commas. For example,
"My girlfriend who likes oral sex was with me at the movie."
If the writer punctuates the sentence in this way, he is suggesting that the information conveyed by "who likes oral sex" is essential. The most likely explanation is that he has more than one girlfriend, and the one who was with him at the movie was the one who likes oral sex. The same words would have a different meaning if they were punctuated like this:
"My girlfriend, who likes oral sex, was with me at the movie."
This would mean that he has one girl girlfriend (who likes oral sex and was with him at the movie). By putting the words "who likes oral sex" within commas the author is saying that they are non-restrictive - that is, they don't change the meaning of the sentence; they just add some additional meaning.
{Here's why grammarians use the word restrictive to describe this use of commas. In the first example, the guy has many girlfriends, and "who likes oral sex" restricts the reference to a subset - in this case to just one of them. In the second example, the guy has only one girlfriend, and so "who likes oral sex" does not restrict the reference to a subset.}
I recently read the following comment in the disclaimer at the beginning of a story:
"This is my first story, written from a woman's point of view."
I think the author meant to leave out the comma. Without the comma, the sentence would suggest that the author had written other stories, but none of these was written from a woman's point of view. With the comma, it means that this is the first story he ever wrote (or published), and this first story is written from a woman's point of view.
Technically, the same logic should be applied even to single words:
"The woman enjoyed having sex with her dog Ralph."
Without a comma between "dog" and "Ralph," this sentence technically suggests that the woman had more than one dog, but her enjoyment was restricted to Ralph. However, lots of good writers ignore this nuance - especially if the number of dogs would be clear from the context or if nobody would care anyway. Another good reason to omit the comma with a non-restrictive word or phrase occurs when the comma would add (rather than remove) confusion. For example,
"In one evening Sharon had sex with Sue, her dog, Ralph, the night watchman, Bill, and Ray, her ex-husband."
In this example, it's not obvious whether Ralph is the dog, the night watchman, or a separate person. It would be more obvious that Sue had fucked only four animate beings if the sentence were punctuated like this:
"In one evening Sharon had sex with Sue, her dog Ralph, the night watchman Bill, and Ray, her ex-husband."
Of course, a better solution would be for Sharon to become celibate - or at least monogamous.
A misplaced modifier is a phrase that is supposed to modify one word but is placed in the sentence in such a way that it appears to modify the wrong word. A dangling modifier is a specific type of misplaced modifier. It just dangles (hangs there), usually at the beginning of the sentence or clause. In the following example, it logically sounds like the guy is sucking his own cock:
Having sucked my cock vigorously, I spread her legs and began to mount her.
The ambiguity is removed if the sentence is written like this:
Having sucked my cock vigorously, she spread her legs and invited me to mount her.
Here's a dangling modifier I found in a story I was reviewing:
After thoroughly sucking the toes of both her feet, she sat down, placed her stockinged feet on either side of my still erect cock and began to masturbate me with the soles of her stockinged feet!
What this sentence literally says is that the woman sucked her own toes before she masturbated the guy's cock. What the author meant to say was this:
After I had thoroughly sucked the toes of both her feet, she sat down, placed her stockinged feet on either side of my still erect cock and began to masturbate me with the soles of her stockinged feet!
Actually, either activity might be fun to watch; but the author should be clear.
Even single words can be misplaced and cause confusion. What does the following sentence mean?
I only made love to Bob that weekend.
Literally, this means
I only made love to Bob (and did nothing else with Bob or anyone else) that weekend.
However, the author probably meant
I made love only to Bob that weekend. (I didn't make love to Tom, Dick, or Harry that weekend.)
Or the author might have meant
I made love to Bob only during that weekend. (I didn't make love to him prior to or after that weekend.)
Even very good writers occasionally use misplaced or dangling modifiers. One of my students recently found a dangling modifier in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. (I understand this is what the advertisements mean when they say that the Demi Moore version is an "adaptation" of the original - the producers cleaned up the dangling modifiers.) More to the point, here is part of a sentence written by one of the best authors on a.s.s.:
"...we enjoyed our platonic relationship and the chance to talk about our dates and relationships with a sympathetic member of the opposite sex."
What this author meant to say was this:
"...we enjoyed our platonic relationship and the chance to talk with a sympathetic member of the opposite sex about our dates and relationships."
The most famous example, of course, is the sentence taken from the SAT:
"He could only masturbate after the test was over."
That must have been a rough test! What the sentence literally says was that after the test was over all the poor guy could do was jerk off. The correct answer put only before after, suggesting that he simply had to wait till the test was over to do his more important solitary work. Actually, if you're familiar with the SAT, you'll probably agree that the original sentence is perfectly plausible.
In many cases the ambiguity is cleared up by the context. But if you have time to revise your work, why not make it easy on your readers by putting the modifier (in this case only in a place where it is clear what it modifies - in this case, right before the word or phrase to which it refers)?
Here's your final exam on misplaced modifiers. Can you see why a person might say "Ouch!" while reading this passage from an actual a.s.s. story?
Kathy helped me up from my chair and removed my shirt. Cara bent down and untied and removed my shoes. Jennifer unbuttoned my pants and let them drop to the floor exposing a hard-on through my boxers, which Karen quickly removed.
Just to be cautious, the author should have considered putting the final clause in a separate sentence: "Karen quickly removed the boxers." As it is, the reader might think Karen removed the hard-on. Snip!
Technically, who and whom are either relative or interrogative pronouns. That doesn't matter for now. The rules for using relative and interrogative pronouns are identical.
The main rule is that the way the word is used in its clause determines the form to use. In general, if it's a subject (nominative case) use WHO (or WHOEVER). If it's an object of a verb or of a preposition (objective case), use WHOM (or WHOMEVER).
If you are uncertain how to apply this rule, you can do it by ear. Simply replace WHO by HE (or SHE) and WHOM by HIM (or HER), and see if the sentence sounds right.
That is the man WHOM I plan to seduce tonight. (WHOM is the object of seduce. I plan to seduce HIM tonight. "I plan to seduce he tonight" sounds absurd.)
That is the woman WHO will seduce me tonight. (WHO is the subject of will seduce. SHE will seduce me tonight. HER will seduce me tonight sounds absurd.)
WHOM do you plan to seduce tonight? (Just answer the question: I plan to seduce HIM (not HE) tonight.)
WHO will seduce you tonight? (Just answer the question: SHE (not HER) will me tonight.)
In America, correct grammar is often viewed with suspicion. Therefore, some people use WHO almost all the time, especially when it occurs at the beginning of a sentence. Therefore, intelligent people may say the following, even though they know each sentence is incorrect:
WHO did you fuck last night? (This should be "WHOM did you fuck last night?" If you say it correctly, the person to whom you are speaking will know you're either an English teacher or a narc.)WHO do you want to sleep with tonight? (This should be "With WHOM do you want to sleep tonight?" However, guys to whom this would be said would suspect that they were in for an expensive and perhaps boring evening with a girl who would say this correctly. It's just not cool.)
My impression is that in written speech, almost anyone can feel comfortable using the proper word. I guess maybe the ordinary person thinks if you have time to revise, then it's OK to use WHOM.
Sometimes confusion arises from the fact that WHO/WHOM appears to be part of a different clause. However, as long as you put the word in the right clause and follow the preceding guidelines, you will not make mistakes. Here are some more difficult examples:
I know WHO will seduce me tonight. (Some people think that WHO is the object of "know." This is not accurate. WHO is the subject of "seduce." The whole clause "who will seduce me tonight" is the object of "know." You can solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. HE will seduce me.)I know WHOM I plan to seduce tonight. (Some people think that WHOM is the object of "know." This is not accurate. WHOM is the object of "seduce." The whole clause "whom I plan to seduce tonight" is the object of "know." You can solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. I plan to seduce HIM.)
The issue is sometimes more difficult with WHOEVER. This is because many people who can distinguish WHO and WHOM by ear get confused by the longer word.
I'd like to have sex again with WHOEVER seduced me last night. (Many people incorrectly say WHOMEVER, because they think the word is the object of the preposition "with." This is incorrect; it is the subject of "seduced." Again, you can solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. HE seduced me last night.)I'd like to have sex again with WHOMEVER I seduced last night. (Many people correctly say WHOMEVER, but they do this because they think the word is the object of the preposition "with." This is incorrect; it is the object of "seduced." Again, you can solve the problem by inserting HE/HIM. I seduced HIM last night.)
That's all there is to it.