Aline Soules

Poet and Fiction Writer

grammar

Non-binary Gender Pronouns

Lately, I’ve been considering non-binary gender pronouns and how they might infuse my writing.  First, https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34901704 (which includes the image) takes you to an article about non-binary gender pronouns.  Also, there’s a quick tip list created in collaboration with Melinda Lee, Assistant Director, Gender and Sexuality Center for Queer and Trans Life, at the University of Minnesota, at  http://writing.umn.edu/sws/quickhelp/grammar/nonbinary.html

Right now, I’m working on a historical novel, so don’t “need” non-binary gender pronouns at the moment, but this gives me time to consider them for future writing projects.  First, they are an indication of our growing awareness and, hopefully, understanding of all people.  Second, they are becoming more common in our evolving language.  

As someone who has used the English language for a long time, I find words like ze and ey unexpected, but I’m able to adjust to them more readily than the new way we use more common words like they/them/theirs.  Referring to a single person as “they are…” is hard for me.  Even harder is “they is…” which I have also read.  While I recall that “they” used to be a single pronoun centuries ago (coming from thee, thy, etc.), it has been plural in my lifetime.

I also have difficulty with sentences such as these:  “That research is theirs” (when referring to a single person) or, even harder, “They cited themself” (rather than themselves).  I suspect that we may still be in a period of flux as our usages “settle” into a more common form, but, even then, it’s difficult for me to “change my spots,” even as I am fully aware that our living language is living precisely because it adapts and changes.  

The English language is one of the most adaptable languages in the world.  I recall reading somewhere that, in the first fifty years that Britain occupied India (we’ll ignore the horrible behavior for the purposes of discussing language), the British adopted/adapted/absorbed thousands of words into English from Hindi, Urdu, and so on.  Words we take for granted, like “loot, nirvana, pyjamas, shampoo and shawl; bungalow, jungle, pundit and thug.” This list is taken from Rahul Verma’s “How India Changed the English Language” (BBC Culture article dated 22 June 2015 (see http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150619-how-india-changed-english), which explains the spelling of pyjamas (pajamas in American language).

So what’s my problem with ey/em/eirs or co/co/co’s?  Upbringing, familiarity, habituation.  What “sounds right” in my ear.  So I struggle on and do my best and hope my non-binary friends and acquaintances will give me some understanding as I work to adjust.

Pet Grammatical Peeves

We all have them—pet grammatical peeves.  We see them or hear them and it’s exactly like fingernails on a blackboard, an itch you can’t scratch, being on the verge of a sneeze that won’t come but won’t go away.
Consider these:

  • “15 items or less” (although I should give my thanks to Trader Joe’s; their sign reads “15 items or fewer”)
  • “do you want to lay down?” (Lay down what?  Why don’t people understand that the present tense of “lay” is a wholly different verb from the past tense of “lie”?)
  • “utilize” (what’s wrong with “use”?  I refuse to sign any report or letter with “utilize” in it—the pretension is just about as annoying as the uselessness of “utilize”)
  • “between you and I” (between is a preposition and the pronouns after it should be in objective case, i.e., “between you and me”)
  • “myself” (nothing wrong with this word, except when people use it because they don’t know whether to use “I” or “me”—see above)

I could keep going, but you get the idea.  I bet you have plenty of examples, too.  I try to remind myself regularly that English is a living language and, therefore, subject to evolution, but somehow I can’t get past my pet grammatical peeves.  While it might sound like emptying the ocean with a teaspoon, I try to respect our language and counteract these problems by doing my best to speak and write grammatically—even when I text.  Join me—please.  

Writing and Grammar

 
I confess to being a grammar nut (or is it “Nazi”?) and, what’s worse, I’m proud of it.  I don’t have any problem with writing that incorporates bad grammar in dialogue or even, in some circumstances, in the author’s own words, but only if the author chooses to write that way on purpose.

 

Language is one of the tools of our craft and we need to know the correct way or ways to use it, even if we have characters that ask “do you want to lay down?” or claim that something happens “between you and I” (my personal pet peeves).  We need to know what language we choose and why.  Without that underlying purpose, we’re simply writing badly.

 

My college-age students often tell me it doesn’t matter, but I don’t buy this idea.  I’m happy to explain–twenty times twenty, if necessary–various grammar concepts from subject-verb agreement to the difference between the verbs lay and lie.  The problem is that some incorrect grammar structures are now embedded so firmly in the colloquial language that people think they’re correct.  Present them with the truly correct structure and it sounds wrong to them.  One perspective is to see this as a step towards language evolution, but, until it’s an approved element of the language, it’s not correct and we should use incorrect language only on purpose and not through ignorance.

 

My favorite grammar books include children’s books by Lynne Truss (good for all ages–they’re fun!):

 

  • Eats, shoots & leaves (commas)
  • The Girl’s Like Spaghetti (apostrophes)
  • Twenty-odd Ducks (hyphens, parentheses, quotation marks, periods, and more)

 

These fabulous books help with grammar in ways that kids and adults can enjoy.  If you want a more adult approach to punctuation, try Truss’ adult book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation or Janis Bell’s Clean, Well-lighted Sentences:  A Guide to Avoiding the Most Common Errors in Grammar and Punctuation, which explains basic concepts in clear, well-written prose.

 

Image from:  https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-grammar-concept-word-cloud-background-pastel-blurred-backgrou-image49594862

What’s in a Preposition?

I was born in Scotland and received my grammar and composition grounding in primary school (grades 1-7) in the 1950s.  We were grilled and drilled in the way our language went together and were taught “right and wrong” ways of expressing ourselves.  Later, I moved to Canada, where I completed high school and discovered that the language skills I’d been taught in Scotland were rich and deep, and that I was blessed to understand English in a way my fellow high school students and subsequent university classmates didn’t fully understand.  Even later, after I moved to the U.S., I discovered my language skills were even further ahead of most of my fellow university students.  I’ve also been blessed with six years of Latin training, one of the best ways to understand our complex English tongue.

Throughout that time, I continued to think of language as having rights and wrongs.  While this attitude and approach still has merit, I am also aware of subtle differences among the three countries where I’ve lived for extensive numbers of years and that what constitutes right and wrong reveals some slippery slopes.  For example, in the U.K., I was taught “different from.”  A is different from B.  That’s right; every other construction is wrong.  In Canada, I heard “different from” and “different than,” and no teacher bothered to correct it.  In the U.S., I discovered that the common expression is “different than.”  So, not an error necessarily.  A is different than B.

Recently, I conversed with an Australian teacher who used “different to.”  A is different to B.  This sounded strange to me, but I’ve grown schizophrenic enough about language to realize that this is a simply a slightly different evolution of the English language as it wended its way across the Pacific.
While there are still many “errors” in grammar I see in student papers (subject-verb agreement, anyone?), I’ve grown more tolerant of slight variations (Oxford comma, yes or no?).   I have also learned that language evolves (e.g., whom having been discarded by the Oxford dictionary as now obsolete or, at least, on its way out, not to mention the last vestiges of the subjunctive).  I won’t even start on “lay” and “lie,” which are still very clearly different verbs.  Such changes may sound strange and “wrong” to my ears, but the next generation will think them just fine and, in the end, it will be up to me to adjust.

Grammar, etymology, punctuation, usage—all fascinate me and I deeply enjoy pursuing my native language in all its nuances, which I consider important.  I hope you do, too.   As a parting shot for this blog post, in case you think I’m splitting hairs, I refer you to a newspaper article from March 16 of this year:  Lack of Oxford Comma Could Cost Maine Company Millions in Overtime Dispute  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/us/oxford-comma-lawsuit.html?_r=0