First of all, what is a "comma splice"? Very simply, it’s the joining of two independent clauses with a comma, but without a coordinating conjunction. Here are a few examples:

• We bought a lot of chocolate chips on sale, my wife is baking cookies today.
• I’m hungry, I don’t want to fix anything too complicated.
• I looked at my weekly word count earlier, I was a couple hundred words below my goal.

Many of you may see those as examples of "run-on sentences," which they are. There are a lot of other ways to create run-ons; a comma splice is one of the simplest. 

Earlier, I mentioned "coordinating conjunctions." Coordinating conjunctions are and, but, or, for, nor, yet, so.  Each of the examples I gave can be fixed by inserting a conjunction:

• We bought a lot of chocolate chips on sale, so my wife is baking cookies today.
• I’m hungry, but I don’t want to fix anything too complicated.
• I looked at my weekly word count earlier, and I was a couple hundred words below my goal.

Note that the comma is still required before the conjunction, because the clauses are independent, or unrelated.

I’m sure many of you figured out different ways to eliminate the comma splice besides using conjunctions. For example, instead of trying to join the two independent clauses, you can simply make two sentences: "I looked at my weekly word count earlier. I was a couple hundred words below my goal." This is probably the easiest "fix," but it doesn’t always have the desired effect.

Likewise, many of you probably came up with another alternative: the semicolon. Use a semicolon if the two independent clauses are related to each other, and you want to add variety to your sentence structure:

• I’m hungry; I think I’ll fix some lunch.
• I looked at my weekly word count earlier; I was a couple hundred words below my goal.

In short, then, there are three ways to correct a comma splice:

• Use a coordinating conjunction after the comma.
• Use a period instead of a comma.
• Use a semicolon instead of a comma.

Two-Minute Drill: The Comma Splice is a post from: Kestrel's Aerie

 

Of course, if I’m writing dialogue, I can do such things, if the character’s vernacular is such that he’s from the Lower East End or South Jersey. For example, here’s the classic line by Marlon Brando’s character, Terry,  in On the Waterfront (1954): “I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody.” You can be sure the script does not say “could have been.”

Clearly, none of us is going to write “coulda” in normal prose, even though that’s how we often hear it said. No; instead, what we see is, “I could of been a contender” or “I should of left before it got ugly” or “I would of bought you that if I knew you wanted it.”

So what’s wrong there? They all sound right, when we speak them (quickly), but that’s exactly how people get into trouble: They write what they hear (or think they hear), instead of what is correct. But how do we know whether could have or could of is correct?

Could, should, would require helping verbs, not a preposition!

Could, should, and would (as well as have) all belong to that group of words called “helping verbs” (also known as auxiliary verbs). Helping verbs are followed by either another helping verb (“could have seen”), a verb (“could see”), an adverb (“could barely see”), or a negative (“could not see”).

The word of is not a verb (nor is it a helping verb); it’s a preposition. And, because it is a preposition, it needs to be part of a prepositional phrase, and in the construction “could of been a contender” there is no prepositional phrase.

So to avoid confusion when using could/should/would, remember to keep your helping verbs close to each other, and away from that naughty preposition!

"Divorcé" is the future imperfect form of "fiancé"

Now, we’re not going to merely shift gears, we’re going to shift parts of speech as well.

Most of us know, I’m sure, that a formerly married woman is known as a divorcée. Similarly, most of us know a man’s intended bride is his fiancée. Unfortunately, not everyone is aware that the man to whom a woman is engaged to be married is her fiancé. That’s right: two genders, two words.¹

In case you’re wondering, divorcé is also a word, and indicates a divorced man. It’s the future imperfect from of fiancé. 

Today’s final bit is the distinction between the abbreviations "i.e." and "e.g."

Both are from Latin, but because both are so commonly used in English, they are not considered foreign words or terms, and are normally not italicized.²

"I.e." is probably the more common of the two (possibly because it’s misused more often?), is short for id est, and means, simply, "that is." "E.g." is short for exempli gratia (“for the sake of example”). These are abbreviations, so the periods after each letter are required; furthermore, use a comma on either side of them. Avoid using both in the same sentence.

If the employee is on salary, i.e., paid by the week rather than the hour, the fee is $10.00.

The most common American beers are pilseners, e.g., Budweiser, Coors, and Miller.

Finally, if you start a list with "e.g.," there’s no need to end it with "etc." (the abbreviation for et cetera, "and so on"), because the "e.g." implies the list is not all-inclusive.

Are there other words or word forms you see used improperly? Or are there some you aren’t sure about how to use properly? Post in the comments, or email me using the contact form , and I’ll address them in a future article.

Two-Minute Drill: Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda, and More is a post from: Kestrel's Aerie

 

I was reading a blog article yesterday, and the following sentence caught my eye. Then it made me grit my teeth. Fortunately, I have a dentist appointment Thursday for a new crown. (Okay, just kidding about the crown.) Here’s the offending statement:

Why people find this concept so difficult to understand simply alludes me.

You may be wondering why I didn’t include allude and elude in yesterday’s article on homophones. The simple answer is, they aren’t. Homophones, that is. Yes, they sound similar, but it’s a long way from “similar” to “identical.” The first syllable of allude is pronounced as “ah,” while the initial syllable of elude sounds like “eh.”

Having cleared that up, let’s¹ move on to the difference between the two words under discussion.

Allude is a verb meaning “to refer (to)” while elude is a verb meaning “to evade.” Not even remotely close in meaning, are they? Then why do people continue to confuse them? I could construct a pretty elaborate theory on why it happens, but that would be a lengthy tangent we don’t need to explore here.

People don’t take time to proofread and edit before they hit the "publish" or "send" button

What I really think is that a lot of people (mostly bloggers, I’m sad to say) don’t take enough time to proofread and edit before hitting the “publish” or “send” button. The unfortunate consequence is they come off appearing to be less knowledgeable and less authoritative than otherwise might be the case. Furthermore, when I see such egregious errors, it really throws off my ability to focus on the actual point of what I’m reading.

By way of analogy, imagine driving down the highway on a nice spring day, really enjoying the drive, when suddenly you have to swerve quickly to avoid a crate in the middle of the road. I don’t know about you, but I’d be a bit shaken by that. The same sort of thing happens when I see words like these misused. (Well, okay, my blood pressure doesn’t spike and my heart rate doesn’t climb, but you get the idea, I hope.)

While we’re talking about allude,  we should probably bring in its noun form, allusion, and the similar-sounding (but again, not homophonic) illusion.² An allusion is a (possibly vague or veiled) reference to something, while an illusion is an act of deceiving, or a misleading image presented to one’s vision.

Once again, careful proofreading should catch errors involving these words, as long as you know which is the correct one in the first place. But that’s why you’re reading this!

Two-Minute Drill: Allude and Elude is a post from: Kestrel's Aerie