作家のブロックを治す確かな方法
私達はすべてそれ経験した。 およびブランク画面空白の紙切れが私達を凝視し、私達を何でも書くために敢えてする間、机またはコンピュータテーブルに坐る文ちょうど何か。
これは[札の]作家のブロック[/tag]として知られている破壊的な病気である。
何をすればいいのか
grammarbloggerによって掲示される
0コメントする 2007年3月のアーカイブ
0コメントする Cheatinの」中心
私の大学の1つでは他の夜を、私置かれた[札]教育[/tag]の学術の不正直である学生の提示によって分類する。 1グループは[札の]等級のインフレーション[/tag]のよ研究された仕事をし、原因および潜在性の治療を詳しく述べる。 他のグループはレベルかで方法のプライマーようで、なぜだった学校でそうすることは必要である表面のものがごまかす示した。
Ouch!
grammarbloggerによって掲示される
使用の先端だれおよび誰の
私は信じ、私が執筆ことをで少なくともそして頻繁に話すことのそれを、前に述べたあることがことを使用する だれか 専らおよび忘れている 誰 うまく働く存在している。
但し、先日私は女性がその効果に彼女の新しいボーイフレンドの質を「」、または単語称賛するオンライン日付を記入するサービスについての無線の広告を私がオンラインで会ったかだれに聞いた。
これは私の耳で火格子を付けた。 なぜか。
grammarbloggerによって掲示される
質のオンライン研究をするためのヒント
[札]よい情報をオンライン見つけることについて深刻[/tag]なら-およびちょうど誰かが喉必要とする成功のためのある作戦をあなたのの下で強制したいと思うか何を。
私はこれらのを呼ばれる私の新しい英国資源の特徴のstrategiesÂを取扱う 質のオンライン研究。Â それを点検しなさい。
grammarbloggerによって掲示される
構成されたv。 で構成される
私はそれを主張したそれらのblow-hard [札]編集者、copyeditorsおよび校正係[/tag]に常に走ったあることが 構成しなさい 使用されなさい含むことを「意味する活動的な感覚で」。
Hence, one could write, "The program comprises dieting, exercise, and yoga." One could not write this in the passive voice, "The program is comprised of dieting, exercise, and yoga," which is the way I always used the verb.
Now,"blow-hard central" had a point in the sense that I never recognized comprise as a transitive verb that took objects, but I’m not sure they were right about not using "is comprised of."
Now to the rescue comes Common Errors in English, which has a solution–use "is composed of" instead, but that doesn’t quite, to me at least, convey the same meaning as "is comprised of."
Whatever, the blow-hards are always right. Blow-hards rule just about everywhere, don’t they? But they’re not always right!
Posted by grammarblogger
My Compliments on Your Complementary Work
My title is an example of two words that are often confused. Actually, what’s confused in many writers’ minds is how to use and spell complementary. I’ve even seen professional Web sites where companies are trying to sell their “complementary services” and they use complimentary completely incorrectly. Sure, I’ll take their free services anytime.
Here’s an explanation of the difference.
Posted by grammarblogger
Grammar Horror Stories (Teaching-Wise)
I have my NotWords and MorphedWords categories, and now I’m toying with a Grammar Horror Stories category.
I bring this up because I can’t remember how many college students I’ve taught over the years who live in mortal fear of K-12 English admonitions from well-meaning (I hope) but un-grammar-educated (for sure) teachers.
Examples?
Posted by grammarblogger
I’m Through With the NotWord Thru
Like Milton in Office Space, who proclaimed “the last straw” when they turned the lights off on him, I am now beyond the last straw with the newer generations’ misuse of the NotWord thru, which is a misspelling of the real word through.
Thru belongs in only one usage, and that’s for fast food joints such as [tag]Drive-Thrus[/tag].
The final straw was reached when a student of mine, who has Mensa-caliber brain functions, turned in a paper with [tag]thru[/tag] used throughout it.
Enough. Let’s banish this NotWord forever. I’m through with thru.
Posted by grammarblogger
Use of Subjunctive Mood in Verbs
Now here’s a misusage that almost no ear, nor eye, will ever catch.
What’s wrong with this lyric:
“If I was a rich man…”?
If this clause reads and sounds okay to you, then you’re definitely among the majority of English users who don’t know, don’t understand or otherwise just ignore the subjunctive mood.
Briefly, the to be verb takes the subjective form were when used in if constructions expressing a wish or condition. For instance:
“If I were in New York today, I could visit my friend Daniel.”
You’re not in New York, so the if expresses a wish or condition and thus requires the subjunctive mood in the verb, which is plural rather than singular.
If I was just learning English, I’d be confused, but if I were born here, I might still be confused. (Find the error–or irony–in there yet?)
Posted by grammarblogger
Word Confusion: Gleam and Glean
I was dashing off an e-mail just now, and I used the word gleam in the sense of examining some documents and deriving meaning.
Something struck me as odd about the word. It turns out that I really meant glean. It’s a good thing I turned instantly to my cyber-buddy Dictionary.com to verify my spelling and usage, and sure enough: Gleam: a flash or beam of light. Glean: to gather slowly and laboriously, bit by bit. Of course, these are only the first definitions for each, but as you can see, I had chosen the wrong word entirely.
Lesson here, even for an old writer hack like me: When in doubt, look it up.
Posted by grammarblogger
