Grammar: the absolute basics --

Get this much "down" if you do nothing else!

We've put the essential ground rules in a nutshell. Be aware, there's more ... there's a lot more ... but you should find more than enough right here to get you on the right track, and if you do need more, we'll recommend some excellent reference books. (If this were soccer, you'd know the size and shape of the field, length of game, number of players, how to score and maybe two offside rules. Of course there's more — but you might not need it!)

• What's in this post?
  Is it singular, or are they plural? Help
  If it was ... if it were ...? What goes on here?
  Do I say I, or me?
  Either, or, neither, nor ...say, what?
  Can, may or might? And what's the diff?
  Possession: adventures with the Dreaded Apostrophe
  Pluralizing: more misadventures with the Apostrophe
  It's ... its ... its' ... which is it?
  Their ... there ... they're ... which is right?
  Whose or who's or whose's? A little help here!
  Controlling pronouns before they run berserk
  Splicing together phrases and clauses to make sentences
  Subjects, objects ... and what's this predicate business?
  That or which ... which is it?
  On which side of the bracket does the punctuation fall?
  

It's ... its ... its' ... which is it?
Understand the difference between them, and it's simple:

It's is a contraction. It's short for it+is. You use It's to say, "It's a beautiful day;" "it's a crying shame;" "Mike said it's in the cupboard;" "Jim's bike? It's broken;" "it's being mended;" "it's got two flat tires." "It's not a good idea." "It's time for tea." "It's too late for talking." "Then, it's all over?" "But it's only just started!"

Its shows possession: my, your, his, her, our, their ... its. Notice, NONE of the words showing possession have an apostrophe. Not one of them. So, it's easy to tell when to use Its, because it has no apostrophe. Like this:

"Its paint was cracked." "She had a bike, but its wheel was buckled." "Jim said its door was yellow." "Yes, but its knob was green." "Its wires were burned out." "Its tail feathers are white." "Its aroma was delicious." "The song was lovely, its melody soared." (In these examples, Its is standing in for the noun. A house, a door, a bike, a radio, a bird, a pot of soup; a song.)

Its' is a typographical error. Never use it, because it doesn't mean anything at all. It's the ultimate booboo: gibberish. A mix-up between your fingers and the keys. 'Nuff said.


Pluralizing: billboard's ... billboards ... hotdog's ... hotdogs ... house's ... houses ... help!

More fun with the apostrophe. Relax: it's easy. You already know, after reading #1, that the apostrophe shows possession. What is does NOT show #151 not ever! -- is the plural, of anything! (Singular is one of something; plural is two or more.) All you have to do, to avoid this incredibly common gaff is, never, never use the apostrophe when you mean "two or more." Like this:

One billboard; two billboards.
One dog; half a dozen cats.
One horse; herds of horses.
One book; a whole library of books.
One mug of soup; twenty mugs of soup.
One piece of cloth; ten bolts of cloth.
One pilot; an air force filled with pilots.
One doctor; more doctors than you could guess.
One lawyer; more lawyers than can be employed.
One flower; fields filled with flowers of all kinds.
One lawnmower; fields of mown grass without flowers.
One man; two men riding bikes.
One fish; fifty fish in the fish shop windows;
One sheep; fields full of sheep.
One goose; a gaggle of geese;
One woman; crowds of angry women.
One child; several children;
One cargo; several cargoes on various ships.
One zero; three zeroes and a one make a thousand;
One star; ten thousand stars in tropical skies.
One foot; several feet but only two boots.

Their ... there ... they're ... which is right?

All three are correct, in context. When you're copy editing, all you need to do is make sure the right word is used for the right context. Fortunately, it's so easy!

Their is a possessive pronoun. (A pronoun is a word which stands in, like an understudy, for a noun. 'It' can be the standin for a lamp, an elephant, and the planet Mars. 'She' can be the standin for two year old Gemma, your great-grandmom, and the starship Enterprise. 'They' can be used to stand for a bunch of flowers, ten battleships, and the Hell's Angels. Pronouns are the most flexible words in the language, and some of them show how a noun "owns" or "possesses" something. "The girl's bike = her bike." "Jim's book = his book." "The car's wheels = its wheels." "The boys' exams = their exams." The personal pronouns in this particular word list are "my, your, his, her, its, our, and their." Simply add a noun to any of them, and you can't go wrong.) So, their is only ever (ever!) used to show how a bunch of people or things "possess" something else. Stick to this, and you can't go wrong. "Their religion." "Their tourism industry." "Their Size 14 dresses." "Their industrial-strength titanium frames." "Their tiny, delicate petals." "Their warped camshafts." "Their photon torpedo banks." "Their painted fingernails." Easy.


There is a word with two jobs.

The first job is where "there" is used as a preposition. (Prepositions are words which show the position of objects in space. Under, over, in(side) out(side), before, behind, between, above, below, here ... there.) So, "The football stopped over there." "Our house is there, on the corner." "There are the girls." "The frog was there, on the rock." "I saw him standing there." "She said, 'There it is, under the table." He answered, 'I don't see it there.'" "'But the book is there,' she insisted. 'I put it there!'" "Jim saw the Klingons, hiding in wait there." So, in this context, use There to show the position of objects in space. Never use "their" or "they're," and you can't go wrong.

Second job performed by "there" ... it shows the existence of things. Like this:

There is; there are; there were; there will be; there aren't any; there are six; there were 43; there haven't been any since May; there won't be any until August; there isn't a chance; there can't be a sound; there wasn't any trace; there is a whole load of them; there is at least a million; there was one when I got here. So, in this context use there only (only!) to show the existence of things.

They're is a contraction. It's short for they+are. "They're" is never (never!) used for any other purpose. Stick to this, and you'll be right ever time. Like this:

"They're on their way home, I see them there on the road." "They said they're coming back, as soon as their car is fixed." "I talked to Jack and Sam, they're finished the job." "We called them last night, they're on the morning train." "The two dogs are fighting, they're going to get hurt this time." "Six cars are racing on the road, they're driven by maniacs." "Four flights have been cancelled today, they're waiting for fog to clear." "Daniel and Jack won't be back tonight, they're busy." "Their plane is late, so they're going to take a cab home, we don't have to wait there."



Attack of the killer pronouns!


Take a look at these sentences. Each contains one pronoun and two or three nous. The problem is, you're left guessing which of the nouns the pronoun stands in for, and the sentences become ambiguous. One of the most important copy editing jobs is to watch out for ambiguity, turn the muddy into the clear. Pronouns can get you into a lot of trouble! Like this:

Jim said he had seen the car one night, but it was dark.

The horse was already in the barn, but I thought it was too hot.

I came home at one with both the fishfood and pizza, but it was cold.

The bus hit the car, and the man told the police it was badly damaged.

Jack had lunch and saw a movie, and he didn't enjoy it.

The crate fell out out of the plane, and we all watched it land.

Jack and George went to a show, and Jack told him he would buy the drinks later, but he had to go home early.

Sally and Maud were knitting, and Maud showed her how to cast off before she went to make coffee.

Jim and Tom are great neighbors, and Tom said, lend me the mower and I'll cut both lawns, but he came down with a headache, so neither was cut."

We saw a big white cat take on a small brown dog, and it won the fight, hands down.

The small yellow plane at the airport parked beside the big white 747 for an hour, before it flew out.

Try this:

Jim said he had seen the car one night, but THE VEHICLE was dark.

I thought the horse was too hot, though it was already in the barn.

I came home at one with both the fishfood and pizza, but THE BUILDING was cold.

The bus hit the BMW which, as the man told the police, was badly damaged.

Jack had lunch and saw a movie, and he didn't enjoy HIS MEAL.

The crate fell out out of the plane, and we all watched THE HEAVY BOX land.

Jack and George went to a show and, afterwards, if George had not been headed home early, Jack would have bought the drinks.

Sally and Maud were knitting, and before she went to make coffee, Maud showed her how to cast off .

Jim and Tom are great neighbors. Tom said, lend me the mower and I'll cut both lawns, but neither was cut, as JIM came down with a headache."

We saw a big white cat take on a small brown dog, and THE PERSIAN won the fight, hands down.

The small yellow plane at the airport parked beside the big white 747 for an hour, before it flew out.

The trick is to see the ambiguity, and then look for ways to either invert the sentence to make the potential for ambiguity go away; you can also replace the pronoun with a similar word which will do the job just as well, and prevent over-use of the original noun. Copy editing give you the opportunity to revise to your heart's content. (In the examples above, the car = the vehicle; home = the building; lunch = his meal; the crate = the heavy box; the white cat = the Persian. In the other examples, the sentences have been turned inside out to weed out the potential for killer pronouns.



Subjects and Objects: it's war!

Every sentence has a subject. If it doesn't have a subject, it's not a sentence! (Put your copy editing hat on here.) The 'subject' of a sentence is the entity that performs the verb. Think of the subject as the owner of the verb. Like this:

The boy sings.

The elderly man knew the answer.

A beat-up red car is running the lights.

A small brown puppy with big, bright eyes wants his dinner.

Mother's cat, a young Persian called Nostradamus, jumped right over the wall.

Two girls from Nebraska arrived on the train. A regiment of door-to-door salesmen has worked this street.

Six badly-behaved children with execrable manners terrorized the delicatessen for half an hour.

Eight people were arrested during and after the football game.

First step: pick out the verbs. (A verb is an 'action' word. It can be the only word in the entire sentence that indicates what is actually HAPPENING! In the examples above, the verbs are...

Sings ... running ... wants ... jumped ... arrived ... worked ... terrorized ... arrested.

(NOTE: the verbs are in different tenses, but don't worry about this. They're all verbs, and at this moment, that's what counts.)

Now, figure out who's performing each verb. Who owns it?

The boy ... The elderly man ... A beat-up red car ... A small brown puppy with big, bright eyes ... Mother's cat, a young Persian called Nostradamus ... Two girls from Nebraska ... A regiment of door-to-door salesmen ... Six badly behaved children with execrable manners ... Eight people.

Notice how subjects can be simple ("The boy" and "eight people"), and either singular or plural. The subject can be a whole bunch of people ("A regiment") ... and the subject can get complicated, as in the case of Nostradamus!

The subject of the sentence is all the words used to describe the subject, gathered together:

A small, thin, hollow-eyed little boy from an impoverished family in Perth.

A ranting, raving idiot of a man who drove a big, black limousine.

Several elderly spinsters from a quilt-making club in small-town Idaho.

These, above, are not sentences, even though they're long. They're fragments. To make a sentence, you need add a verb:

A small, thin, hollow-eyed little boy, from an impoverished family in Perth, FELL DOWN at school.

A ranting, raving idiot of a man who drove a big, black limousine, CRASHED in the highstreet.

Several elderly spinsters from a quilt-making club in small-town Idaho ARRIVED in Los Angeles for the seminar.

(Do you still have your copy editing hat on? Good!) Now, what about the object of a sentence. Not all sentences have objects. Very short ones can be complete without them:

The little boy sang angelically.

Five bodybuilders preened and strutted up and down.

An army of carpenters hammered enthusiastically.

But the instant these short, choppy little sentences start to grow and express more ... you get an object. The object is the entity or object that is affected by the verb. It has the verb performed on it, or done to it. Like this:

The little boy sang angelically to THE AUDIENCE.

Five bodybuilders preened and strutted up and down for ten minutes after the won THE TEAM EVENT TROPHY.

An army of carpenters hammered enthusiastically to build THE HOUSE in just four days.

Here's more, with the object in capitals: Jack and Daniel arrived HOME.

The little girl smashed HER DOLL by accident.

Five puppies escaped from THE PET SHOP and headed down the mall.

Two policeman struggled to catch THE YOUNG DOGS.

Charles was delighted to win THE WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP.

The driver of a yellow Gogomobile parked in THE LANE.

The Gogomobile stood between TWO FREIGHT TRUCKS.

Stockton is a small town crying out for HERITAGE LISTING.

In the above examples, the verbs are:

arrived ... smashed ... escaped ... struggled-to-catch ... win ... parked ... stood ... crying-out.

And if you're looking for the subject, it's easy now: the subjects of these simple sentences are the parts that are NOT the verbs or the objects! (Jack and Daniel ... the little girl ... five puppies ... Two policemen ... Charles ... The driver of a yellow Gogomobile ... the Gogomobile ... Stockton.

So far, so good. Look for the verb; whatever, or whoever performs ("owns") the verb is the subject, and whatever gets the verb wreaked upon it is the object. The copy editing process is coming along fine.

Now things get interesting. There's a good deal more material involved in long, complicated sentences, and you have to make absolutely sure all this material is properly tagged and organized. If you get lazy and inattentive, you can end up with hilarious, fall-down-laughing copy editing results, like this:

The pharmacy offered a comb for a baby with celluloid teeth.

The man delivered a table to a lady with antique legs.

Two guys fixed a house for a client with a nasty case of termites.

Dad bought a new drill for a cupboard with a three-meter cord.

The maestro made a guitar for a musician with bright steel pegs.

The trick is simply to arrange the sentence to keep all the appropriate material gathered together. While you're learning, go through a sentence and "tag" the various parts. Underline the verb, highlight the subject, and then when you've identified the object, round up all the material belong to it:

A comb with celluloid teeth ... a table with antique legs ... a house with a nasty case of termites ... a drill with a three-meter cord ... a guitar with bright steel pegs.

The other subject/object battle you can easily get into while copy editing is this: in long sentences, a fight can develop over who owns the verb. When sentences become very long and complex, you can find yourself hunting around trying to sort out who owns what. The easiest "fix" for this malady is to break the sentence down into two, three or even more smaller ones. Shorter sentences are easier to control ... often, they're also easier to read, and they can pack a "punch" in the narrative, which longer, flowing sentences don't have. This is where copy editing can actually cross back over and line into creative writing. The border between the two blurs out.

For example, here's a long, rambling sentence, and the copy editing cure for it:

A good distance offshore, where the water becomes very deep because the continental shelf drops off into the abyss, two small trawlers (which had, an hour before, put out of the port of San Cristobal) set their nets, with the obvious intention of catching any assortment of the shallow-water pelagic fish which abound in those seas, when the sky darkened with thunderclouds and a storm came up, so suddenly and so violently — with massive winds and a barrage of hail — that both the boats were half swamped before the captains could secure them, and only one skipper could broadcast a Mayday signal over the shortwave ahead of the predictable disaster.

Structurally, the sentence is sound, but it rambles from one topic to another, and another: the coastline, the trawlers, the fishing grounds, the storm, the disaster. In the middle of such a sentence, you can struggle to see who or what owns which verb, and it's all too easy to get into a muddle. Good copy editing should always be performed with the reader in mind, not the writer! Make the story easy to understand, and people will stay with you, keep reading and buy your next book!

Try this:

A good distance offshore, the water becomes very deep because the continental shelf drops off into the abyss. Two small trawlers had, an hour before, put out of the port of San Cristobal. They set their nets, with the obvious intention of catching any assortment of the shallow-water pelagic fish which abound in those seas. The sky darkened with thunderclouds and a storm came up, suddenly and violently, with massive winds and a barrage of hail. Both boats were half swamped before the captains could secure them, and only one skipper could broadcast a Mayday signal over the shortwave ahead of the predictable disaster.

In the second "take" on the same material, it's split up into five sentences. The copy editing was very effective. The material is not easier to read, and much easier to control. Subjects and objects are easier to pick out. Be vigilant: by all means write in fluid sentences which sound good in the ear, but ... know when enough is enough! Take pity on your readers.


There is one more rambling-sentence problem which we'll touch on here, and cover properly elsewhere. It's called the "run-on" sentence, and this is something you need to be keenly aware of, so that you can steer well clear if it. The "run-on" is a long, long sentence which has no business being a sentence at all. It's actually several shorter sentences which the writer has spliced together with commas and semi-colons, in order to simulate the "sound" of fluid sentence construction. In fact, the sentences have nothing to do with each other and should be separate.

In the following example, each sentence is complete, even though some of them are short and choppy. They're also unconnected! You can glue the whole lot together with comms, semi-colons and conjunctions (the "ands" and "buts"), however ... you shouldn't, because these sentences address different topics:

They came to rest seven miles outside the town. The sun was hot. Charlotteville was on the horizon. A tribe of gypsies had pitched camp by the well. James was sweating in the heavy tunic. Worried about his father, Marcus remained intent on the town they had just left. With an expert flourish of the bow, a gypsy fiddler began a lively folk tune. The horses were tired, and in need of rest.

Here it is as a run-on sentence. This is what you DON'T want to to:

They came to rest seven miles outside the town, the sun was hot, Charlotteville was on the horizon, a tribe of gypsies had pitched camp by the well, and James was sweating in the heavy tunic — worried about his father, Marcus remained intent on the town they had just left, and with an expert flourish of the bow, a gypsy fiddler began a lively folk tune, and the horses were tired, and in need of rest.

You can glue anything together with the glue of punctuation and conjunctions, but in many instaces, you should't. The trick is to split up the material and keep topics together. Identify your subjects, objects and verbs, and keep them under control. This is better:

They came to rest seven miles outside the town where the sun was hot, making James sweat in the heavy tunic. The horses were tired, and in need of rest. Worried about his father, Marcus remained intent on the town they had just left, but Charlotteville was on the horizon. A tribe of gypsies had pitched camp by the well, and with an expert flourish of the bow, a gypsy fiddler began a lively folk tune.

We'll be looking at run-ons in greater detail in another post, but for now ths example will give you a good grasp of what you want to do ... and what you don't!

That ... or which ...? So, which is it?

At least in this contexthis one is an easy fix. (NOTE: there are many and complex rules governing "that" and "which," but in this case ... trying to work out which one to use, when they seem at first glance to be interchangeable! ... it's not so complex. At this moment, with this particular problem, you're hunting for a "five minute fix" to solve the "that/which battle" -- you only need to know one rule. Elsewhere on the site, we'll examine clauses, and subordinate clauses and a lot of material which can get fairly confusing. The fact is, however, when you just need a "that/which quick-fix," you don't want all the rest. For now, scoop the icing off the top; come back for the rest of the cake later.)

"That" and "Which" have many uses in English. One of their jobs is to glue sentences together in a specific ways. Both of them take short, choppy, awkward, ugly sentences and make them longer, smoother sentences. However, THAT and WHICH are used in different ways, in different contexts. They're not interchangeable at all! So ... which would you use, and when, and why?

Take a look at these examples.

"The boat crossed the harbor. The boat was green." Now, you could utterly simplify and say, "The green boat crossed the harbor." You could also say, "The boat, WHICH was green, crossed the harbor." This a a correct use for "which." Never use "that" in this context...


"He had an ace up his sleeve. George knew nothing about it." This sounds better: "He had one ace up his sleeve, WHICH George knew nothing about." This is the correct use for "which." To use "that" would be wrong...

"Don't overlook the force of the wind. It's gale-strength." This sounds better: "Don't overlook the force of the wind, WHICH is gale-strength." This is correct, and if you used "that" you'd be wrong...

"They would be picking up their car. It was being repaired today." Better: "They would be picking up their car, WHICH was being repaired today." Also correct (don't use "that").

"Bats are amazing creatures. But this doesn't make them any prettier." Better: "Bats are amazing creatures, WHICH doesn't make them any prettier!" Also correct (don't use "that").

All the above examples use WHICH. The examples below use THAT. Take a look at them, then we'll work out the rule:

"He used the kind of language that would get anyone slapped."

"It could only be the car THAT had been parked behind the salon last night."

"The tow truck used the kind of chains THAT were also seen on the boatramp."

"The only science THAT had ever fascinated her was geology."

"The huge black dog THAT had frightened the area turned out to be a wolf."

"Mrs. Bailey made more tea, but it was a single lingering lamington THAT caused the fight to break out."

"This shop I found in Sydney sells the sort of books THAT would be perfect forany six-year-old."

And now, the simple rule which makes sense of all this!

Notice, in the first set of examples, two awkward little sentences have been glued together to form one better-sounding sentence, using WHICH. They may sound better when conjointed with WHICH ... but they are actually complete and coherent on their own. Read them through again... "Bats are amazing creatures." This makes perfect sense, and the sentence is complete, like "He had an ace up his sleeve." And "Don't overlook the force of the wind." The sentence comes to a full stop -- done. It's followed by another short sentence with amplifies it, but it'll stand on its own. WHICH is used to turn two choppy, awkward little sentences into one smooth sentence.

Notice, in the second set of examples, two concepts are joined using THAT ... but neither concept is a complete sentence on its own. Like this:

"He used the kind of language" is not a complete sentence. "It would get anyone slapped" is a sentence, but it has an "it" in there, and the "it" makes the sentence utterly ambiguous, if it's separated from the previous sentence fragment and taken out of context. "It" could be face-pulling, a rude gesture, a teeshirt with a crude cartoon, bad behavior -- or bad language. You would use THAT to join a sentence fragment (it's a fagment because it won't stand on its own as a sentence without more added) and a qualifying concept.

"The huge black dog" is not a sentence, but a fragment, like "The only science," and "It could only be the car" and especially, "Mrs. Bailey made more tea, but it was a single lingering lamington" ...! Each of these incomplete fragments needs to be welded to another, qualifying concept, in order to make proper sense. The glue you use to stick them together is WHICH."

(CAVEAT: this is the quick fix! There's a lot more to "that" and "which" than can be covered here, but by far the most common mistake is in mixing them up when you're looking for the right glue to stick short, choppy sentences together. With a firm grasp of this one rule about the that/which battles, you'll about the vast majority of errors. Bookmark this page and return when you need full, in-depth information. Or, subscribe to our newsletter. It's free, and every week or two we'll tell you which pages just went on line at Write Your Novel, detailing which pesky subjects. Visit us again when what you need is "up" ...!)



On which side of the bracket does the punctuation fall?

This at least is simple. Once you see the rule, all errors vanish, never to return. In the course of your copy editing, watch out for two kinds of sentences which contain parentheses (brackets):

1) The sentence is entirely inside the brackets;
2) The sentence is partly inside, partly outside the brackets.

The rule is this: If ALL the sentence is inside the brackets ... so is the punctuation. If part of the sentence is OUTSIDE the brackets, so is the punctuation. Like this:

Johnny had been in Mexico (working for his Uncle Joe), for six months.

(For some reason, Barbara had never thought of this.)

The mountains (up as far as the Swiss Alps) were white with snow.

(Seven dollars seemed like too much to pay.)

If wishes were horses (as my grandpa used to say), we'd all be cowboys.

(Jim would have preferred to see the Clint Eastwood movie, but decided not to say so.)

And now, with sounds of evil chuckling:
Turn page to Grammar: when to break ALL the rules!