A "That" clause is not a complete sentence.

The Religion News Service posted an article this past weekend that began with a confusing mouthful. First came a sixteen-word introductory phrase followed by a fairly direct simple statement. The fairly direct simple statement, which said "...concerned evangelicals gathered last month to search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward." was supposed to set up the point that evangelicals need to refocus, but the article stuck that point in a completely new paragraph and created a sentence fragment in the bargain. Here is what I tried to untangle as I read the article:

Repentant for having spent a generation bowing at the altars of church growth and political power, concerned evangelicals gathered last month to search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward.

That evangelicals, who compose a quarter of the American population, must refocus on shaping authentic disciples of Jesus Christ. But how to do that in a consumerist society with little appetite for self-denial is fueling internal debate.

First of all, the "sentence" that starts with "That evangelicals..." is not a complete sentence. Second, the final "sentence" begins with "but," (which isn't always a crime), but this "sentence" then slogs forward with a 14-word subject ("how to do that in a consumerist society with little appetite for self-denial) before getting to the verb "is fueling". Whew! What a mess of a paragraph!

We all write things this way in our FIRST DRAFT, but most of us go back and proofread and polish after creating such monsters. Here is what I would suggest:

Concerned evangelicals are becoming repentant about the generation they spent bowing at the altars of church growth and political power. A group of them gathered last month to search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward.

Evangelicals, who compose a quarter of the American population, may need to refocus on shaping authentic disciples of Jesus Christ, but there was considerable internal debate at the gathering about how to do that in a consumerist society with little appetite for self-denial.

I hope you will agree that my rewrite is clearer and more direct. Please let me know what you think and if you have a better rewrite suggestion.

THERE IS not okay for plural ideas

I have three other posts that deal with the confusion of THERE and THEIR. Now comes the confusion of THERE IS and THERE ARE.

Consider this sentence that appeared in my local newspaper this morning in an article about a professor who has written a book to help teachers teach evolution in science classes without offending students' religious views:

"There is piles and piles of evidence for evolution, and scientists can explain that," Meadows said.

Whoops! If Meadows is speaking about "piles and piles" of something, that is plural. Therefore, he should use THERE ARE as the beginning of his sentence. He could only use THERE IS if he said something like this: THERE IS a pile of evidence for evolution. His sentence should read as follows:

There are piles and piles of evidence for evolution, and scientists can explain that," said Meadows.

Why Can't Writers Keep Its and It's Straight?

Maybe it's more difficult than it seems, but writers continue to confuse ITS and IT'S. I already have several examples on this blog, but here's a new one that appeared in a wedding feature in last Sunday's local newspaper:



(The reception) was held at the Matt Jones Art Gallery in Birmingham because they liked it's locale and decor.



Whoops. Here we go again. IT'S (with an apostrophe) has only TWO meanings, and neither of them is possessive, as in "the locale and decor" belonging to the gallery. IT'S (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of either "it + is" or "it + has," as in "It's raining again today." or "It's been a pleasure working with you." There are no other ways to use this word.



ITS (without the apostrophe) means only ONE thing--belonging to an "it," as in the example sentence above. In that sentence, "its" refers to the locale and decor of the gallery (which is an "it").



Got that? The example sentence should read as follows:



(The reception) was held at the Matt Jones Art Gallery in Birmingham because they (the bride and groom) liked its locale and decor.



Grammar glitch aside, we do wish Lisa and Kevin (the bride and groom) a long and happy life together.

Title of Talk Gets Apostrophe Placement Wrong

A nationally recognized expert on dementia was to give a talk in Birmingham last Saturday. The newspaper quoted the title of her talk as follows:


Dementia Care Challenges: How to Maintain a Sound Mind When Your Loved Ones' Mind is Changing

Whoops! The speech title clearly refers to ONE loved one. It does not talk about more than one loved one. If it did, the verb would be "are" instead of "is," and the title would refer to when your loved ones' minds ARE changing. Therefore, the apostrophe should appear BEFORE the "s." It should read as follows:



Dementia Care Challenges: How to Maintain a Sound Mind When Your Loved One's Mind is Changing



REMEMBER: The apostrophe goes BEFORE the "s" if you are talking about a singular person or thing.

A Big Difference Between "under investigated" and "under investigation."

This morning's The Birmingham News has an informative and touching article about Major Royer, an Alabama soldier seriously injured in the terror attack at Fort Hood recently. The article told about the two women who helped save his life and also about the many visitors he has had during his recovery, including former President Bush and his wife, and President Obama and his wife.

Unfortunately, the reporter who wrote the article did not go back and proofread after changing around one sentence in the article. I suspect he originally wrote "is being investigated" and then decided to change it to "is under investigation."

This brings up a good point about proofreading. Whenever you make changes to a sentence, ALWAYS go back and read through it to make sure you don't need additional changes to go with the one you made. In this case, the reporter needed to change the verb form and did not. The sentence, as printed, reads as follows:

Royer declined to talk about what happened to him Nov. 5 because the incident is under investigated.

As written, it sounds as if this incident is not receiving enough investigation. The sentence needs the phrase "under investigation" or the phrase "being investigated" to make sense.

I wish Major Royer a good recovery.

A number of football commentators use "amount" for all counting.

As I listened to the commentary with several college and pro football games this past weekend, I heard the same grammar glitch numerous times. As I've said before, grammar glitches like this one may be fairly common when people are speaking, but if they carry over to written work, they stand out as poor usage and should be corrected.



I've blogged about this before, but please remember that AMOUNT is used for "lump sum" things like money, laundry, salt, energy, team spirit, and jewelry. NUMBER is used for things that can be counted (penalities, points, jerseys, and jewels).



Here are two sentences I heard over the weekend:



Georgia has had a ridiculous amount of penalities this year.



For a pro team, they have scored a minute amount of points so far.



Both PENALITIES and POINTS can be counted, so they should be described with the word NUMBER rather than the word AMOUNT. These sentences should read as follows:



Georgia has had a ridiculous number of penalities this year.



For a pro team, they have scored a minute number of points so far.



I hope your team has scored a large number of points so far this year (unless you happen to be a rival of Ohio State) and that the amount of your enthusiasm remains high throughout the season!

There is a difference between ONTO and ON TO.

Those of you who read this blog regularly have seen the two entries about IN and INTO. Today's newspaper carries a grammar glitch with ON TO and ONTO, which involves a similar point. Here is the sentence I read with my morning tea:

He believed in hard work and wanted to pass that belief onto his children, his son recalled.

It sounds as if this good man wanted to put his belief in a bowl, stand on a stool, and pour it down ONTO the heads of his children, which is probably not what the reporter meant. Instead, the man wanted to pass his belief in hard work ON (into the future) and to do that by giving it TO his children. In this sentence, ON and TO should be separate because their meanings are separate. The sentence should read as follows:

He believed in hard work and wanted to pass that belief on to his children, his son recalled.

For more information on this preposition concept, click (in the index at the right) on the entry for INTO/IN TO.

"People" Reporter Creates Sentence Fragment

The "People" section of my local newspaper carried a nice article this morning about the WQED studio in Pittsburgh where Fred Rogers visited the Neighborhood of Make-Believe weekday afternoons until about ten years ago. The studio, which is being renamed for Rogers, will be brought back to life and opened to the public this weekend.

Unfortunately, the reporter who put this story together moved some material around and did not go back and proofread. The result was the following rather long sentence fragment:

Mister Rogers' Neighborhood of Make-Believe is being rebuilt and opened to the public Saturday and Sunday, giving generations of Americans who grew up with Fred Rogers.

This sentence proves my point that you can put a capital letter at the beginning, a period at the end, and make it four lines long, but it STILL is not necessarily a sentence if it doesn't have a subject and a verb combination that work clearly together. In this sentence, the first part qualifies. In fact, you could put a period after "Sunday" and have a fine sentence for that part. However, "giving" is not enough of a verb by itself to make the last part of the sentence work.

The reader gets to the period at the end and asks, "Wait a minute. Giving these generations what?" Put together as it is written, the sentence makes no sense. I would suggest finishing the idea as follows:

Mister Rogers' Neighborhood of Make-Believe is being rebuilt and opened to the public Saturday and Sunday, giving generations of Americans who grew up with Fred Rogers an opportunity to relive their childhood memories.

If you happen to be in Pittsburgh this weekend and happen to have grown up with Fred Rogers the way my older son did, then stop by WQED and check out the Rogers studio.

By the way, I'd like to welcome any new readers of this blog who found their way here after our workshops in Montgomery this past week. You were all great to work with, and I hope you enjoy the grammar glitches you find here each week.

If it's THESE, it must be KINDS

Agreement is the issue again today. Lawman1856 posted a comment on al.com last week. He (or she?) was complaining about a news report that Jefferson County deputies had been called to a home to referee a domestic dispute over the cost of a facelift. Lawman created this sentence:



It's these kind of calls that take officers and deputies off the streets and waste taxpayers' time.



He may have a point, but even web posters should watch their grammar if they want to be considered credible. THESE is plural; therefore, the word that follows should be KINDS. Or, he might have referred to THIS KIND, but then he would have had to change CALLS to CALL. The sentence should read in one of the two following ways:



It's these kinds of calls that take officers and deputies off the streets and waste taxpayers' time.



It's this kind of call that takes officers and deputies off the streets and wastes taxpayers' time.



Notice how many different elements of the sentence (five in all) must be consistent with each other (all singular or all plural) for the sentence to be correct.



NOTE: I do give lawman1856 credit for putting the apostrophe AFTER the "s" with taxpayers' because he was referring to more than one taxpayer. He definitely got that part right!