Parallel Structure Streamlines Writing

Ulta's ad brochure this month contains a whole page of curling irons and crimpers ranging in price from $12.99 to $47.99. The ad for the Revlon Perfect Heat Brush Iron describes its function this way:

Curl hair under or flips it out

Even though this is not presented as a complete sentence, the two verbs (CURL..FLIPS) should match in format. The ad may be suggesting that you, the reader, can do both things. If that is the case, the phrase should read as follows:

(You can) curl hair under or flip it out.

Or, the ad may be suggesting that the device itself can do both things. In that case, the phrase should read as follows:

(This iron) curls hair under or flips it out.


In either case, BOTH verbs should match in format. Either they end in S or they don't.

Pay Attention to Time Line When Choosing Verbs

I am currently reading a wonderful book called "the blue cotton gown" (NOTE: The title IS in all lower case letters!)by Patricia Harman. It is about her experiences as a midwife in Appalachia.



I love the book, but one sentence I came across last evening bothers me because it uses the past perfect tense (HAD as a helping verb) in a confusing way. Here is the sentence:



When I called R. G.'s office to inquire about what was going on, her receptionist had told me R. was in Europe.



If you think of verb tenses in terms of a time line, there would be a crossbar in the middle of that time line for RIGHT NOW. Every verb expresses action in relationship to RIGHT NOW. So, when the author says "When I called...." she is setting up an event that happened in the PAST. Logic tells us that what the receptionist TOLD her should be in the same time frame as CALLED. However, the author uses HAD TOLD, which is incorrect because HAD TOLD would be used for something that happened farther back in the past--before the telephone call. The sentence should read as follows:



When I called R. G.'s office to inquire about what was going on, her receptionist told me R. was in Europe.



Below are some examples of how to use the past perfect tense (HAD + the verb) to express the correct time relationship:

• When I called to inquire about what was going on, the receptionist told me R. had been in Europe for the past three weeks.

• Before I accepted the teaching position, I had been working as a gardener.

• Although Peter now lived in Cleveland, he had grown up in Columbus.

If any of my regular readers would like a copy of my sample time line for choosing verbs correctly, please send along your e-mail address, and I will send a copy.

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.

Whoops! A Poll I Run Two Years Ago??

As I've said before, I enjoy keeping up with the ProBlogger and all of his wonderful suggestions for improving my blog. I've also had a little fun catching ProBlogger with some grammar glitches. Here is a new one from a week or so ago:



This is a poll I run two years ago.



I pointed out in one of my recent blogs that it's important to be aware of the proper forms of verbs in English. They don't always follow a logical pattern, as with the forms of RUN. They are RUN, RAN, RUN. I agree that the more logical forms might be RIN, RAN, RUN (kind of like SING, SANG, SUNG or RING, RANG, RUNG), but that's not the case.



RUN is present tense, as in "I RUN errands every morning." RAN is past tense, as in "This is a poll I RAN two years ago." And RUN is ALSO the past participle that is used with helping verbs like HAVE and HAS, as in "I have RUN that marathon every year since 1990." Or, "She has RUN that marathon every year."



ProBlogger should have written his sentence this way (in the PAST tense):



This is a poll I ran two years ago.



By the way, I'd like to welcome members of the AUM Campus Police to the readship of this blog. They participated in a business writing workshop in Montgomery, Alabama, this week, and I thoroughly enjoyed working with them. Welcome! Like everyone else, they are welcome to post comments with questions for future posts.

Give...Gave...Given--Which Goes with "Could?"

This headline appeared in the Sports section of USA Today on Wednesday, April 30. The columnist, Michael Hiestand, probably knows better. Maybe he was just in a hurry. Or maybe someone else wrote the headline.

Whatever happened, my husband spotted this grammar goof for me.

When you use a helping verb like "could" or "should" or "would" with a verb, you use the PRESENT TENSE form of the verb with it. Therefore, this headline should have (not "should had") read as follows:

Knicks could give analyst carousel a spin.

Verb Consistency--Today's "Gotcha" Grammar Glitch

Verbs should reflect the time frame. If you are talking about the past, ALL the verbs used should be in the PAST TENSE. If you are talking about the present, the verbs referring to that time frame should be in the PRESENT TENSE. You only mix them if you want to show a change in time frame.

A good example of this grammar glitch appeared in The Birmingham News this week--on the front page--in an article about coal mine blasting damaging people's homes:

They (the homeowners) didn't in most cases move into the neighborhood of the mine knowing what was going to happen. The mine moves into their neighborhood.

Because the blasting is already occurring, we can assume that the mines MOVED into the neighborhood IN THE PAST, but as written, this sentence does not reflect that time relationship. It should read as follows:

They didn't in most cases move into the neighborhood of the mine knowing what was going to happen. The mine MOVED into their neighborhood.

By changing "moves" to "moved," we achieve the correct time frame.