I’ve just made a post on the five most common errors I see in books I review (both indie and trad-pub). A good 70% of the books that are appealing enough for me to actually pick up make at least one of these errors, presumably because the authors don’t know that they’re errors.
Are you making one or more of them in your work?
Excellent! I see those errors constantly. Thanks for this post!
Excellent! I see those errors constantly. Thanks for this post!
Excellent! I see those errors constantly. Thanks for this post!
Excellent! I see those errors constantly. Thanks for this post!
Excellent! I see those errors constantly. Thanks for this post!
I think the case of “regular, 20 second intervals” is a bit different. The 20 second becomes explanatory for the “regular”, getting close to being an apposition. Appositions are supposed to have commas on both sides, such as “regular, 20 second, intervals”, but “20 seconds” is not a complex enough phrase to be a clause, so at least one of the surrounding commas has to be dropped. “regular 20 second, intervals” is too unnatural, and “regular 20 second intervals” has a different meaning, but “regular, 20 second intervals” manages to convey that the 20 seconds is expository without violating the rules about what can be set out in appositional commas.
If we were to change it slightly to “regular, 20 per second, intervals” then what was set in apposition would be complex enough to be permitted. This one reads a bit rough if you use the commas but also reads a bit rough if you omit the commas. “regular (20 per second) intervals” would be clear but we are told to avoid brackets in narrative and to use appositions instead by converting the () to commas, so “regular, 20 per second, intervals” ought to be grammatically correct. “regular (20 second) intervals” is easily understood but the appositional version suffers from insufficient complexity in the apposition for us to be comfortable. Rewriting the “per” variation to avoid the problem is easy, “regular intervals, 20 per second” but “regular intervals, 20 seconds” does not have sufficient complexity in the phrase to be considered valid, so would have to be extended to something like “regular intervals, 20 seconds in between each.”
I would claim that in that example the comma was not necessarily a coordinating comma—that it might have been the degeneration of an apposition.
I think the case of “regular, 20 second intervals” is a bit different. The 20 second becomes explanatory for the “regular”, getting close to being an apposition. Appositions are supposed to have commas on both sides, such as “regular, 20 second, intervals”, but “20 seconds” is not a complex enough phrase to be a clause, so at least one of the surrounding commas has to be dropped. “regular 20 second, intervals” is too unnatural, and “regular 20 second intervals” has a different meaning, but “regular, 20 second intervals” manages to convey that the 20 seconds is expository without violating the rules about what can be set out in appositional commas.
If we were to change it slightly to “regular, 20 per second, intervals” then what was set in apposition would be complex enough to be permitted. This one reads a bit rough if you use the commas but also reads a bit rough if you omit the commas. “regular (20 per second) intervals” would be clear but we are told to avoid brackets in narrative and to use appositions instead by converting the () to commas, so “regular, 20 per second, intervals” ought to be grammatically correct. “regular (20 second) intervals” is easily understood but the appositional version suffers from insufficient complexity in the apposition for us to be comfortable. Rewriting the “per” variation to avoid the problem is easy, “regular intervals, 20 per second” but “regular intervals, 20 seconds” does not have sufficient complexity in the phrase to be considered valid, so would have to be extended to something like “regular intervals, 20 seconds in between each.”
I would claim that in that example the comma was not necessarily a coordinating comma—that it might have been the degeneration of an apposition.
I think the case of “regular, 20 second intervals” is a bit different. The 20 second becomes explanatory for the “regular”, getting close to being an apposition. Appositions are supposed to have commas on both sides, such as “regular, 20 second, intervals”, but “20 seconds” is not a complex enough phrase to be a clause, so at least one of the surrounding commas has to be dropped. “regular 20 second, intervals” is too unnatural, and “regular 20 second intervals” has a different meaning, but “regular, 20 second intervals” manages to convey that the 20 seconds is expository without violating the rules about what can be set out in appositional commas.
If we were to change it slightly to “regular, 20 per second, intervals” then what was set in apposition would be complex enough to be permitted. This one reads a bit rough if you use the commas but also reads a bit rough if you omit the commas. “regular (20 per second) intervals” would be clear but we are told to avoid brackets in narrative and to use appositions instead by converting the () to commas, so “regular, 20 per second, intervals” ought to be grammatically correct. “regular (20 second) intervals” is easily understood but the appositional version suffers from insufficient complexity in the apposition for us to be comfortable. Rewriting the “per” variation to avoid the problem is easy, “regular intervals, 20 per second” but “regular intervals, 20 seconds” does not have sufficient complexity in the phrase to be considered valid, so would have to be extended to something like “regular intervals, 20 seconds in between each.”
I would claim that in that example the comma was not necessarily a coordinating comma—that it might have been the degeneration of an apposition.
I think the case of “regular, 20 second intervals” is a bit different. The 20 second becomes explanatory for the “regular”, getting close to being an apposition. Appositions are supposed to have commas on both sides, such as “regular, 20 second, intervals”, but “20 seconds” is not a complex enough phrase to be a clause, so at least one of the surrounding commas has to be dropped. “regular 20 second, intervals” is too unnatural, and “regular 20 second intervals” has a different meaning, but “regular, 20 second intervals” manages to convey that the 20 seconds is expository without violating the rules about what can be set out in appositional commas.
If we were to change it slightly to “regular, 20 per second, intervals” then what was set in apposition would be complex enough to be permitted. This one reads a bit rough if you use the commas but also reads a bit rough if you omit the commas. “regular (20 per second) intervals” would be clear but we are told to avoid brackets in narrative and to use appositions instead by converting the () to commas, so “regular, 20 per second, intervals” ought to be grammatically correct. “regular (20 second) intervals” is easily understood but the appositional version suffers from insufficient complexity in the apposition for us to be comfortable. Rewriting the “per” variation to avoid the problem is easy, “regular intervals, 20 per second” but “regular intervals, 20 seconds” does not have sufficient complexity in the phrase to be considered valid, so would have to be extended to something like “regular intervals, 20 seconds in between each.”
I would claim that in that example the comma was not necessarily a coordinating comma—that it might have been the degeneration of an apposition.
I think the case of “regular, 20 second intervals” is a bit different. The 20 second becomes explanatory for the “regular”, getting close to being an apposition. Appositions are supposed to have commas on both sides, such as “regular, 20 second, intervals”, but “20 seconds” is not a complex enough phrase to be a clause, so at least one of the surrounding commas has to be dropped. “regular 20 second, intervals” is too unnatural, and “regular 20 second intervals” has a different meaning, but “regular, 20 second intervals” manages to convey that the 20 seconds is expository without violating the rules about what can be set out in appositional commas.
If we were to change it slightly to “regular, 20 per second, intervals” then what was set in apposition would be complex enough to be permitted. This one reads a bit rough if you use the commas but also reads a bit rough if you omit the commas. “regular (20 per second) intervals” would be clear but we are told to avoid brackets in narrative and to use appositions instead by converting the () to commas, so “regular, 20 per second, intervals” ought to be grammatically correct. “regular (20 second) intervals” is easily understood but the appositional version suffers from insufficient complexity in the apposition for us to be comfortable. Rewriting the “per” variation to avoid the problem is easy, “regular intervals, 20 per second” but “regular intervals, 20 seconds” does not have sufficient complexity in the phrase to be considered valid, so would have to be extended to something like “regular intervals, 20 seconds in between each.”
I would claim that in that example the comma was not necessarily a coordinating comma—that it might have been the degeneration of an apposition.
Given that particular author’s massive overuse of coordinate commas, I’m reasonably sure it was one.
Given that particular author’s massive overuse of coordinate commas, I’m reasonably sure it was one.
Given that particular author’s massive overuse of coordinate commas, I’m reasonably sure it was one.
Given that particular author’s massive overuse of coordinate commas, I’m reasonably sure it was one.
Given that particular author’s massive overuse of coordinate commas, I’m reasonably sure it was one.
The problem with ‘may’ and ‘might’, it seems to me, is that most people don’t know that ‘might’ is the past tense of ‘may’. ‘
Might’ is probably over-used, often in a slangy, colloquial way, while ‘may’ is often seen as remnant used only in legalese.
The problem with ‘may’ and ‘might’, it seems to me, is that most people don’t know that ‘might’ is the past tense of ‘may’. ‘
Might’ is probably over-used, often in a slangy, colloquial way, while ‘may’ is often seen as remnant used only in legalese.
The problem with ‘may’ and ‘might’, it seems to me, is that most people don’t know that ‘might’ is the past tense of ‘may’. ‘
Might’ is probably over-used, often in a slangy, colloquial way, while ‘may’ is often seen as remnant used only in legalese.
The problem with ‘may’ and ‘might’, it seems to me, is that most people don’t know that ‘might’ is the past tense of ‘may’. ‘
Might’ is probably over-used, often in a slangy, colloquial way, while ‘may’ is often seen as remnant used only in legalese.
The problem with ‘may’ and ‘might’, it seems to me, is that most people don’t know that ‘might’ is the past tense of ‘may’. ‘
Might’ is probably over-used, often in a slangy, colloquial way, while ‘may’ is often seen as remnant used only in legalese.
But it’s “may” that gets used when it should be “might”.
But it’s “may” that gets used when it should be “might”.
But it’s “may” that gets used when it should be “might”.
But it’s “may” that gets used when it should be “might”.
But it’s “may” that gets used when it should be “might”.
May is often associated with permission, but might is often associated with choice or possibility. Putting “May I?” “Yes, you may” into the simple past as “Might I?” “Yes, you might” does not work, as there is present tense “might” which is about potential. “Do you think it is realistic that I would potentially do that?” is “Might I?” and “Yes you might” is “I do believe that you have the capacity or nature that doing that would be realistic”. “Might I have?” “Yes, you might have.” likewise is about potential, not about permission.
“She asked if she might have some cake” is probably more likely to be interpreted as having asked for permission, but that is more by convention. If the discussion was about, say, boarding school and the question were about the potential for there being cake there, the wording would be the same, which highlights that the interpretation is convention. “She asked if she might be bitten” (if she tried to pat the dog) is rarely going to be interpreted as a request for permission to be bitten, and yet it is the same word claimed to be the past tense of may.
Thus it is understandable that people would not routinely use might as the past tense of may: perhaps it is technically right, but the two routinely have quite different connotations.
May is often associated with permission, but might is often associated with choice or possibility. Putting “May I?” “Yes, you may” into the simple past as “Might I?” “Yes, you might” does not work, as there is present tense “might” which is about potential. “Do you think it is realistic that I would potentially do that?” is “Might I?” and “Yes you might” is “I do believe that you have the capacity or nature that doing that would be realistic”. “Might I have?” “Yes, you might have.” likewise is about potential, not about permission.
“She asked if she might have some cake” is probably more likely to be interpreted as having asked for permission, but that is more by convention. If the discussion was about, say, boarding school and the question were about the potential for there being cake there, the wording would be the same, which highlights that the interpretation is convention. “She asked if she might be bitten” (if she tried to pat the dog) is rarely going to be interpreted as a request for permission to be bitten, and yet it is the same word claimed to be the past tense of may.
Thus it is understandable that people would not routinely use might as the past tense of may: perhaps it is technically right, but the two routinely have quite different connotations.
May is often associated with permission, but might is often associated with choice or possibility. Putting “May I?” “Yes, you may” into the simple past as “Might I?” “Yes, you might” does not work, as there is present tense “might” which is about potential. “Do you think it is realistic that I would potentially do that?” is “Might I?” and “Yes you might” is “I do believe that you have the capacity or nature that doing that would be realistic”. “Might I have?” “Yes, you might have.” likewise is about potential, not about permission.
“She asked if she might have some cake” is probably more likely to be interpreted as having asked for permission, but that is more by convention. If the discussion was about, say, boarding school and the question were about the potential for there being cake there, the wording would be the same, which highlights that the interpretation is convention. “She asked if she might be bitten” (if she tried to pat the dog) is rarely going to be interpreted as a request for permission to be bitten, and yet it is the same word claimed to be the past tense of may.
Thus it is understandable that people would not routinely use might as the past tense of may: perhaps it is technically right, but the two routinely have quite different connotations.
May is often associated with permission, but might is often associated with choice or possibility. Putting “May I?” “Yes, you may” into the simple past as “Might I?” “Yes, you might” does not work, as there is present tense “might” which is about potential. “Do you think it is realistic that I would potentially do that?” is “Might I?” and “Yes you might” is “I do believe that you have the capacity or nature that doing that would be realistic”. “Might I have?” “Yes, you might have.” likewise is about potential, not about permission.
“She asked if she might have some cake” is probably more likely to be interpreted as having asked for permission, but that is more by convention. If the discussion was about, say, boarding school and the question were about the potential for there being cake there, the wording would be the same, which highlights that the interpretation is convention. “She asked if she might be bitten” (if she tried to pat the dog) is rarely going to be interpreted as a request for permission to be bitten, and yet it is the same word claimed to be the past tense of may.
Thus it is understandable that people would not routinely use might as the past tense of may: perhaps it is technically right, but the two routinely have quite different connotations.
May is often associated with permission, but might is often associated with choice or possibility. Putting “May I?” “Yes, you may” into the simple past as “Might I?” “Yes, you might” does not work, as there is present tense “might” which is about potential. “Do you think it is realistic that I would potentially do that?” is “Might I?” and “Yes you might” is “I do believe that you have the capacity or nature that doing that would be realistic”. “Might I have?” “Yes, you might have.” likewise is about potential, not about permission.
“She asked if she might have some cake” is probably more likely to be interpreted as having asked for permission, but that is more by convention. If the discussion was about, say, boarding school and the question were about the potential for there being cake there, the wording would be the same, which highlights that the interpretation is convention. “She asked if she might be bitten” (if she tried to pat the dog) is rarely going to be interpreted as a request for permission to be bitten, and yet it is the same word claimed to be the past tense of may.
Thus it is understandable that people would not routinely use might as the past tense of may: perhaps it is technically right, but the two routinely have quite different connotations.
Thanks for that link, Travis Bird. It underlines that the situation is complex – but it does unequivocally state that in past reported speech, “might” is correct, which is the situation I’m talking about.
Thanks for that link, Travis Bird. It underlines that the situation is complex – but it does unequivocally state that in past reported speech, “might” is correct, which is the situation I’m talking about.
Thanks for that link, Travis Bird. It underlines that the situation is complex – but it does unequivocally state that in past reported speech, “might” is correct, which is the situation I’m talking about.
Thanks for that link, Travis Bird. It underlines that the situation is complex – but it does unequivocally state that in past reported speech, “might” is correct, which is the situation I’m talking about.
Thanks for that link, Travis Bird. It underlines that the situation is complex – but it does unequivocally state that in past reported speech, “might” is correct, which is the situation I’m talking about.
Walter Roberson Thank you for your explanation. Nails it, in my opinion.
Walter Roberson Thank you for your explanation. Nails it, in my opinion.
Walter Roberson Thank you for your explanation. Nails it, in my opinion.
Walter Roberson Thank you for your explanation. Nails it, in my opinion.
Walter Roberson Thank you for your explanation. Nails it, in my opinion.
One of the biggest problems is that many people colloquially use words and grammatical devices wrongly, and it then becomes the “correct” way. It then seems odd to use what is supposed to be the right way, as many people would view that as being wrong.
The result is that you can phrase something in two different ways, and both can technically be right, but someone will always object to either one.
One of the biggest problems is that many people colloquially use words and grammatical devices wrongly, and it then becomes the “correct” way. It then seems odd to use what is supposed to be the right way, as many people would view that as being wrong.
The result is that you can phrase something in two different ways, and both can technically be right, but someone will always object to either one.
One of the biggest problems is that many people colloquially use words and grammatical devices wrongly, and it then becomes the “correct” way. It then seems odd to use what is supposed to be the right way, as many people would view that as being wrong.
The result is that you can phrase something in two different ways, and both can technically be right, but someone will always object to either one.
One of the biggest problems is that many people colloquially use words and grammatical devices wrongly, and it then becomes the “correct” way. It then seems odd to use what is supposed to be the right way, as many people would view that as being wrong.
The result is that you can phrase something in two different ways, and both can technically be right, but someone will always object to either one.
One of the biggest problems is that many people colloquially use words and grammatical devices wrongly, and it then becomes the “correct” way. It then seems odd to use what is supposed to be the right way, as many people would view that as being wrong.
The result is that you can phrase something in two different ways, and both can technically be right, but someone will always object to either one.
Leave a Reply