Courtesy Titles and Honorifics

There was a time when it was considered proper form to refer indirectly to people in writing with a courtesy title or an honorific — a designation that identifies gender, profession, or title of nobility. That time, to the great relief of writers everywhere, has passed.

Of course, in direct address -- in a salutation, or when otherwise referring to someone in writing (as in a transcription) — it is and perhaps always will be proper to identify people with such markers: “Mr. Smith,” “Captain Jones,” “Doctor Williams,” “Reverend Taylor,” and so on. But with few exceptions, such terms are obsolete when referring to people in the third person.

The custom was cumbersome, requiring writers to be sure they knew more about a person that was perhaps necessary (or relevant): Is Mr. Smith a mere “John Smith,” or is he “Colonel John Smith (ret.)”? And is a woman a “Mrs.,” a “Ms.,” or a “Miss” — and why does it matter?

Likewise, does Captain Jones hold that specific naval rank, or is she commander of a naval vessel or installation and therefore called “Captain” in recognition of her status as a commanding officer even though her actual rank is different, or is she the owner of a sailboat? Is Doctor Williams a medical doctor, or did he earn a doctorate? Is Reverend Taylor’s status as a member of the clergy relevant to that person’s mention in an article or a book?

Though the New York Times persists in using courtesy titles (except in editorials and feature articles), this is a rare quirk bordering on obsolete affectation. Of course, courtesy titles are appropriate on first reference to a person: “The Reverend Robert Taylor” (or, in newspaper style, “Rev. Robert Taylor”) should be identified as such when introduced. (Alternatively, the introduction may be more relaxed: “Robert Taylor, pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church.”)

But the crux of this post is that on second reference — that’s editor-speak for any reference beyond the first one — no courtesy title or honorific is necessary, and it’s simpler to avoid using one. A few examples follow:

“John Smith was present at the meeting, she said…Smith [not “Mr. Smith”] spoke on the topic during the public-comment period.”

“Captain Mary Jones took command of the ship in 2010…Jones [not “Captain Jones”] is a twenty-five year navy veteran.”

“She appealed to Doctor James Williams…Williams [not “Doctor Williams”] responded encouragingly.”

“The Reverend Robert Taylor officiated at the wedding…Taylor [not “Reverend Taylor”] reminded the bride that he had baptized her.”

In narrative nonfiction or in fiction, of course, a subject or character might be referred to habitually as “Captain Jones” because that is how people actually refer to her, as when the owner of a fishing trawler is widely known in a community — perhaps few even know her first name — or in the case of a naval officer always so addressed by crew members. The same exception applies to other courtesy titles, even “Mr.” and “Mrs.” or “Ms.,” which, unlike the others, are always abbreviated. Ultimately, however, the burden of proof is on whether a courtesy title should appear on second reference — and the answer is usually no.

 From: Daily Writing Tips

 

Write How You Write, Not How You Speak

Inspect your writing for anything that smacks of spoken English.

If you’ve ever seen a transcript of an extended discourse -- a written record of someone’s comments, rather than the prepared script for a speech -- you’ll understand how widely spoken and written English can diverge.

Spontaneous speech, at least, is riddled with qualifications and equivocations. It’s easy enough to dispose of “um”s and “uh”s, “well”s and “you know”s when converting a transcript to an essay, but writers should purge their prose of other utterances, words, and phrases as well that add a lot to a word count but little to a description or an argument. (See this post, for instance, for a list of adjectival intensifiers and their adverbial forms to avoid.)

In addition, omit hedging phrases such as “as I see it,” “from my point of view,” “in my opinion,” and “it seems to me.” Search and destroy such pompous filler as “be that as it may” or “other things being equal.” These are all understandable (though not necessarily forgivable) indulgences in spoken English, whether impromptu or rehearsed -- at best, they’re nearly meaningless phrases one tosses off while thinking of what to say next, and at worst, they clutter a speech, distracting and discouraging listeners. But readers expect your prose to be direct and dynamic, and there’s no place for such self-gratification in written form.

From: Daily Writing Tips

 

Is it a “A While” or “Awhile”?

 

From: Daily Writing Tips

You might be wondering whether “a while” or “awhile” is the correct word for a particular sentence.

There are a couple of things to note here:

• You can’t write “a whilst” – because “while” is being used as a noun.
• You can’t use “a while” and “awhile” interchangeably – they mean different things.

A while is a noun that means “a period of time”, and is often (though by no means always) preceded by the word “for” – e.g. “Please wait for a while”.

Awhile is an adverb, which means “for a period of time”. It isn’t ever preceded by the word “for”.

Here are some sentences illustrating the difference:

Please read your book quietly for a while.

This meeting took a while.

I’ll be able to help you in a while.

Please wait awhile.

If you’re not ready yet, don’t worry: I’ll sit awhile.

He dawdled awhile at the entrance.

If you’re not sure which one you want, try replacing “a while” with another noun, such as “a minute” or “an hour”,  and “awhile” with another adverb, such as “patiently”:

Please read your book quietly for a minute.

This meeting took an hour.

I’ll be able to help you in a minute.

Please wait patiently.

If you’re not ready yet, don’t worry: I’ll sit patiently.

He dawdled patiently at the entrance.

Ultimately, it’s worth remembering that most uses of the word “awhile” will sound a little archaic. Generally, the use you want is “a while” – just check whether you can replace it with “a minute” (or “an hour”, “a day”, “a week”) and if so, then you’re using it correctly.

How Many Tenses in English?

 

Most modern grammar writers argue that there are only two tenses in English, past and present. We talk about the future using various modal verbs, including WILL, because we are usually talking about our perception of the future. The example you give...seems pretty nonsensical to me.

In the terminology of linguistics, English is a language with only two tenses: past and present.

Linguistics is a useful science. Because it is a science, it needs numerous precise terms that enable its students to make fine distinctions about the function of words in different languages.

The focus of linguistics is not English, but all the languages of the world. Students of this demanding science need to distinguish between tense and aspect; between adjectives that describe people and adjectives that describe inanimate objects.

Words like determiner, intensifier, modal, and word class are suited to making finer distinctions than adjective, adverb, helping verb, and part of speech. But I find that the older terms serve me adequately in explaining basic usage to students for whom a little grammar goes a long way.

How many tenses in English? The answer all depends upon whom you ask and what meaning you attach to the grammatical term tense.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines grammatical tense as “any one of the different forms or modifications (or word groups) in the conjugation of a verb which indicate the different times (past, present, or future) at which the action or state denoted by it is viewed as happening or existing.”

Most ESL sites set the number of English tenses at twelve. One site I found adds a thirteenth tense to accommodate the way we express the future with going and an infinitive: I’m going to paint the garage in the morning.

In the realm of linguistics, English has only two tenses: present and past because according to linguistics terminology, a tense is indicated by a distinctive verb form. “I sing” is in the present tense because the idea of present time is expressed in the single form sing.

“I sang” is past tense because the idea of past time is expressed in the single form sang.

What I and a great many other English teachers still call “future tense” is not a tense according to linguistics terminology because it requires a helping verb (modal). “I will sing” is not a separate tense, but an aspect of the present tense.

For what I do, such distinctions seem unnecessarily confusing. I do not write for grammarians or students of linguistics; I don’t have the training or knowledge to do so. My focus is basic English usage. From my point of view, English has three main tenses: present, past, and future. Each of these main tenses has sub-tenses. Here are the twelve English tenses as conventionally taught:

Simple Present: He sings.
Present Perfect: He has sung.
Present Continuous: He is singing.
Present Perfect Continuous: He has been singing.

Simple Past: He sang.
Past Perfect: He had sung.
Past Continuous: He was singing.
Past Perfect Continuous: He had been singing.

Simple Future: He will sing.
Future Continuous: He will be singing.
Future Perfect: He will have sung.
Future Perfect Continuous: He will have been singing.

Note: The continuous tenses are also known as progressive tenses.

 

From: Daily Writing Tips

7 Types of Hyphenation That May Seem Wrong But Aren’t

 

Compound modifier -- two or more words that combine to modify a noun -- are usually hyphenated to signal that link (only before the noun, however, and not if, as with “income tax” and many other permanent compounds, the open compound is in the dictionary). Even though the relationship often seems obvious, this is language law. Phrasal adjectives, however, aren’t the only grammatical category in which hyphens are required even though they don’t seem necessary. Here are seven others:

1. Job Titles

Some job titles, such as secretary-treasurer, are hyphenated to signal the combined roles. Others, such as secretary-general (the title of the head of the United Nations), retain this form as a holdover from a time when hyphenation of compound nouns was rampant, though technically, general is an adjective modifying secretary (as in the example of president-elect, below). However, this usage is an anomaly: similar terms like “attorney general” and “major general” are open.

Note that the adjective+noun combination “vice president” is open, but some other such compounds are hyphenated (vice-consul) or closed (viceroy).

2. Compound Nouns

A handful of noun compounds stubbornly resist the usual usage evolution of open, hyphenated, and closed (or sometimes open to closed without the hyphenation middleman): The ones I can think of are by-product, life-form, light-year, and mind-set.

Many people treat these artificially preserved throwbacks incorrectly -- the first and last compounds are often erroneously closed, and the hyphen is frequently omitted and a letter space inserted in the second and third ones -- and why shouldn’t they? Omitting hyphens and treating these words as open or closed compounds doesn’t violate any scientific laws. However, until dictionaries respond to the attainment of a tipping point where most people are writing such terms incorrectly, these words should be hyphenated.

(Light-year may someday be closed, but because the first element of life-form ends with a vowel, it will likely remain hyphenated. On that note, the disinclination to close this type of open compounds affects other terms, such as shape-shifter.)

3. Compound Verbs

When you use two words together to refer to a single action, such as referring to air-conditioning a house, jump-starting a car, or mass-producing a product, a seemingly extraneous hyphen is required. (The same is true regardless of the form of the verb: air-condition and air-conditioned -- but “air conditioning.”)

4. Fractions

Hyphens in compound numbers such as twenty-one seem natural, but hyphenation of fractions (one-third) is counterintuitive. How many thirds? One. One is an adjective that modifies the noun third, so why hyphenate them unless they’re linking to modify a noun (“one-third full”)? I don’t make the rules; I just follow them.

5. Homographs

Sometimes, prefixes you’d expect to be closed up to the root word are hyphenated, because closing them up would cause confusion with identical words with distinct meanings. Examples include resign/re-sign, resent/re-sent, and recreation/re-creation. (A rare case of a similar pair with a prefix other than re- is unionized/un-ionized.)

6. Prefixes

Generally, permanent compounds beginning with the prefixes all-, ex-, and self- are hyphenated: Examples include all-around, ex-governor, and self-control. (Selfish and selfless, as well as the unfortunate unselfconscious, are exceptions with self-.)

Some words beginning with co- (co-chair) and pro- (pro-choice) just look wrong closed up and are anomalously hyphenated, as are words in which the last letter of the prefix and the first letter of the root word are the same: anti-intellectual, co-owner, ultra-aggressive.

Words beginning with non- are almost always closed, but occasionally they’re seen hyphenated -- and for good reason: “Nonlife-threatening injury” is an awkward treatment. Insert a hyphen when the prefix precedes a hyphenated phrasal adjective.

And why, if we refer to the early or late part of an era, such as a decade or a century (“early 1920s,” “late nineteenth century”), no hyphen is used, but a reference to the middle of a period requires one, as in mid-1970s or mid-century? Consistency would call for referring to “the middle 1970s” or “the middle of the century,” but mid- has replaced this usage.

7. Suffixes

Constructions such as president-elect may seem to be unnecessarily burdened with a hyphen, but they’re equivalent to modified phrases such as daughter-in-law. (Note, though, that such constructions do not include a hyphen when the first element is an open compound, such as in “vice president elect.”)

However, “editor in chief” shed its connective tissue long go without difficulty (though some people still incorrectly hyphenate the phrase), so similar constructions may follow suit. For now, though, go with the flow.

From: Daily Writing Tips