I am on A Way With Words!

On a whim a couple of months ago, I called in to the radio show A Way With Words to ask a grammar/lanugage question that had been bothering me for a long time. I was shocked, nervous, and excited when they said they wanted to feature my question on the air!

That episode finally aired, and it's pretty weird to hear my own voice on a national podcast/radio show.

I personally find all of every episode of A Way With Words interesting, but if you'd like to skip ahead to my part, you can start at the 16 minute mark.

An Easter Grammar Lesson: He is Risen

Sitting here on this snowy April 15th morning (yes, in Kentucky), I got the idea to do an Easter bunting with Jude as part of our school work. I could print out the letter outlines and he could color them, and then together we could glue them onto bunting flags and hang them in our new standard bunting location: across the big map in the dining room, as seen below with the fall leaves Jude painted back in November:

It didn't take me long to decide I wanted the bunting to say, "He is risen." Or is it, "He has risen?" I googled. It's definitely, "He is risen." But why?

Wait a second. Haven't I been here before? Yes, I have! I had the same issue come up a couple of years ago (or FOUR.... goodness, how time flies) when I made a Christmas bunting that said, "The Lord is Come."

As I learned while making that bunting, the now practically extinct unaccusative intransitive form of risen, in this case, actually packs more of a theological punch than you might expect at first glance. 

To say, "He has risen," puts the emphasis on the action of rising, and implies that Jesus is the one who initiated the rising.

But to say, "He is risen," puts the emphasis on the fact that he is now alive, and implies that Jesus is not the one who initiated this rising, but that he was raised by the Father.

I know grammar isn't the most exciting thing in the world, but I hope that moves you like it does me. Have a blessed Holy Week and Resurrection/Easter Sunday, friends.

*****

ETA: Since writing this, I've realized that most translations actually do say, "He has risen" in Matthew 28, but the KJV says, "He is risen." Warning: serious grammar nerdiness ahead. Proceed at your own risk.

I asked my Greek scholar husband to look at it for me in the Greek, and he said that "risen" is in the aorist tense, which isn't marked as a specific form of past tense, so it is free to be interpreted either as:

1. "He is risen."

2. " He has risen."
or
3. " He was raised."

I thought it was interesting that the aorist tense can also be used to emphasize the success of an effort. God raising Jesus from the dead was certainly a success, as was the more overarching effort of Jesus' perfect life, his becoming our sin on the cross and dying in our stead, and his conquering of death and Satan in his resurrection.

So, although "He has risen," is certainly not incorrect, I like the emphasis that the KJV form of this sentence gives us. Like I said before, it packs more of an inherent theological punch than the others.

Grammar Lesson: Last Names That End in S

Sorry I've been a little AWOL from blogging lately. I've been pretty busy with taking care of my family and home, as well as getting Wild Berries Photography off the ground. But I've had a grammar issue on my mind lately that I'd like to address just in time for all of your customized Christmas projects.

Last names that end in S can give folks a lot of problems when they try to make them plural or posessive... or plural and posessive. I've seen it butchered in so many ways since marrying into a last name that ends in S, so I am here to set the record straight.

Let's start with just a basic last name: Hutchens

If something belongs to one single Hutchens, you can use Hutchens's, "That is Mr. Hutchens's phone," or Hutchens', "That is Mr. Hutchens' phone." It's apparently a debated topic in the grammar world. As a person who likes cut and dry rules, this bothers me. I prefer Hutchens's for clarity, but I guess it's up to you.

Mrs. Hutchens's apron.

Now, let's make it plural. More than one Hutchens would be Hutchenses, pronounced "Hutchenziz." "We are the Hutchenses." If you're going to have a sign in your front yard that says, "The [insert family name]," then it should most definitely say, "The Hutchenses." Or you could say that you are hanging out with the Hutchenses. Or, keeping up with the Hutchenses. (Get it? Like keeping up with the Joneses.)  It looks a little funny, but I promise it's right.

What if something belongs to many Hutchenses? In that case, it is Hutchenses', which is still pronounced, "Hutchenziz." This is to keep us from ever having to try to say, "Hutchenziziz," cause that's just weird.

Lilia was the Hutchenses' tutor and friend in Moldova.

So you would say, "The Hutchenses' red car is over there."

Remember, if you are in doubt on what to say, just go with "The Hutchens family." Works every time. To: The Hutchens Family. That is the Hutchens family's red car. We are the Hutchens Family.

And as a bonus, first names that end in S work the same as last names that end in S. It's debated. I prefer to say, "That's Lucas's watch." However, even among those who agree with me, there are a few exceptions, which are historical names like Jesus', Moses', or Odysseus'.

There! Now you can go and give grammatically correct Christmas gifts!

A Grammar Lesson: Past Tense of Pet, Sweat, Etc.

Last night, Josh mentioned that he'd "sweat" for hours today. I heard a friend recently say that they'd "pet" an animal.

Both times that I heard these words-- sweat and pet used as past-tense verbs-- it grated on my ears just a little. It didn't sound quite right, but it didn't sound quite wrong either. Of course, my inner grammar nerd couldn't rest until I knew exactly how to correctly use sweat, pet, and words like them in the past tense. So, I googled.

Josh sweated over a hot grill to bring us this tasty meal.

I found this article by Neal Whitman helpful, and although he did a good job of explaining it, I'm going to see if I can bring it down a few more notches for us, because I had to re-read it a couple of times to really understand what he was saying. Feel free to click though and read it for yourself, though; it's very interesting!

He points out that there are several one-syllable words that end in t and are irregular-- they are the same in the present and past tense. Think of let, bet, set, put, hit, and cut, among others.

But there are also several one-syllable words that end in t and are regular-- they use -ed for the past tense. Think of batted, knitted, knotted, jotted, netted, and jetted, among others.

Neal quotes another linguist who theorizes that, because the irregular first group of verbs are so frequently used (perhaps even more frequently used than the regular verbs) and are so similar to the regular second group, many times we tend to lump all of them into the first category and leave the -ed off, even when it's not correct.

So, to summarize, in case your eyes have already glazed over:

• Some verbs don't take an -ed in the past tense: let, bet, set, put, hit, and cut, among others.
• Some verbs do take an -ed in the past tense: batted, knitted, knotted, jotted, netted, and jetted, among others.
• Both pet and sweat fall firmly into the second category. The correct past tenses of these verbs are petted and sweated.

Don't you feel better now that you know that? Have a great day full of great grammar!

A Christmas Grammar Lesson: The Lord is Come?

In my excitement today over beginning to decorate for Christmas, I realized that it was now time to take down my Give Thanks banner that Jude and I made for Thanksgiving.  I was thinking about making a similar one for Christmas, and thinking about possible things it could say besides just "Merry Christmas," when I thought of using the phrase "The Lord is Come!"

Immediately, my grammar-nerd self wondered why the hymn "Joy to the World" says, "the Lord is come," rather than, "the Lord has come."

After doing some research, I found that Grammar Girl (love her) has already tackled this issue.  She said:

It actually turned out to be a pretty tough question, but I eventually discovered that the phrase the Lord is come uses an archaic form of English that was very common back in 1719 when “Joy to the World” was written by Isaac Watts. A number of references say that this construction uses the word come as an unaccusative intransitive verb (and don't worry: you don't need to remember that because it's a form that's now nearly extinct in the English language).

Okay... so what's an unaccusative intransitive verb?   Two things that GG linked to in her "Further Reading" list at the bottom of the page helped me understand.  Dictionary.die.net said:

The verb to be gives a clearer adjectival significance to the participle as expressing a state or condition of the subject, while the auxiliary have expresses simply the completion of the action signified by the verb (emphasis mine).

Huh?  English, please?   Basically, to say "the Lord is come" puts the emphasis on the state of having come and now being here, as opposed to saying, "the Lord has come," which simply puts the emphasis on the action of coming.  Do you see it?  The Lord didn't just come, he is here!

Whew.  Okay.  Let's take a quick breather before moving on.  How about a cute picture of my sweet little boy last year on his first Christmas:

Perfect.  Now, moving on.

To put this unusual phrasing into even deeper theological waters, the Wikipedia definition of an unaccusative verb says:

In linguistics, an unaccusative verb is an intransitive verb whose (syntactic) subject is not a (semantic) agent; that is, it does not actively initiate, or is not actively responsible for, the action of the verb.

The first part of that sentence may as well be in Greek to me, but look at the second half of the definition.    To say that "The Lord is come," is not only to emphasize that he is here, as the first definition said, but it also demonstrates that the subject-- the Lord-- did not actively initiate the coming!  And what did Jesus tell us time and time again? "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me." (John 6:57 ESV, emphasis mine)

So, to summarize, just in case your eyes glazed over with all of the technical grammar mumbo-jumbo:

• To say, "The Lord has come," puts the emphasis on the action of coming, and implies that the Lord is the one who initiated the coming.
• But to say, "The Lord is come," puts the emphasis on the fact that he is now here, and implies that the Lord is not the one who initiated this coming, but that he was sent by the Father.

Wow!  That one little line is a lot more theologically rich than I ever realized!

Second Cousin Twice Removed

The designations of cousins beyond "first cousin" have always confused me, and tonight while putting Jude to bed I started thinking about it and decided that I would figure it out and then blog about it.

I looked up several different ways of explaining it, but here is how it makes the most sense in my head:

First cousins are the children of your parents' siblings.  Most of us understand this one.

Second cousins are your parents' cousins.

Third cousins are your grandparents' cousins.

And so on.

The removed part designates the generation.

A first cousin once removed would be your first cousin's child.

A second cousin once removed would the child of your parents' cousin (since, remember, your parents' cousin is your second cousin).

A second cousin twice removed would be the grandchild of your parents' cousin.

And so on.

Let me give you some examples:

This is my first cousin, Jody, and her daughter, Annie.

So Jody is Jude's second cousin.

And that makes Annie Jude's second cousin once removed.

This is my mom's first cousin, Linda, and her grandson, River.

So Linda is my second cousin.

River is my second cousin twice removed.

Which means that Linda is Jude's third cousin.

And River is Jude's third cousin twice removed.

This is Emily and her daughter, Ginny.

(I stole this picture from facebook, btw.  Hi, Emily!)

Emily's grandmother and my mom were sisters (I say "were" because Aunt Betty went to be with the Lord a few years ago).  So Emily is the daughter of my first cousin, making Emily my first cousin once removed.

Ginny, therefore, is my first cousin twice removed.

That makes Emily Jude's second cousin once removed.

And Ginny is Jude's second cousin twice removed.

Well, I hope that helps explain things a little better!  If nothing else, I enjoyed showing off some of the beautiful babies in my family!

Grammar Rules (funny)

Original author unknown:

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used unless you don't want to seem too formal.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not always apropos.
13. Do not use more words, phrases, sentences, or other linguistic elements than you, yourself, actually really and definitely need to use or employ when expressing yourself or otherwise giving voice to what you may or may not be thinking when you are trying to say how many words you should use or not use when using words.
14. One should NEVER generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as cliches.
16. Don't use no double negatives.
17. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, i.e. etc.
18. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
19. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
20. The passive voice is to be ignored.
21. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
22. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
23. Kill excessive exclamation points!!!
24. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others elude to them.
25. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth shaking ideas.
26. Use the apostrophe in it's proper place and omit it when its not needed.
27. Eliminate distracting quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson is said to have once remarked, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
28. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times: Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
29. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
30. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
31. Even IF a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
32. Who needs rhetorical questions?
33. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
And finally…
34. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

From http://grammatically.blogspot.com/

Also... I SO want this shirt!

A Grammar Lesson: Your/You're

This is probably my other biggest grammar pet peeve.

"Your welcome," "Your invited," or, this shirt from Busted Tees (which I *do* love... the website, that is, not this particular shirt) making fun of grammar nerds like myself:

There's a simple rule for this and all other contractions. Can you separate what you are saying into two words (in this case, "you" and "are")?

You are welcome. Yes. You're welcome.

You are invited. Yes. You're invited.

I have you are pen. Hunh? No, no, no. I have your pen.

See? It's so easy! Now go forth into the world speaking and writing intelligently!

A Grammar Lesson: Him and I

This is one of my very biggest pet peeves. I see and hear it everywhere!

"They were so sweet, they threw a going-away party for John and I before we left."

"My parents gave Rachael and I a gift card for our anniversary!"

Or perhaps the most rampant of them all... Facebook albums titled "Pictures of Mary and I."

I know, I know. We all grew up running to our moms saying, "Mom! Can me and Amy go to the park?" Only to be firmly corrected, "AMY AND I." And that is completely correct in that instance. It's also correct that the other person's name should always come first, whether you use me or I. But now we're all scared to ever use "me" in a sentence. Well, I'm here to liberate you from that prison. There is a very easy little rule that can help you know whether to say "Amy and I" or "Amy and me."

Take the other person's name out of the sentence and see what makes sense.

"My parents gave I a gift card for our anniversary!" No, no, no.

"Pictures of I." *shivers* Definitely wrong.

"They are having buy one get one free coffee at Heine Bros and I am going to go." Yes. In this sentence, "Josh and I" would be appropriate (not just grammatically but also because Josh and I looooove Heine Bros' coffee :) ).

So there you have it. Now you, too, can speak intelligently. Have a great day!