It happened to me again. I worked with a group to develop a draft, and then sent it out to the group for comments. One member sent it back to "reply all," saying she made some revisions, though they were mostly "grammatical ones." Since I had sent it out, of course the "grammatical mistakes" would be attributed to me.

Were they really grammatical changes? I realize I could just read a dictionary's definition of "grammar" and be done with it. For example, my office's dictionary (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate) defines "grammar" as: a. the study of the classes of words, their inflections, and their functions in relation to the sentence. Well, she did rearrange some of the wording; that is, she didn't just add a comma and call it "grammar," as some do. However, consider this change (we were listing parts of an application):

Original: Clear and comprehensive plan for ongoing evaluation.

Change: Plan for ongoing evaluation is clear and comprehensive.

[Note: These were not to be complete sentences, as they were lists of what was to be submitted.]

Is this a change based on grammar, or is this just a change for style? Or are they one and the same?

It's a change based on style and, if they were bullet points, it's an unnecessary one.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

I agree; style and grammar are not the same thing by a long way. It's a personal style, at that. One thing I would say is that there is no verb in your version. However, as Bob says, if it was a bullet point, that would be immaterial.

Also, what is the plan for? Is it for ongoing evaluation of something, or is the plan itself to be evaluated?

Without seeing the context it's difficult to comment accurately. To me there seems to be a shade of difference in the meanings, but without the context it difficult to be sure.

"[A}Clear and comprehensive plan for ongoing evaluation" is something that exists, whereas "[The}Plan for ongoing evaluation is clear and comprehensive" is a comment on an existing plan.

A fine distinction but possibly an important one.

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction Richard is making. To me they are the same. imo it's impossible to judge grammatical correctness without considering the context. In this context, it seems that imcomplete sentences are fine.

Thaty might be the same, but out of context it's difficult to be sure.

But here are two examples as to how they might mean different things.

1. We will be providing a clear and comprehensive plan for ongoing evaluation .

2. Having checked, we agree that the plan for ongoing evaluation is clear and comprehensive.

The first is a statement of intent and the second an assessment of achievement.

Yes, those two sentences have different meanings, but the constructions under discussion mean the same thing. And as far as I can tell, in the context of Kalleh's document they are part of a list, and not part of any larger sentences. But you're right, there might be some context we're missing.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

Without seeing the context it's difficult to comment accurately.

Richard, I wasn't asking for further wordsmithing...God knows I have enough now. Academics just have to comment on everything. Now they've taken to using that awful Word tracking mechanism and they're wordsmithing each others' corrections so that I have this terribly marked up document where I have no idea what is going on.

These were bullets, and we didn't need to have verbs or complete sentences.

The question I had wondered about was whether these were grammatical suggestions or suggestions based on style. I have become a little confused on that. I admit, in the PW days (pre-Wordcraft), I might have mistakenly thought that a punctuation error is poor grammar. But even now, I am not certain what exactly is it? If in this example the correction made it clearer (I don't think it did, but assume that), would that have improved the grammar?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Richard, I wasn't asking for further wordsmithing...God knows I have enough now.

All I am saying is that the two phrases might, or might not, have a different meanings and that it was therefore impossible to say whether or not the changes were simply grammatical and/or stylistic, or whether they were made for reasons of meaning.

Edited for typos

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

Since it changed a phrase into a clause, imo it changed the grammar. But that doesn't mean it made it clearer. I guess some people think "improving grammar" means aiding clarity, but it doesn't necessarily.

In fact I think it's also a stylistic change, since it seems to be based on a preference for complete sentences in bullet points.

I'd say that a punctuation error is an error in orthography, not grammar.

quote:

2. Having checked, we agree that the plan for ongoing evaluation is clear and comprehensive.

That's one sentence with the change done for style. If they had told you (incorrectly) to say "evaluation am clear and comprehensive", then it would be a grammatical change, IMO.

I think I confused things with my comment about punctuation. This is a better example of what I consider poor grammar:
~ Them are nice.
~ Their is a great restaurant on the corner.
~ Walking to the store.

I am not sure about the second. While wrong, I am not sure it's poor grammar.

Those are cut and dry examples, and that's what I thought grammar was. Where you begin to worry about clarity or the word "functions in relation to the sentence" (as in the definition I cited above), it's much more opinionated and sounds more like style to me.

[By the way, these edits are being made on a document that had already been edited by the same group. That is, while I sent it out to everyone to comment (big mistake!), this had been their draft in the first place, though of course I had input. However, it's not like they'd not seen this document before. At this point, we have 6 people's tracked comments on top of each other; that is, the first person tracked; the second tracked on the first; the third tracked on the first and second; and so on. Can you imagine what my document looks like? I am supposed to put this all together.]

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
~ Their is a great restaurant on the corner.

I don't think this is a grammatical mistake. It's an orthographical mistake, substituting one written word for another. It's impossible to make this mistake in speech. To say that it is a grammatical mistake is to say that orthography can determine grammar. But it can't, it's just a representation.

Yes, that's what I thought.

The others are grammatical errors, though, correct?

What about the dictionary's definition? Does that mean if you improve a sentence's clarity you making grammatical changes?

The first is ungrammatical. The last one is a grammatical mistake if it's meant for a written text that requires complete sentences.

quote:

What about the dictionary's definition? Does that mean if you improve a sentence's clarity you making grammatical changes?

If you change the syntax or morphology, then you're making grammatical changes imo. But that doesn't mean you're correcting the grammar, you're just changing the grammar. But I think when people usually talk about editing for grammar, they mean correcting errors, not just changing the structure. If there are two equally grammatical choices, and you prefer one over the other, then you're making a style change - even tho really you're also changing the grammar.

In fact this topic raises another question to which I have been unable to find an anwer - about the punctuation of bulleted or numbered lists.

If the sentence introducing a list ends in a colon, then the list is a continuation of the sentence and, regardless of the number of items in the list, there will be no full stop until the end and the separate items will not be capitalised. This is the style preferred by some, including City and Guilds in their syllabi.

Others seem to prefer to capitalise each item and use a full stop at the end of each, even if the introductory sentence ends with a colon - although I prefer to ensure that there is no doubt by ending it with a full stop - although grammatically that is often wrong.

What I have never seen is any recommended style in an accepted style guide - my own preferred "Times style and useage guide" offers no guidance.

My own office house style guide says:

quote:

If the bullet points consist of full sentences, they should begin with a capital letter and end in a full stop. If the bullet points have a stem and are not full sentences, they should have no punctuation apart from a colon after the stem and a full stop after the final bullet. Each bullet point must start with the same kind of word or phrase (noun or verb), and follow logically from the stem.

They also say "The Plain English Campaign recommends different ways to present a sequence of bullet points, depending on its structure. Each point may consist of one or more complete sentences, or the points together may make up one continuous sentence introduced by a stem. You should not mix the two kinds in one sequence."

quote:

originally posted by goofy
I don't think [the sentence "Their is a great restaurant on the corner."] is a grammatical mistake. It's an orthographical mistake, substituting one written word for another.

I'd disagree a bit. If the author knows the difference but accidentally typed the wrong one, it's an orthographical mistake. [Similarly if he typed a non-word and then, using his spell-checker, accidentally clicked on the wrong choice among the offered corrections.] On the other hand, if the author, not knowing which version was proper (or having a momentary lapse of his knowledge) deliberately selected "their", then he made a grammatical error.

Of course, you can't read the author's mind, so it's not possible to know, from this sample alone, which sort of error the author was making. Best evidence would be whether he makes this error repeatedly, or only in an isolated case.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
One member ... made some revisions, though they were mostly "grammatical ones." Since I had sent it out, of course the "grammatical mistakes" would be attributed to me.

You're quite right that stylistic changes are perceived differently from grammatical ones. We speak of "grammatical errors" but of "stylistic changes". One can be "wrong" (something to be ashamed of) in grammar but not in style; style is in concept a matter of preference, not of right-and-wrong.

So you're correct in thinking that his/her characterization of his/her changes as "grammatical" ones was a pejorative comment on the original authoress.

Now let's turn to your basic question:

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh: Were they really grammatical changes? Consider this change (we were listing parts of an application):

Original: Clear and comprehensive plan for ongoing evaluation.
Change: Plan for ongoing evaluation is clear and comprehensive.
[Note: These were not to be complete sentences, as they were lists of what was to be submitted.]

Is this a change based on grammar, or is this just a change for style? Or are they one and the same?

I think I can pinpoint a possible source of confusion in the question. In my view,

1. The difference between the two versions is stylistic, not grammatical. Either version may be used as an item in a list.
. . .(I don't agree with Richard's view that the two versions express slightly different meanings. To me, they say exactly the same thing. But if I did think the meanings different, I would still say that they are each grammatically correct, the difference being not one of grammar or style, but of content.)

2. However, in this particular list, only one version can be grammatically correct. (Without context, we cannot tell which one.)
. . .Items in a list must parallel each other. That is, if the other items in the list are noun phrases, then this item must be expressed as a noun phrase (version 1). Conversely, if the other items in the list are complete sentences, then this item must be expressed as a complete sentence (version 2) for this item. Failure to do so – failure of parallelism – is a grammatical error.

quote:

My own office house style guide says:


If the bullet points consist of full sentences, they should begin with a capital letter and end in a full stop. If the bullet points have a stem and are not full sentences, they should have no punctuation apart from a colon after the stem and a full stop after the final bullet. Each bullet point must start with the same kind of word or phrase (noun or verb), and follow logically from the stem.

It would seem that this is the accepted style in educational circles - hence the City and Guilds preference.

Kalleh, it looked like a style change to me. There was nothing ungrammatical about either version. Was the person attempting to make the construction parallel to that of previous bullet items, perhaps? Or just compulsively editing?

Also, to answer your practical question, one way to get rid of all the tracking notes is to go to the tracking toolbar and select "Accept All Changes." Then all the tracking notes will disappear, and you can do a final edit to suit yourself.

Or you can copy and paste the entire document into a new document with the tracking feature turned off. Again, all the tracking notes will disappear (but all the changes they suggested will be included, as in the last example.) Your only other option is to go through the entire document right clicking on each suggestion and choosing either "accept this change" or "reject this change" for each. Very tedious.

Next, make a large sign to post on the wall above your computer that says, "Stop Me Before I Send This Draft for Comments Again!"

And enjoy the silence!

Wordmatic

quote:

Was the person attempting to make the construction parallel to that of previous bullet items, perhaps? Or just compulsively editing?

Well, it was 7 people, via email, because they all live in different places around the country. It would have been the perfect time to use our Wiki; I just forgot about it. The emails were furiously flying!

I hate, hate, hate to admit I am wrong. But I might be. It may have been grammatical because in our original (recall, it wasn't my writing; it was a collaborative piece to start with) the verbiage wasn't always parallel.

As for track changes, I find it hard to ever turn it off. I will accept the changes, it looks clean, but then when I send it to someone, all the tracks are back! I am not the only person who has problems with that. Who ever invented this version of track changes for Word is a numskull!

quote:

Originally posted by shufitz:

quote:

originally posted by goofy
I don't think [the sentence "Their is a great restaurant on the corner."] is a grammatical mistake. It's an orthographical mistake, substituting one written word for another.

I'd disagree a bit. If the author knows the difference but accidentally typed the wrong one, it's an orthographical mistake. [Similarly if he typed a non-word and then, using his spell-checker, accidentally clicked on the wrong choice among the offered corrections.] On the other hand, if the author, not knowing which version was proper (or having a momentary lapse of his knowledge) deliberately selected "their", then he made a grammatical error.

Of course, you can't read the author's mind, so it's not possible to know, from this sample alone, which sort of error the author was making. Best evidence would be whether he makes this error repeatedly, or only in an isolated case.

their is the possessive form of they.
there is a dummy pronoun used to introduce a topic.
Wouldn't you agree that no one who says "[ðɛr] is a great restaurant on the corner" means "possessive form of they"? Everyone knows the difference between "possessive form of they" and "dummy pronoun there", even if they can't articulate it. If they didn't know the difference, then they should mix up other possessive pronouns with dummy pronouns, and say things like *"my is a great restaurant on the corner" or *"that's there book, give it back to me."

If they're really confusing the morphemes just because they sound the same, then they should confuse they're as well, and since they're is simply a shortened form of "they are", they should say things like the ungrammatical *"they are is a good restaurant on the corner".

So I don't think we confuse these 3 homophones in speech. So in writing "Their is a great restaurant on the corner" I'm using one orthographical form where another should be used because I haven't been taught the difference. I'm confusing the written forms, but I'm not actually confusing the morphemes. So it's not a grammatical mistake.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Who ever invented this version of track changes for Word is a numskull!

If you are using the current version, the one for Vista, whoever thought up the whole thing is crazy. The old version had things where you could find them and the commonest functions were the easiest ones to find.

Now the whole thing is just hideous. It took me an hour of experimentation to find out how to create a document with some parts of it protected, something that took five minutes on the old version - and now that I know it turns out to be much , much harder than it was before.

I hate it.

quote:

Grammar is the business of taking a language to pieces, to see how it works.

[David Crystal. Rediscover Grammar.]

(See also Michael Swan's answer: (PDF).

From z's link:

quote:

'What is grammar?' is the kind of question that seems easy to answer until someone asks it.

Thank you! I see that. I hadn't realized how hard it is to define or to identify. I really agree with his comment, too, that "grammar" often has a negative connotation. That's too bad.