Ye Olde Grammarian (No. 6): A Hodgepodge, Plus Some E-Book Formatting Tips

Otherwise known as a potpourri, pastiche, melange, mishmash, or gallimaufry!

http://www.copyediting.com/gallimaufry-word-game
(you can find a word game on this website!)

       I recently read somewhere about certain conventions of print books that I realized I had been flagrantly violating.  (I checked a bunch of books that I own and by golly, both these things are true.)

       First, don't use "by" on the cover and title page.  Unfortunately, I have done that consistently, until the last two books in the Ki'shto'ba series, where I dropped the "by" on the cover.  I did, however, retain it on the title page, again for the sake of consistency. 

       The other convention is that the first paragraph of a chapter or chapter section is not indented.  Sometimes they even use a few letters in all caps.  After I learned this, I tried not indenting, but it just didn't look right to me, so again for the sake of consistency I persisted in indenting the first paragraph.

       So I make my mea culpas.  In my next publication, I may amend my ways.  In the meantime, if it really bothers you that I use "by" on the cover and t.p. or that I indent the opening paragraphs, I guess you just can't read my books, or you can read the e-books, where clarity is the only rule that really applies.

 

       I am very much aware that a writer should italicize the names of ships.  I didn't do that in v. 5 and 6 of The Labors of Ki'shto'ba Huge-Head.  Somehow I thought it seemed artificial.  I think the Shshi consider their ships as something more than inanimate objects, so, since one does not italicize the names of individuals, it seemed wrong not to treat ships the same way.  You'll notice that I did italicize the name of the human ship in v. 6.  And that's saying more than I should.
       So I don't want to hear any complaints that I don't know that rule!

 

       Now I want to talk about backward apostrophes.  In Word, most people use curly apostrophes  and when you type a single apostrophe, it comes out like this: He said, ‘I see you.’  An initial single apostrophe always opens to the right, which is correct for a quotation mark.  But when the apostrophe signifies an omission, it shouldn't open to the right -- it should open to the left.  Wrong: Eat ‘em up!  It should be Eat ’em up!  So how did I make it go the right way?  I type this: Eat ‘’em up! and then go back and delete the first apostrophe.  I get irked every time I read a book formatted by somebody who doesn't know you can do this.

 

       So what's with the word or words "alright" and "all right"?   Here is the Usage Note under "alright" in Dictionary.com:
"The form alright as a one-word spelling of the phrase all right in all of its senses probably arose by analogy with such words as already and altogether. Although alright is a common spelling in written dialogue and in other types of informal writing, all right is used in more formal, edited writing."
       It may be becoming common to spell it "alright," but it still irks me when I encounter it in an otherwise well-edited book.

       I have always had problems knowing whether to use "a while" or "awhile."   Read what Grammar Girl has to say about it -- it's basically what I finally came up with on my own.  "Awhile" is an adverb.  "I stayed awhile."  "He stared at the girl awhile and then approached her." 
       "A while" is simply an article plus a noun, and that construction is required when an object is involved, for example, in prepositional phrases: "I stayed for a while." "He left after a while."  Grammar Girl gives this example, which may confuse some people.  "It's been a while since he visited."  The reason you use the noun form here is that "to be" in a copular, or linking, verb and takes a predicate nominative or a predicate adjective rather than an adverb.  (You wouldn't say, "He's been quietly for a while,' would you?  You would say, "He's been quiet for a while."  "Quiet" is an adjective modifying "he.")  Esoteric, you say?  You should have heard my mother expounding on linking verbs!  Some other linking verbs are "to become," "to feel ," to smell," etc.  If you're interested in pursuing this further, go here.
       



       I'm going to reiterate what I said in an earlier post about using commas in terms of address.  It's the old "Let's eat, Grampa" vs. "Let's eat Grampa" dichotomy.  In my earlier post I said this: "The use of the vocative (i.e., an instance where you are addressing someone) is related to this.  ...  Here is another [example] as to why you should set off the name of the person addressed with a comma:

       What don't you want to tell John?

       What don't you want to tell, John?

       I recently read a book where the language got really confused because of the omission of commas.  I was always having to stop and go back and figure out what the author meant.  I think it's a British tendency to omit commas in this sort of construction, but I do wish people would return to the old rule.

To read my other Olde Grammarian posts, go to

http://termitewriter.blogspot.com/search/label/Grammar

 

Summary of how to do ToC links on Smashwords

       Now I'm going to add a bit on e-book formatting using Word -- how to easily create a linked Table of Contents.  Smashwords insists that you do this, but Kindle doesn't care.  I get irritated when an e-book doesn't have a ToC linked to the chapters and also chapters linked back to the ToC, because it's so easy to lose your place in an e-book and this way you can always skip through by chapter.  I recommend that everybody do this on all their e-books.  It takes a little time, but it's not difficult and your readers (or at least I) will thank you.

       Make your Table of Contents (remove all links based on style, e.g., Heading 1 or ToC1, etc.)

       Select each chapter heading in the text and create Insert Bookmark (on Insert menu).  Remember, no spaces in bookmark names; abbreviate as much as you like as long as it’s clear (e.g., Ch1 for Chapter One or Note for Note to the Smashwords Edition).

       Go to ToC list and select each Chapter designation.  Then add a Hyperlink, using the Insert menu or the right-click menu.  Click on “Place in this document.”  Select the corresponding bookmark and then click on OK.

       Then make a bookmark for the heading “Table of Contents.”  Smashwords suggests using “ref_ToC” 

       Go one more time through the document text, selecting each chapter heading and making a hyperlink using “ref_ToC.”  This will link each chapter back to the top of the Table of Contents.

       Double check to make sure the ToC entries link to the correct chapters.

 



Ye Olde Grammarian (No.5): More Pesky Punctuation

      


http://pentopapercommunications.com/2011/10/31/comma-conundrumsthe-dos-and-donts-of-commas/

       I've been doing some copyediting lately, and that means I have punctuation on the brain.  So allow me to disemburden (is that a word?) myself.

 

       First let me list links to my earlier Olde Grammarian posts, in case any of you are eager to suffer more agony:

Ye Olde Grammarian [No.1]: I discuss the value of diagramming sentences and also dangling participial and prepositional phrases.

Ye Olde Grammarian (No.2):  I discuss that common bugaboo, the incorrect use of pronoun cases. Grrr! One of my pet peeves!

Ye Olde Grammarian (No. 3): Pesky Punctuation Problems: I discussed the placement of periods, commas, etc., in relation to quotation marks and parentheses.

Ye Olde Grammarian is Ba-a-ck (No.4): a humorous post where I ended up on the subject of the Oxford comma.

 

       Allow me to first review the rules for punctuating dialogue since these may be unfamiliar especially to those whose first language is not English (other language have totally different conventions in the matter of punctuation).

       Any statement or question or exclamation uttered by a character must be enclosed in quotation marks.  "I saw the murderer come through the door."  "Did the murderer come through the door?" "Wow, the murderer made a quick getaway!"  The end mark on the sentence always goes inside the quotation mark.

       But what if you want to say who said those things?

       "I saw the murderer come through the door," John said. (Note that a comma ends the bit of dialogue because the whole shebang is one sentence.  It doesn't make sense to write "I saw the murderer come through the door."  John said.  John said is not a separate or complete sentence.)

       Ditto for

       John said, "I saw the murderer come through the door."  Do not write: John said.  "I saw him come through the door."

       In the case of questions marks or exclamation points, they stand in place of the comma, inside the quotation mark:

       "Did the murderer come through the door?" John said.

       John said, "Did he come through the door?"

       So what if you want to split up the quotation?

       "I saw the murderer run through the door," said John.  "I don't know where he went after that."  (Note the normal comma before said John.  A period follows because it ends a complete sentence.  Then a new sentence begins, so it's simply enclosed in quotation marks.)

       "I saw the murderer run through the door," said John, "and jump into his car."  Here you decided to divide the sentence, inserting said John in the middle.  It becomes a kind of appositive (more on that in a minute), so it gets set off with commas.  Since the sentence isn't complete, the second part begins with a lower-case letter.  Never write: "I saw the murderer run through the door," said John.  "and jump into his car."  Also never write: "I saw him run through the door," said John.  "And jump into his car."  Ditto, never write: "I saw him run through the door," said John.  "and jump into his car." 

       What if you are using he said instead of John said?  Correct examples:

       "John came through the door," he said. (Note the lower case h, because it's not a proper name.)

       "John came through the door," he said, "and jumped into his car."

       "John came through the door," he said.  "Then he jumped into his car."

 

       Okay, now the appositive, that vague term.  Appositives - useful constructs - need some definition.  (Can you identify two appositives in the two preceding sentences?)  Here is how Grammar Monster defines the term:  

       "An appositive is a noun, a noun phrase, or a noun clause which sits next to another noun to rename it or to describe it in another way. (The word appositive comes from the Latin for to put near.)  Appositives are usually offset with commas, brackets, or dashes."

       I honestly don't know if he said in quoted speech should be called an appositive, but it certainly has the characteristics of one. 

       A common use of the appositive is the placement of a name to define the previous word or phrase.  These are often mispunctuated.

       My dog, Ollie, will chew your shoes if he gets a chance.

       My best friend, Mary, can't come to the party.

       Personally, I have no objection to seeing the commas omitted in those cases.  It seems a little confusing.  Now if you're addressing somebody, then yes, put commas.  You might think you were addressing Mary here until you read the rest of the sentence.

       I would prefer to say: Mary, my best friend, can't come to the party.  (My best friend is the appositive here and clearly needs to be set off with commas.)

      

      Another error of comma use related to this is in punctuating salutations and greetings.  I continue to be old school and do it the way I was taught, even though it seems to have been universally abandoned these days.  I will continue to address you in emails as

       Hi, John, (not as Hi John)

       However, I will not do this if your name is Mary.  Then I will write

       Hi, Mary,

      The use of the vocative (i.e., an instance where you are addressing someone) is related to this.  A terrific example of this appears in the picture at the top of this post.  And here is another (adapted from this website) as to why you should set off the name of the person addressed with a comma:

       What don't you want to tell John?
       What don't you want to tell, John?

 

       And I believe that's quite enough for now, although I haven't run out of topics! 

       And I want to apologize to John, whoever and wherever you are.  You are a sterling fellow and certainly not a murderer, and I have absolutely no wish to defame your character!

 

Ye Olde Grammarian Is Ba-a-ck! (No. 4)

       It's about time I wrote a lighter-style post, isn't it?  And yes, Ye Olde Grammarian is still in the land of the living!  I can't believe that old curmudgeon hasn't put up anything in this series since January!  This one was inspired by a piece I found through somebody's Facebook link: "Apostrophe Now: Bad Grammar and the People Who Hate It," by Tom de  Castella (BBC News Magazine).  I'll use that piece as a take-off point for some remarks.

 

       The article itself deals with the resurgence of emphasis on grammar in the British school systems, but it also hits on specific grammatical gaffes.  To quote: "Grammar is not just an educational issue. For some adults, it can sabotage friendships and even romantic relationships."  The article cites statistics showing that bad grammar and bad spelling can be a huge turn-off in romantic first-contacts (ah, when two aliens meet, what miscommunication we may have ... )  So make sure you don't split your infinitives when you court that girl or guy of your dreams, or she or he might just split with you!  Same thing holds when you meet that alien blob that lives on Alpha Centauri!

 

       However, the article goes on to say that knowing what constitutes good grammar is not that easy.  Some ways of speaking are simply colloquial and informal.  Thus, I personally have no objection to split infinitives, which was an artificial rule based on Latin, where, since infinitives are  only one word, they can't be split.  Ergo, you shouldn't split them in English, either.  You'll see split infinitives in my writing, depending on the context.  If it's in dialogue and the person is an academic making a speech, I probably wouldn't split it.  But if this academic is engaged in an informal conversation about her upcoming vacation, then I prefer to colloquially split it (colloquially to split it?  to split it colloquially?  To split colloquially it?  Don't be ridiculous!)

 

       The article mentions starting a sentence with "and."  I would add "but" to that.  Technically, you shouldn't start a sentence with a coordinate conjunction, because its purpose is to connect two coordinate clauses, not to serve as an adverb.  BUT I will do both of these things at times (see?)  In this case, I should have said "However, I will do both of these things at times."  In this context, I like "however" just fine.  BUT (? -- sorry, however) people don't talk that way -- they start sentences with "but" and they tie ideas together with "and" dangling at the beginning of the sentence, and to get rid of all of these is to make your style sound artificial and even choppy.  Too many "howevers" become a pedantic bore, especially in dialogue.

 

       AND (ha, ha!) so I pass on to another subject, which is going to dominate the rest of this post.  (Somewhere there is a stylistic rule against verbosity, but Ye Olde Grammarian never mastered that one, she fears!) 

 

       The author of the article brings up the Oxford comma.  I always use the Oxford comma, although I didn't know it was called that at the time I was taught it.  It is sometimes called the serial comma, and it consists of retaining the comma between the penultimate and the ultimate elements of a sequence: What I would write is "He ate bread, eggs, meat, and jam." It seems this usage is favored by Oxford University Press, and what's good enough for that venerable publisher is good enough for Ye Olde Grammarian!  BUT (ha!) seriously, sometimes this comma is essential to prevent hilarious ambiguity.  If you wrote "He ate bread, eggs, meat and jam" it sounds like (or preferably "as if") he is eating the jam with his meat.  Now, if the sentence were (instance of use of subjunctive) "He ate meat, eggs, bread and jam" then you could correctly consider "bread and jam" to be one item. 

       If you're really interested in the Oxford comma, the Wikipedia article is quite thorough.  It concludes with this remark, quoted from The Cambridge Guide to English Usage: "In British practice there's an Oxford/Cambridge divide … In Canada and Australia the serial comma is recommended only to prevent ambiguity or misreading."  Apparently, American English doesn't exist for the University of Cambridge, unless we were included in the ellipsis!

 

       Now I will close with a quotation I found on a website called Mental Floss (with deepest apologies to Nelson Mandela, a figure for whom I have much admiration and respect): 

"By train, plane and sedan chair, Peter Ustinov retraces a journey made by Mark Twain a century ago. The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector."  The website goes on to say "Languagehat dug this gem out of a comment thread on the serial comma. It's from a TV listing in The Times. It supports the use of the Oxford comma, but only because it keeps Mandela from being a dildo collector. However, even the Oxford comma can't keep him from being an 800-year-old demigod. There's only so much a comma can do."

     By the way, did you know there is a song entitled "Oxford Comma" by an American rock group called Vampire Weekend?  Wow, what exciting trivia you can learn from the internet!

 

Ye Olde Grammarian, No. 3: Pesky Punctuation Problems

       In her peregrinations around the blogosphere and the self-publishing community, Ye Olde Grammarian has noted some anomalies in the use of certain punctuation marks that she felt ought to be addressed.  They involve the use of commas, periods, colons, semicolons, and question marks when combined with quotation marks and parentheses.  There are lots of websites out there where these rules are addressed, but still people seem to be confused.

Where does one put the closing punctuation when quotation marks are used?  Is it inside or outside the quotation mark?

 

Periods and commas always go inside the quotation mark, whether it's single or double. 

 

Correct:  He said, "I won't be home until evening."

Incorrect:  He said, "I won't be home until evening".

 

Correct: He said, "I heard her say, 'There's no one here.'"

Incorrect:  He said, "I heard her say, 'There's no one here'."

Incorrect:  He said, "I heard her say, 'There's no one here'".

Question marks can be tricky (the same rules apply to exclamation points).

 

Correct: He said, "When can I come home?"

Incorrect: He said, "When can I come home"?

 

Correct: Did I hear him say "I'm not coming home"?

Incorrect: Did I hear him say, "I'm not coming home?"

Incorrect: Did I hear him say, "I'm not coming home."?

[In this case, the whole sentence is a question and the quoted part is a simple declarative sentence, so the mark goes outside the quotation mark.  The third example demonstrates that you don't duplicate punctuation.]

 

BUT ...

 

Correct: I heard him say, "Aren't you coming home?"

Incorrect: I heard him say, "Aren't you coming home"?

Incorrect: I heard him say, "Aren't you coming home?".

[Here the whole sentence is a declarative statement, but the quoted part is a question unto itself, so the mark goes with the quotation.  And again, you don't duplicate punctuation.]

 

Colons and semicolons go outside the quotation marks. 

 

Last year about this time I was engaged in copyediting a novel for someone and in the process I double-checked things I wasn't sure about. That's when I discovered this rule.  I confess I had always thought semicolons went inside the quotation mark and had always used them that way in my writing.  I had never thought about colons, since that situation would occur rather infrequently.  Anyway, I know better now and here are my examples:

Correct: I suggested he use the common name "Mary"; he refused with a scornful twist of the lip, remarking, "You have no imagination!"

[Note that the exclamation point goes inside the quotation mark because it pertains only to the quoted sentence.]

If the sentence had read like this, with a comma instead of a semicolon, the comma would go inside the quotation mark.

Correct: I suggested he use the common name "Mary," but he refused.

Correct: pai| is the Shshi root for "war." "Warrior": pai'zei|; the noun "fight": pai'zi|; "battle": pai'pai'zi| (literally, "fight among many")

[This second example is similar to material in the footnotes from my "Labors" series.  You can imagine how much difficulty I had copyediting them!  Getting all those colons and semicolons and quotation marks placed and spaced right was devilish, to say nothing of keeping the italics consistent!  And note that I omitted a closing period because the succession of words is not a complete sentence.]

The same basic rule applies to parentheses that applies to quotation marks.

 

Correct: After we went to bed (and there was really nothing else to do), a storm came up.

Incorrect: After we went to bed (and there was really nothing else to do,) a storm came up.

Incorrect: After we went to bed, (and there was really nothing else to do), a storm came up.

[Since the parenthetical material belongs with the opening subordinate clause, you don't set it off with an initial comma.]

 

Correct: After we went to bed, a storm came up (hadn't I said it would?)

Incorrect: After we went to bed, a storm came up (hadn't I said it would)?

Correct: After we went to bed, a storm came up (and it was a real thunder-boomer!)

Incorrect:  After we went to bed, a storm came up (and it was a real thunder-boomer)!

[In these two examples, the question mark or the exclamation point pertains only to the clause in parentheses.]

Never duplicate punctuation.

 

Incorrect: After we went to bed, a storm came up (hadn't I said it would?).

[If a mark of punctuation is used inside the closing parenthesis, you don't add a period at the end.]

Correct: I wrote a long term paper (actually, it was a bit too long).

Incorrect: I wrote a long term paper (actually, it was a bit too long.)

[Here, the parenthetical material is treated as part of the basic sentence, so the period comes outside the closing parenthesis.]

 

Correct: I wrote a long term paper. (Actually, it was a bit too long.)

Incorrect: I wrote a long term paper.  (Actually, it was a bit too long).

[If the parenthetical material stands alone, place the punctuation within the closing parenthesis, just as you would with quotation marks.]

 

Are you thoroughly confused?  I know I've managed to confuse myself!  But I think I know these rules and apply them automatically.  If you want to see an expert's simpler exposition, go to http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp 

Ye Olde Grammarian (No. 2)

 

 WOE IS ME! GIVEAWAY IS OVER!

THANKS TO ALL WHO TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT!

 

ANNIVERSARY PRICE CONTINUES, THOUGH!

"MONSTER IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER"

WILL REMAIN ONLY 99 CENTS THROUGH FRIDAY.

ALMOST AS GOOD AS FREE!

 

 

I'm honored to have been asked to do a guest post today on Felicia Wetzig's blog The Peasants Revolt.  I mounted a slightly lengthened version of my post on the elements of the epic form from my other blog The Labors of Ki'shto'ba Huge-Head.  Go check it out!

 

 

NOW, BACK TO YE OLDE GRAMMARIAN!

 

       When I wrote my first Olde Grammarian post in August, I intended  to make it a series, so here comes the second installment -- better late than never!  And it's nice to write something neutral after all those intense Mythmaker posts (although I'm not finished with that subject either).

 

       Today I'm going to talk about a set of extremely common errors that really bugged my grammar-loving mother.  Because I learned my grammar from her, they bug me, too!  These are errors that you hear constantly in conversations, on TV, etc., and also read in print.  If you're sensitive to them, they drive you crazy!

       The topic is the proper use of pronoun cases.  I honestly think English must be changing, because these days nobody seems able to distinguish the difference between nominative and objective cases of pronouns.  I wonder if they even touch on this subject in school anymore.

       The nominative cases of pronouns are (singular):  I, you, he, she, it; (plural): we, you, they.  The objective cases are (singular): me, you, him, her, it; (and plural): us, you, them.

      Obviously, the problem lies with first and third person (2nd person "you" is the same everywhere -- isn't that convenient?  "It" also doesn't change.)  "Nominative" means that the word is used as the subject of a verb.  "Objective" means that the word is used as the object of something -- a verb or a preposition or as an indirect object.

       So you say, "I gave him the books."  Nobody ever makes a mistake with this and says, "Me gave he the books."  Also, you would say, "He gave the books to them."  Nobody would ever say, "Him gave the books to they."  So far so good.

       Where the problem mysteriously arises is in the use of compound subjects and objects.  Tell me which is right:  "I gave the books to her and him."  "I gave the books to she and he." "I gave the books to she and him." [Answer: the first one is correct.]

       Another example -- which is right?  "She and I went to the dance with he and she."  "Me and she went to the dance with she and him."  "She and I went to the dance with him and her."  "She and I went to the dance with he and her." [Answer: the third one is correct.]

      How do you like "Them and us went to the dance together"?  Or "Me and him went to the dance together"? 

       Nobody would ever say, "He gave the books to I" or "Him went to the dance."  Native English speakers just wouldn't do that.  It wouldn't sound right.  So why does a compound make a speaker think the opposite case should be used?  Why does it sound better to say "He gave the books to her and I"?  It's a big mystery!

       (Parenthetically, my mother's theory was that people who have only a vague idea of the rules are trying to sound more learned than they are, and somehow "I" and"he" strike them as more elegant than"me" and "him.")

       My mother used to have a fit every time she would hear on TV something like "Me and the coach really get along."  It should be "The coach and I really get along." (That's another problem -- technically, the pronoun "I" should be placed last in a compound, but that's more a matter of courtesy than of grammatical rule.)  And who would say: "Me really get along with the coach."  Nobody is that illiterate!  So why turn it into objective case when a compound is involved?

       As I said, this usage is becoming so ubiquitous that I suspect English may be losing the distinction between objective and nominative.  English has lost most of its case structure over the centuries, so why not this?  English remains an inflexional language, i.e. it uses particles -- prefixes and suffixes -- that are attached to basic words to express differences in meanings, and it also varies the roots of words for the same purpose.  But English has been tending toward heavier use of word order to express types of meaning.  Thus, in all of the sentences above, the meaning is perfectly clear no matter how you mangle the case use, because the word order -- the placement of words in relation to one another -- is what determines the meaning.  For example, pronouns that follow a preposition are automatically perceived as being the object of that preposition.

       However, the rules of case have not been abandoned yet and if you want to be seen as an educated speaker and writer of English, you'll be careful to use these pronouns according to those established rules.  In speaking, discipline yourself to be aware of what you're saying.  In writing, stop and think: Are the pronouns  in this compound phrase being used as subject or as object?  Taking a little care and thought makes all the difference!

       My mother would have thanked you and her and him and me for it!   She would not have thanked you and she and he and I! 

      

Ye Olde Grammarian

       I'm sure you know that "Ye" in the above title isn't pronounced "ye" as in the archaic familiar plural for "you."  It's simply a very old way to write "the."  The "y" is a corruption of the ancient thorn letter, þ, which represented the sound that is spelled "th" in all modern languages except Icelandic, which still uses the thorn.  If you're interested in how its use evolved in early modern English, go to Wikipedia, article entitled Thorn (letter).  I was going to copy a table from that article here, but the attempt blew my computer's mind!

       Now, down to the intended business.  When I was in grade and high school (way back in the Dark Ages, although we had discontinued using the thorn letter by that time!), I was pretty much taught prescriptive grammar.  I know that's a no-no among trained linguists -- one is supposed to study how the living language functions and evolves rather than being told, do it this way or else.  But that approach is a bit sophisticated for youngsters struggling to learn the meaning of arcane terms like subject, predicate, number, and case.  There are rules involved and if you study them as a basis of knowledge, you can always adjust your approach after you learn the ropes.

       I've mentioned that my mother was a Romance language major in college and taught in high school, mostly Spanish and English .  She absolutely loved grammar.  She liked the literature part of teaching English, also (particularly Shakespeare, Chaucer, and Beowulf), but her real love was grammar.  I happened to have my sophomore and senior English classes with my mother and I credit her with giving me the kind of foundation one needs to be a writer.

       We diagrammed sentences.  I'll bet a lot of today's young people don't even know what that means.  It's supposed to be old-fashioned, fuddy-duddy stuff -- busy work.  I can't remember exactly how to do it -- it's been (gad!) somthing like 55 years since I graduated from high school! -- but as I recall ...  No!  I don't need to recall!  Wikipedia comes to the rescue again!  We did the Reed-Kellog System of diagramming -- see the article "Sentence Diagramming."  The various components of the sentence are separated out and hooked onto the parts they belong with -- a bit like shaking pottery shards through a sieve and then piecing them together.  Lots of people in my classes, I recall, found this tedious and useless and even difficult to the point of being incomprehensible.  I never found it that way.  I enjoyed it, even though I got a little bored with it at times because it was so easy!  Easy for my mother and me, at least!

       When you've practiced diagramming for a while, you come away with a picture of how a sentence works -- how it's structured, how elements modify one another.  You get a feel for how a sentence should flow, how to avoid awkward constructions and ambiguities -- how to put the elements together so the sentence makes the best sense.  Isn't that kind of knowledge a great foundation for becoming a writer?

       One thing diagramming teaches is how clauses and phrases can function as adjectives and adverbs.  And that leads me to a discussion of what actually started me down this path today -- an error you see occasionally in many writers.  It's called the dangling modifier.  What got me started on this topic was a sentence in a book I'm  currently reading; I won't quote it exactly, but I'll paraphrase it.  The setting is the 12th century. "Never having learned the art of writing, a scribe penned some words for me to send to my father." Strange that the scribe had never learned the art of writing! The author might better have written: "Never having learned the art of writing, I asked a scribe to pen some words for me to send ... etc." Or, "Since I had never learned the art of writing, I asked a scribe, etc."

       The basic rule for this situation is this: a participial phrase at the beginning of a sentence always modifies the subject.  If you were diagramming this sentence, you would be forced to think, what does this clause or phrase really modify?  And you would quickly realize that it modifies the scribe, a condition that just doesn't make sense. 

       Sometimes these kinds of errors can be really funny.  Here are some examples, some of which are adapted from Wikipedia (article: Dangling modifiers -- sources of the quotations are cited there).

The dangling prepositional phrase:

"After years of being lost under a pile of dust, Walter P. Stanley found all the old records of the Bangor Lions Club."  (Wow, I'll bet that man sneezed a lot!)  If you diagrammed that sentence, you would realize that "after years" should modify the verb "found" because it tells when he found the items -- it's an adverbial usage, and a pretty awkward one at that.  When it's dangled at the beginning of the sentence, it appears to modify Mr. Stanley.

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got into my pajamas I'll never know." – Groucho Marx.  (Needs no comment!)

"As a mother of five, and with another on the way, my ironing board is always up." (A new phenomenon!  A pregnant ironing board!)

And then there is the always illustrative old chestnut: "For sale, chest of drawers, by lady with Hepplewhite legs."  

The dangling participial phrase:

"Walking down Main Street, the trees were beautiful."
"Reaching the station, the sun came out."  (In both of these, the item to be modified isn't even present in the sentence.)

"I saw the trailor peeking through the window." (A voyeristic trailor! How paranormal can you get?)  In this case, all you need to do is move the participial phrase to the beginning of the sentence. 

And one more, which illustrates another point I wanted to make:

"Roaring down the track at seventy miles an hour, the stalled car was smashed by the train."

Obviously, it wasn't the car that was roaring down the track.  This demonstrates how easy it is to make this error when the passive voice is involved.  All you have to do is change the main clause of the sentence to active voice: "the train smashed the stalled car."

       Why don't you try rewriting some of these examples so they make sense and flow smoothly?  Visit the Wikipedia article cited if you should be interested in reading more examples.  And sensitize yourself to the connections between modifiers and the thing modified.