Embracing My Inner Grammar Nazi

Okay, so awhile ago I made a grammar-related post in which I denied being a grammar nazi. Well, apparently I was in denial. As much as it pains me to admit it, any time a person sees a grammar error in print and is immediately thrown out of the text for five minutes as her brain begins spontaneously composing instructional grammar LJ posts, she's probably a grammar nazi. So, I've decided to stop fighting and roll with it.

Grammar errors seem to come and go like fashion. There'll be an error that I never see, then all of a sudden it's everywhere. It's almost like one person committed a particular grammar error, and everyone else saw it and said to themselves, 'well, it's in print, so it must be right.' Yeah. Not necessarily.

The latest grammar error that I'm suddenly seeing everywhere involves attaching dependent clauses to a part of the sentence other than the subject of the clause.

EXAMPLE: John rested his chin on Rodney's shoulder, who continued to type obliviously.

Attaching the dependent clause to 'shoulder' makes 'shoulder' the subject of the clause. However, Rodney's shoulder is not a who, it's a what, and it can't type. There are a couple of ways to rearrange this sentence to make it work.

1) John rested his chin on the shoulder of Rodney, who continued to type obliviously.

This is correct, but it's also stilted and awkward.

2) John propped his chin on Rodney, who continued to type obliviously.

This is correct, but it doesn't tell the reader where exactly John is propping his chin, which may or may not be important for setting the scene.

3) John rested his chin on Rodney's shoulder. Rodney continued to type obliviously.

Sometimes, you just have to give up and go with two sentences. There's nothing wrong with that.


There. I feel so much better now.