Helplessly hoping or hopefully helping?

It seems perfectly natural to me

Hang me if you will, but I’m here to defend the benighted and besmirched adverb hopefully.

When I attended college in the late 1960s and early ’70s, I was taught in no uncertain terms that hopefully only could be used as a shortened substitute for “in a hopeful manner.”

The panhandler hopefully approached the well-dressed businessman for a handout.

 The captain of the oil freighter hopefully steered his vessel out of the path of the approaching typhoon.

 Never – never, never, ever! – could hopefully be used to mean “I hope” or “it is to be hoped.” To use the adverb in such a manner was to commit a grammar felony worthy of utter contempt and eternal damnation.

Hopefully, we shall emerge unscathed from the threat of the coronavirus.

The presidential election approaches, and hopefully, I’ll soon never have to watch another campaign commercial ever again.

Use of the word hopefully in the sentences above seems perfectly natural to me, and the meaning I’m trying to convey comes through with unmistakable clarity. So why the sturm und drang from the high priests of grammar orthodoxy?

Nonsensical argument

Many purists refer to hopefully in such sentences as a “sentence modifier” since it doesn’t modify a specific person, thing or action. Ascribing such an emotion – hopefulness – to a nonperson, so goes this reasoning, is nonsensical. Only a human being or some reasonably advanced animal can be hopeful.

That’s a fair point, I suppose. But I never have been able to muster much enthusiasm for the struggle over the soul of hopefully, despite the best efforts of my college freshman composition teacher, whose name I no longer recall, and numerous newspaper editors over the years.

They were adamant and steadfast in their antipathy to sentence-modifying hopefully. Compromise was unthinkable. Any relaxation of their rigid interpretation of grammar purity was blasphemy.

Faced with their implacable hostility to hopefully, I did what any peace-loving child of the Sixties would have done. Instead of fight, I switched. Let others fight the good fight. I would erase hopefully from my writing and save myself the grief. To use the catch phrase of a later generation – whatever, man.

Most grammarians date the first use of hopefully as a sentence modifier to the 1930s. But Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage says the frequency of use spiked sharply in the early 1960s, as did the squawks of alarm from grammar purists.

“It is barbaric, illiterate, offensive, damnable, and inexcusable,” rumbled Hal Borland, author of When the Legends Die, as quoted in the Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage.

Eternal war

“Chalk squeaking on a blackboard is to be preferred to this usage,” opined the late, great Charles Kuralt of CBS News, also in Harper.

“I have sworn eternal war on this bastard adverb,” writer A.B. Guthrie Jr., who wrote the screenplay to the film classic “Shane,” told Harper.

In his 1991 The Handbook of Good English, Edward D. Johnson called the deployment of hopefully as a sentence modifier “perhaps the most controversial usage in the language.”

“And many of those who condemn it – not all of whom are over 50 – are apt to consider it not only questionable or sloppy but despicable,” he wrote. “I strongly advise avoiding their scorn.”

He said he disliked the usage “partly because I encounter it almost invariably in bad writing.” But Johnson, an honest, pragmatic soul, acknowledged that hopefully as a sentence modifier might weather the storm, “like many another usage that was considered a barbarism when it first appeared.”

Almost three decades have passed since Johnson wrote those words. And the hub-bub that surrounded the use of the word as a sentence modifier has largely subsided. Has hopefully ultimately prevailed against the purists? Yes … and no.

In Garner’s American Usage, published in 2004, Bryan A. Garner says that anyone using hopefully as a shortcut to I hope or it is to be hoped “is likely to have a credibility problem with many readers.”

“Avoid it in all senses if you’re concerned with your credibility: if you use it in the traditional way, many readers will think it odd; if you use it in the newish way, a few readers will tacitly tut-tut you,” he said.

The nos have it

In the first edition of the Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage, published in 1975, William and Mary Morris asked a large panel of usage consultants – from a wide range of disciplines – whether in writing hopefully could properly be used in the sense of “we hope.” The response: 76% no; 24% yes.

Ten years later, for the second edition, the Morrises again polled the group on the acceptability of hopefully as a stand-in for “I hope” or “we hope.”  83% no; 17% yes.

And yet, 35 years later, the use of hopefully as a sentence modifier meaning is ubiquitous. Even the Associated Press Stylebook deems such usage “acceptable.”

Why did it survive the savage frontage assault waged against it by grammar orthodoxy? Perhaps the answer lies in why writers began using hopefully as a sentence modifier in the first place.

Theodore Bernstein, The New York Times’ former editing guru, believes that necessity was the mother of its invention.

“More and more the word is being used – and no doubt overused – to mean it is to be hoped,” he said in Miss Thistlebottom’s Hobgloblins, a delightful style and usage guide published in 1971. “The reason is evident: No other word in English expresses that thought. In a single word we can say it is regrettable that (regrettably) or it is fortunate that (fortunately) or it is lucky that (luckily), and it would be comforting if there were such a word as hopably or …hopingly, but there isn’t.”

The pragmatic route

Historian Barbara Tuchman also makes the pragmatic case for the use of hopefully as a useful shortcut to I hope or It is to be hoped.

“In spite of all the disapproval of my learned colleagues,” she said in Harper, “I think ‘hopefully’ is here to stay and rightfully, for one very good reason: that it is needed and when a word is truly and really needed and there is no substitute (‘It is to be hoped’ is unusable) it should enter the language, no matter if technically ungrammatical.”

The always sensible and reasonable Benjamin Dreyer adds a little perspective to the conversation.

“If you can live with ‘There was a terrible car accident; thankfully, no one was hurt,’ you can certainly live with ‘Tomorrow’s weather forecast is favorable; hopefully, we’ll leave on time,’” he says in Dreyer’s English.

“I’m not sure how ‘hopefully,’ among all such disjunct usages, got singled out for abuse, but it’s unfair and ought not to be borne,” Dreyer adds.

Time to surrender

Ultimately, says Garner, the purists have won every grammatical skirmish, but now, paradoxically, they must surrender the field.

“The battle is now over,” he says in his Modern American Usage. “Hopefully is now a part of American English, and it has all but lost its traditional meaning.”

Alas, Garner is wrong, I’m afraid. I suspect grammar zealots will continue to lob shells at the just-trying-to-be-helpful hopefully for the foreseeable future. Someday, perhaps, they’ll see the light and direct their near-sighted gaze at more frightful grammar ghouls.

After all, hope springs eternal, don’t it?

Dash it all!

I come before you today in defense of the humble dash.

Glory in its ability to spice up a humdrum sentence.

I arrived at the scene of the battle – eager to do my part – only to find an empty, windswept field.

Exult in the elegance with which it guides you through a complex sentence.

In times like these, times that try men’s souls – days of political turmoil, periods of religious zealotry and stretches of social unrest –we must not lose hope that better days are before us.

 Celebrate its effectiveness in ending a strongly worded statement with panache and power.

Tell me again how the rich and power have enriched our lives and enhanced our public discourse with their financial contributions to political campaigns, tell me – if you can.

The lovable, winsome dash

Inexplicably over the years, I’ve encountered my share of dash-haters. A fair number were English teachers besotted by the comma or enthralled by the colon, with no space left in their shrunken hearts for the lovable, winsome dash.

More than a few were stone-hearted newspaper editors whose rigid view of proper punctuation assigned the unassuming, up-for-any-challenge dash to the outer darkness.

Grouchy old Theodore M. Bernstein, a former senior editor of the New York Times, dismisses the dash in The Careful Writer as “a much-used, often over-used piece of punctuation.”

Why such animosity against the useful, visually pleasing and most accommodating dash? I tell you truly – it beats me.

I embrace this appreciation of the dash by Edward D. Johnson in The Handbook of Good English:

“The dash is almost excessively versatile. It can interrupt the grammar of a sentence in the same way a colon can, and in a few other ways as well. A pair of dashes can enclose a parenthetical construction, as a pair of commas or parentheses can. The dash can separate independent clauses, as a semicolon can. And it can do some things no other mark of punctuation can.

“Any castaway on a desert island who is allowed only one mark of punctuation could do worse than choose the dash, which might even be useful for spearing fish.”

Liberal usage

In my writing career, I’ve put the dash to good use, sprinkling it liberally through my copy and employing its organizational powers to guide my readers through the information I wish to impart and utilizing it to put special emphasis on a key parenthetical phrase.

I have blithely ignored the ill-considered instructions I received from one editor, who suggested (or, more accurately, ordered) that I should limit myself to a single set of dashes per story.

“Only lazy writers use a lot of dashes,” he said. “Use one set of dashes if you must, but depend on commas for the rest.”

Bryan A. Garner in his excellent Garner’s Modern American Usage, dismisses such rigidity in thought.

“Sometimes, perhaps as a result of an ill-founded prejudice against dashes,” he says, “writers try to make commas function in their place. Often this doesn’t work.”

Instead, “whatever the type of writing, dashes can often clarify a sentence that is clogged up with commas – or even one that’s otherwise lusterless.”

Garner offers two examples to illustrate his point, asking us to consider them if commas replaced the dashes.

It is noteworthy that the most successful revolutions – that of England in 1688 and that of America in 1776 – were carried out by men who were deeply imbued with a respect for law. Bertrand Russell.

Unfortunately, moral beauty in art – like physical beauty in a person – is extremely perishable. Susan Sontag

But as we all know, too much of a good thing is, well, too much. So it goes with dashes. My personal rule – with which, happily, both Johnson and Garner agree – is to avoid using more than two dashes in a sentence. And no more than one sentence with dashes per paragraph.

There can be exceptions, of course, but it’s a good rule of thumb to follow in most cases. After all, the very effectiveness of the dash makes it necessary to employ it judiciously and not willy-nilly.

“Useful as the dash is, it is basically an interrupting mark of punctuation and is always something of a hitch for readers, bringing them up short, jabbing them in the ribs,” Johnson says. “A paragraph should have an overall smoothness; it shouldn’t repeatedly interrupt itself.”

It’s a mistake, however, to consider the comma and the dash as interchangeable devices.

While the comma signals that the reader should take his foot off the accelerator, a dash is a notice to lightly tap the brakes.

Dashes are more powerful than commas and indicate that the writer has assigned particular importance to the information enclosed within them. Dashes also permit the writer a bit more leeway in the length of the phrase within them. Anything more than four or five words need sturdy dashes rather than flimsy commas.

When useful

I find dashes particularly useful in these cases:

n  To set off an important piece of parenthetical material.

The Kenyan runner – for the first time in human history – ran a marathon in less than two hours.

n  To set off a lengthy parenthetical phrase that, for whatever reason, I don’t want to put in a separate sentence.

The tiny raft – which rocked gently to and fro, to and fro, in the steady rhythm and flow of the debris-strewn ocean – served as a not-so-uncomfortable haven for the shipwreck survivors.

n  To indicate a disruption – in thought or deed.

I stopped at the intersection and flinched when I heard the staccato burst – pop! pop! pop! – of firecrackers. “Who in the world is – wait! – those are gunshots,” I thought.

n  To end a sentence or an entire passage on a powerful and memorable note.

When we tracked the sound of the mysterious moaning noise upstairs to wind blowing through a broken window pane, the haunting of Moore Mansion was over – or so we thought.

n  To use in place of actual parentheses. Parentheses are (in my humble opinion) reader repellent. I don’t use them except under duress and then only after much soul-searching. Luckily, dashes almost always are suitable substitutes and don’t chase readers away with the efficiency that parentheses do.

Em- and en-

Finally, a word about the distinction between an em-dash and an en-dash.

In pre-word processing days, this would never have been necessary. There were no such distinctions. When typewriters ruled – in the days when dinosaurs walked the earth – there were dashes, created by double hyphens (--) and hyphens.

Today, word processing systems like Word allow us to produce an em-dash – (there’s one) so named because it’s supposedly the width of a capital M – and some allow us to produce an en-dash, which is somewhat narrower than an em-dash but wider than a hyphen. Are you with me, so far?

Em-dashes are what I – in my hidebound simplicity – refer to as dashes. An en-dash “join pairs or groups of words to show a range, and also indicate movement or tension (rather than cooperation or unity),” Garner says. “It is often equivalent to to or versus.”

­­

In the examples below, you'll notice I use a hyphen instead of an en-dash. That's because I don’t know how to produce an en-dash, and I don’t intend to learn. Instead, I’m going to hew to ancient rituals and use a hyphen when an en-dash would otherwise be indicated.

So if you're of a mind to use them, here are some cases in which they would be appropriate:

The Texas-OU football game

A Korea-era veteran

The Tracy-Hepburn comedy

However, multi-word adjectives such as the much-loved film or the thrice-married actor still take a hyphen. As do double last names: Dame Simpson-Bradley attended the gala.

Me, I’m sticking to dashes and hyphens. You can teach an old dog new tricks. But sometimes, he just don’t wanna learn.

None but the brave

One of the recurring themes of The Grammar Goat blog is that many of the rules we were taught in English composition class simply aren’t rules at all.

What were presented to me and my classmates in Mrs. James 7^th grade English class as immutable laws of writing, not to be trifled with or bent out of shape in any way, often are simply the opinions of influential writers long dead and turned to dust.

But before we dive into another example of that lamentable trend, let’s set the record straight.

I have been a little rough on the redoubtable Mrs. James, suggesting that her rigidity about certain grammatical points were ill-considered and perhaps even detrimental to budding writers who found themselves in her tightly ordered and squared-away charge.

A most excellent teacher

I may even have implied, wrongly, that she wasn’t much of a teacher. Nothing could be farther from the truth. She was a most excellent teacher, dedicated and enthusiastic, demanding and caring. And the lessons I learned from her are ones I’ve carried with me – most of them anyway – for more than a half century.

To the decree that I am any kind of writer at all can be credited to Mrs. James’ faithful ministrations. Any failures are my own damned fault.

She was, however, a product of her time. A time when ambiguity – in business, politics and, yes, grammar – were frowned upon. She taught grammar as she had learned it, and she believed, perhaps correctly, that firm, unyielding rules strictly applied were the best way to impose discipline and understanding to unformed, unruly minds.

I love English teachers. My daughter, Rachel, is one, a scary bright educator full of ideas, enthusiasm and compassion for her students. She and her fellow English teachers, past and present, do the Lord’s work by attempting to bring order and insight to the mush inside their students’ skulls, to make civilized creatures out of them with lessons about the tragedies and the glories of the human condition.

She doesn’t always agree with the positions I’ve taken on grammatical issues. Recently, we had a spirited conversation about semi-colons. She likes them, while I think they are instruments of Satan. (I could have used a semi-colon instead of the clunky “while” in the previous sentence. But in this sad old world, you must pick your poisons. Death before semi-colons!)

A staunch defense

Look for a future Grammar Goat post in which the remarkable Ms. Gunnels mounts a staunch defense of the loathsome semi-colon. I’ve warned her I intend to destroy her arguments without mercy.

 Now to the grammatical business at hand. The question before us: Is the indefinite pronoun none singular or plural?

“Both are acceptable beyond serious criticism,” Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage states firmly.

So why have several generations of English teachers – including Mrs. James – insisted that none is a singular pronoun and thus takes a singular verb?

Their reasoning goes like this. None is a contraction of no one, and there can be nothing on God’s green earth more singular than one, can there? So none must take a singular verb.

Nothing wrong with that logic. Except nothing about grammar is ever quite so simple.

Merriam-Webster agrees that none is generally thought to be a contraction of no one. But it considers that a gross oversimplification.

None, in fact, comes from the Old English work nan, it reports. And nan was formed from ne (not) and an (one).

 “But Old English nan was inflected for both singular and plural,” says Merriam-Webster, dropping the bomb. “Hence it never has existed in the singular only; King Alfred the Great used it as a plural as long ago as A.D. 888.”

More than acceptable

 The Handbook of Good English says none can indeed mean no one or not one. But it can “also mean not any and be treated as a plural, as in None of the trees in the forest are deciduous.”

In fact, use of the plural with none is more than just acceptable.

 “The plural verb is now more common,” affirms Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage. “So, if you use a plural verb after none (‘None of the people are happy with the results’), you’re traveling in excellent company.”

Merriam-Webster says since none has been both singular and plural since Old English, either may be used without guilt. It all depends on the meaning you’re trying to convey.

 “The notion that it is singular only is a myth of unknown origin that appears to have arisen late in the 19^th century,” it says.

Even the venerable, and widely beloved, Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White has vacillated on the subject.

In the 1959 edition, the authors state definitely that none is always singular. However, the 1972 second edition allows the use of a plural verb when none suggests more than one person or thing.

Rueful acknowledgment?

In that edition, and in the tattered 1979 edition that sits on my bookshelf, White illustrates the rule, without comment, by this example:

None are so fallible as those who are sure they’re right.

A rueful acknowledgment of error? You be the judge.

Theodore Bernstein theorizes in The Careful Writer that English teachers like my Mrs. James and his Miss Thistlebottom, a fictional proponent of rigid grammar orthodoxy, made a conscious decision to spare their students the literary debate of singular versus plural.

“Confronted with a collection of little monsters of varying degrees of understanding and judgment, she found it simpler to lay down a flat rule,” Bernstein says.

Likewise, newspapers, confronted with newsrooms filled with reporters and editors of varying skill levels, also embraced the singular none. He strongly suspects their decision was influenced by the desire to avoid angry letters from doctrinaire grammar teachers and their students.

“If a rule is needed,” advises Bernstein, a former top editor of the New York Times, “a better one is to consider none to be plural unless there is a definite reason to regard it as a singular.”

He offers two reasons why the singular would be preferred.

n  A construction in which none is followed by a singular noun.

For example:

None of the editor’s advice was heeded before the story was published.

None of the phone call was recorded when the kidnapper called the missing child’s parents.

However:

None of the warnings were heeded before the story was published.

None of the contents of the phone call were recorded when the kidnapper called…

n  To emphasize a singular idea.

For example:

Twelve Marines attacked the bunker, but none was injured.

Four ships were struck by torpedoes during the attack, but none was sunk.

 “But even in such an instance it would be better to achieve the emphasis by changing the none to not one or no one,” Bernstein says.

No question, these are stronger sentences:

Twelve Marines attacked the bunker, but no one was injured.

Four ships were struck by torpedoes during the attack, but not one was sunk.

‘Underlying fallacy’

“The underlying fallacy in Miss Thistlebottom’s reasoning is that since none is derived from not one, she thinks it always means that. But it doesn’t. Sometimes it means no amount and most often it means not any,” Bernstein says.

 In the end, the question of whether to make none a singular or plural idea rests largely with the writer. It’s not often that a grammatical rule surrenders so readily to the writer’s whim. If you wish to convey the idea that none means a singular no one, use a singular verb. If the meaning you’re trying to put across is that not any of a variety of people or things are involved, go plural.

In the hands of a sure writer, the meaning shines through, and the reader is rewarded with comprehension and perhaps even inspiration.

And that’s something Mrs. James would surely appreciate.

Go ahead, it’s OK to boldly split that infinitive

Any grammar treatise about the rights and wrongs of splitting an infinitive arrives at some point at the introduction to the legendary TV series Star Trek.

Since such a destination is inevitable, let’s start our own grammatical journey there.

Star Trek – the original, not the myriad derivatives that followed it – ran on NBC from 1966 to 1969 and told of the adventures of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a “starship” in service to an Earth-centered federation of planets dedicated to peaceful space exploration and doing good.

The beginning of every episode began with a voice-over by actor William Shatner, who portrayed the captain of the Enterprise, the brave and dashing James T. Kirk. “Space, the final frontier,” he intoned with the gravity of Saturn. “These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Deep thicket

As a full-fledged science fiction geek, that mission statement never failed to send a shiver of delight up my spine as I sat in rapt anticipation of a primetime network TV show that didn’t treat its subject matter as campy fluff suitable for the Saturday movie matinee and nothing more.

But it never occurred to me that the inspiring boilerplate that framed every Star Trek episode had wandered unwittingly into a deep thicket of grammar controversy.

Purists – and by this I mean the brainwashed minions of long-dead arbiters of grammar righteousness – insist that it’s incorrect to split an infinitive. That is, to place an adverbial modifier between to and the infinitive or base form of a verb.

They would argue, damn them, that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry should be excoriated for inserting a reckless “boldly” in the middle of “to go.”

To their delicate ears, the phrase would sound oh-so-much-better as “boldly to go” or “to go boldly where no man has gone before.”

I stand with my grammar hero, Random House copy chief Benjamin Dreyer. He says, “If either of those sounds better to you, be my guest. To me they sound as if they were translated from the Vulcan.”

Another nonrule

The edict against split infinitives stands as one of Dreyer’s Top 3 Nonrules of Grammar. (FYI, the others are never begin a sentence with “and” or “but” and never end a sentence with a preposition [see previous Grammar Goat entry].)

Martha Kolln and Robert Funk, authors of the definitive Understanding English Grammar, also don’t equivocate.

“Although the adverbial between to and the verb may not be the most effective placement in some cases, it is not a grammatical error,” they write. “And, in the case of single-word adverbials, it is a rather common structure.”

The example they use to illustrate their latter point? You guessed it: “To boldly go where no man has gone before.”

Here are a couple of others:

When I go to a restaurant, I like to carefully peruse the menu to see if I can afford to eat there.

In order to adequately prepare for life, one must at some point confront the possibility of death.

There are other ways to compose either of the sentences above, of course. But why should you? Is “I like to peruse carefully the menu…” any more cogent or graceful? Does it deliver the desired message any more effectively? I’d argue no to both questions. The fact of the matter is that the unsplit example is a bit clunky so best to stick to the original.

Ditto for the “to prepare adequately for life,” which avoids the split but subtly changes the meaning by placing more emphasis on the life rather than the preparation.

A catchy name

Unlike some of the curious grammar “rules” we have explored on Grammar Goat, splitting an infinitive only became a contested subject rather recently.

“The term first is attested in 1897,” says Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage, “when the construction had already been under discussion for about half a century.”

Merriam-Webster suggests, only half in jest, that the dispute over split infinitives has endured because of the catchy name. It allows American writer Ambrose Bierce to make its point.

“Condemnation of the split infinitive is now pretty general, but it is only recently that any one seems to have thought of it,” he is quoted as saying in 1909. “Our forefathers and we elder writers of this generation used it freely and without shame – perhaps because it had not a name, and our crime could not be pointed out without too much explanation.”

H.W. Fowler, as rock-ribbed a conservative grammarian as you’ll find this side of the Harvard English Department, divided the English-speaking world into five groups: those who neither know nor care what a split infinitive is; those who do not know but care very much; those who know and condemn; those who know and approve; and those who know and can distinguish when to split or not to split.

“Those who neither know nor care are the vast majority, and are a happy folk, to be envied by most of the minority classes,” he said in his landmark Dictionary of Modern English Usage.

Pedantic bogey

The Harper Dictionary of Contemporary Usage calls the controversy over split infinitives “another pedantic bogey, carried over from the Latinate prescriptions of the 19^th century.”

There’s no such thing as a split infinitive in Latin simply because all Latin infinitives are single words. In Latin, “to hold” is written as “tenere.” So it’s impossible to state in Latin, “to fully hold the water.”

“Therefore, the pedants reasoned that both elements of an English infinitive should be considered as fused into one – unsplittable and sacrosanct,” Harper says. “Only that’s not the way English works.”

Theodore Bernstein, author of The Careful Writer, approaches split infinitives cautiously – as he does all things grammatical.

“There is nothing wrong with splitting an infinitive except that 18^th- and 19^th-century grammarians, for one reason or another, frowned on it,” says Bernstein, a longtime editor of The New York Times. “And most grammar teachers have been frowning ever since.”

As a result, he cautions writers not to blithely split infinitives with nary a care and to pay heed to the influence of those moldering grammarians.

 “For better or worse, their taboo against the split infinitive is a linguistic fact of life,” Bernstein said, “which a writer ignores at his own risk.”

Slavish devotion

We’ve traveled this road before on Grammar Goat. A slavish devotion to a long-dead language – the accursed Latin – has created a grammar rule where none should exist. And because of a widespread acceptance of the nonrule – implanted and nurtured by generations of well-meaning but hidebound English teachers – modern writers are stuck with the damned thing, lest we be considered uneducated boobs by many of our readers.

And yet, even the staunchest opponent of split infinitives acknowledges that there are instances when doing the dirty deed is the right and proper thing to do.

n  When avoiding the split infinitive introduces uncertainty and imprecision to the sentence.

I believe any person who lives a good life is required sincerely to consider the consequences of global warming.

Does sincerely modify “required” or “consider”? Hard to tell. And yes, it’s a minor point, but the world turns on minor points, doesn’t it? All confusion, minor or otherwise, is removed by simply writing “is required to sincerely consider.”

n  When you can’t avoid it without injuring yourself (or your writing).

What’s wrong with the construction of either of the following sentences? Nothing.

When Trump opens his mouth, I refuse to so much as listen to a word he says.

I have decided to all but give up my plans to move to Oregon in retirement.

n  When avoiding it interrupts the flow and rhythm of the sentence.

The Republicans in Congress didn’t expect the deficit almost to double because of their tax break for the rich, but they should have.

Ugh. To allow such a herky-jerky of a sentence to stand just to avoid a split infinitive is writing malpractice. Don’t do it.

The President of the University proceeded to praise warmly the accomplishments of his research scientists.

Its reads awkwardly. If you say it out loud, its sounds awkward. Do the write thing: “…proceeded to warmly praise…” You’ll be glad you did.

Bryan Garner says in Garner’s Modern American Usage that “knowing when to split an infinitive requires a good ear and a keen eye.” He's right, of course. Good writers will always choose the needs of the sentence over the dictates of 19^th century grammarians. They know when to hold ’em, when to fold ’em and when to walk away.

 To be fair, however, devotees of the split infinitive also understand that there are instances when it should be avoided like a coiled rattlesnake on your front porch.

Long slog

Take the following sentence, for instance, in which the adverbial element inserted after to forces the reader into a slog to the infinitive long enough to make them yearn for the final period.

In his fiery speech, the candidate sought to forcefully, fully, firmly and systematically expose his opponent as a neo-fascist.

This is a case where avoiding the split infinitive results in a stronger sentence. In his fiery speech, the candidate sought to expose his opponent as a neo-fascist – forcefully, fully, firmly and systematically. This approach highlights the deliberate alliteration and puts full focus on the totality of the takedown.

Interesting, many armchair grammarians who staunchly rail against split infinitives are much less adamant about a related grammatical issue – splitting verb phrases.

Some writers, myself included, believe that keeping the verb phrase intact – and placing any adverbial modifier either before or after it – makes for a stronger sentence. But not always. Take this example:

The dancer was carefully instructed not to land too hard on her injured ankle.

In this case, the split verb phrase reads naturally, its meaning clear and direct. In fact, keeping the verb phrase intact makes for a stilted construction.

The dancer was instructed carefully not to land too hard on her injured ankle.

It doesn’t work any better by placing carefully before the verb phrase because it leads the reader astray by linking the dancer too closely with the care in which they were instructed.

To split or not to split, that is the question. And the answer? It depends. (Alas, the Grammar Goat recognizes no hard and fast rules! Well, almost none.)

The last word goes to Raymond Chandler, mystery writer extraordinaire, as quoted by Dreyer in his entertaining and instructional Dreyer’s English.

Chandler, who could string words together as well as any novelist you’d care to name, took issue with a copyediting change in an article he wrote for The Atlantic Monthly. Imagine Humphrey Bogart as Phillip Marlowe reciting the response the author fired off to the editor.

“By the way, would you convey my compliments to the purist who reads your proofs and tell him or her that I write in a sort of broken-down patois which is something like the way a Swiss waiter talks, and that when I split an infinitive, God damn it, I split it so it will stay split.”

The Missing Pronoun Gap

One telltale sign of a novice writer is when they demonstrate confusion over the most simple of grammatical rules – the agreement of pronoun and antecedent.

What could be simpler? A wordsmith of any experience shouldn’t stumble when they are called upon to ensure all pronouns agree in number, gender and case to the preceding noun to which they refer.

What’s that, you say? Something’s amiss?

In fact, there is. In the previous paragraphs, I deliberately have hoisted myself with my own petard.

More precisely, I’ve been having a bit of what passes for grammatical fun to illustrate an example of English usage that I’ll call “The Missing Pronoun Gap.”

Old-school grammarians will have winched twice in reading the first three sentences of this post. In two of those sentences, I used the plural they to refer to the singular writer and wordsmith, a clear violation of the general rule. Or is it?

What to do?

Orthodoxy would argue that the corrective move is replace the errant they with a singular he or she. But which one? The writer in question could be either male or female. Or there could be a compelling reason to cloak the gender of said writer.

 Since English doesn’t have a singular third-person pronoun that can refer to either gender, what’s the responsible writer to do?

Once upon a time, the proscriptive course would have been to use he in cases where gender is not stipulated. Not anymore. Modern sensibilities – tempered and forged by the women’s movement and a growing general enlightenment – forbid it.

“That this practice has come under increasing attack has caused the single most difficult problem in the realm of sexist language,” says Bryan Garner in his Garner’s Modern American Usage. “Other snarls are far more readily solvable.”

Use of they or their as singular pronouns often come in sentences with such indefinite pronouns as someone, everyone or anyone. All are commonly mistaken as plural constructions.

For example:

Everyone knows how to mow their own grass, but anyone with a lick of sense will pay to have it done.

Everyone is singular, but many (most?) folks believe it’s plural so the use of their sounds correct.  The problem is everyone doesn’t specify gender. In fact, it literally means all of us: women and men. So it should be his. Or her. But which one?

Keep reading as I try to disperse the fog a bit.

The dilemma

Traditional grammarians, even as they express their distaste for the use of they as singular pronouns, acknowledge the dilemma.

“Our system of personal pronouns – or, to be more accurate, a gap in the system – is the source of a great deal of the sexism in our language,” admit Martha Kolln and Robert Funk in their Understanding English Grammar.

In spoken English, the problem already has been resolved by the common use of they, their or them as substitutes for the missing third-person, non-gender pronoun.

For example:

Teaching a child their ABCs is essential if they are to succeed in kindergarten.

The writer who ignores grammar will find they don’t have many readers.

Garner argues that the language should yield to the inevitable.

 “Speakers of American English resist this development more than speakers of British English, in which the indeterminate they is already more or less standard,” he says. “That it sets many literate Americans’ teeth on edge is an unfortunate obstacle to what promises to be the ultimate solution to the problem.”

Random House copy chief Benjamin Dreyer demurs, describing himself as “too old a dog to embrace” they as a singular pronoun. But he notes that “in speech most of us use the singular ‘they’ relentlessly and without a second thought.”

Hardliners, of course, consider the practice as yet another sign of civilization’s slide into anarchy and madness.

“In colloquial usage the inconvenience of having no common-sex personal pronoun in the singular has proved stronger than respect for the grammarians,” bemoaned the great Henry W. Fowler in his landmark A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.

Examine the possibilities

Theodore Bernstein, another traditionalist, grudgingly admitted that the use of they in such cases “is common enough in spontaneous, casual speech, and even occurs occasionally in the work of reputable writers.

“Yet,” he adds, and you can imagine him raising his index finger emphatically, “the writer of craftsmanship and taste” – dramatic pause – “will reject the grammatical inconsistency of the combination of a singular noun and a plural pronoun. He will examine the possibilities available.”

I count myself among the grammatical pragmatists who believe that the use of they as a singular pronoun is an imperfect, but acceptable, option in sentences where the gender of the preceding noun isn’t identified.

Most often, however, I find myself looking for a way, as Garner puts it, “to write around the problem.” In my mind, it’s better to spend more time building a better sentence than to be considered by some of my readers as a careless, slovenly writer.

Some alternatives

Perhaps like me you seek alternatives to the “anything goes” landscape in which the singular they thrives. If so, here are some options listed from worst to better.

n  Alternate the use of he and she throughout the article or passage. This deranged attempt at fairness – or at least parity – is confusing and disorienting to readers. Avoid it as you would a pit bull who just gnawed its way out of the backyard.

n  Try to please everyone. Use the phrase he or she, his or her to refer back to a non-gender-specific singular noun.

For example:

It’s not hard to imagine a teacher who hates his or her students but loves having summers off.

Who could blame a manager, when faced with downsizing his or her department, for wanting to run away and join the circus?

Although perfectly acceptable from a grammatical or political point of view, this usage amounts to writerly cowardice of the worse sort. It’s a clunky alternative that interrupts the flow and rhythm of the sentence and labels you a writer without conviction and spirit. You’ll hate yourself if you resort to it.

Exponentially worse is the typographical atrocity s/he or h/she. Mercifully, I’ve never actually seen this literary construction used, but a couple of reference books I consulted present it as a possible alternative. I’ve since burned them. (Kidding!)

n  Embrace the past and damn the torpedoes! Use he or him as non-gender singular third-person stand ins. After all, mankind is used widely to refer to all of us, male and female, although humankind is coming on strong. You’ll delight the traditionalists, who see themselves as the lone Gandalf, standing staff in hand and roaring, “You shall not pass!” Don’t be shocked, however, if you infuriate everyone else – and not just women – who will accuse you of being a lazy Neanderthal. Not me, you understand, just all of them.

n  Make the preceding noun plural. This is easily done, in most cases with little or no fuss. You then can employ the useful they or them, and no one can dare complain.

n  Rewrite the damned sentence! This, of course, is by far the best option. Yes, it requires more work, but sometimes the best approach to a problem is to avoid it altogether. And when you do, you discover the result often is better than the original.

While the venerable AP Stylebook says use of they/their/them as singular and/or nongender pronouns is acceptable, it clearly views the usage with distaste.

“Rewording usually is possible and always is preferable,” AP says. “Clarity is a top priority; gender-neutral use of a singular they is unfamiliar to many readers.”

Bernstein concurs, “The solution here is to recognize the imperfection of language and modify the wording.”

Try these modifications, which cause little or no disruption to the original sentence.

·       Delete the pronoun completely.

Original: The professor rushed out of the classroom as soon as confirmation of the $25 million inheritance was delivered to him by singing telegram.

Revised: The professor rushed out of the classroom as soon as confirmation of the $5 million NIH grant was delivered by singing telegram.

·       Change the pronoun to a or the.

Original: The professor rushed out of the classroom as soon as confirmation of his $5 million NIH grant was delivered by singing telegram.

Revised: The professor rushed out of the classroom as soon as confirmation of the $5 million NIH grant was delivered by singing telegram.

·       When the noun is included in an introductory prepositional phrase starting with “if,” rewrite the sentence using the relative pronoun who.

Original:  If a firefighter is afraid of fire, perhaps he should choose another line of work.

Revised: Perhaps a firefighter who is afraid of fire should choose another line of work.

·       Repeat the noun instead of using a pronoun, but only if there are enough words separating the two to avoid repetitiveness. 

Original: A writer must know the basics of grammar before embarking on any major writing project. If he doesn’t, the project will be compromised.

Revised: A writer must know the basics of grammar before embarking on any major writing project. If the writer doesn’t, the project will be compromised.

Never: A writer must know the basics of grammar before the writer embarks on any major project. (Beep, beep! Proximity alert!)

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage is sanguine about the rising popularity of they as a single pronoun, pointing out that the problem is not a 20^th century development.

“Although the lack of a common-gender third person pronoun has received much attention in recent years from those concerned with women’s issues, the problem, as felt by writers, is much older; the plural pronouns have been pressed into use to supply the missing form since Middle English,” it says.

 Merriam-Webster also helpfully reminds us that “the English pronoun system is not fixed.” For instance, thou, thee and ye all have been supplanted by the ubiquitous you.

 “They, their, them have been used continuously in singular reference for about six centuries, and have been disparaged in such use for about two centuries,” it says. “Now the influence of social forces is making their use even more attractive.”

So the general consensus is that the use of they will grow ever more accepted as a singular alternative to the chauvinist he when referring to preceding singular nouns of undetermined gender.

The ever-practical Dreyer says that day already has arrived.

“The singular ‘they’ is not the wave of the future; it’s the wave of the present,” he says.

A final thought

Before we leave the subject of pronouns and gender, let’s touch on the issue of how to deal with what AP calls “gender-nonconforming individuals” – that is, those who do not fit into the traditional view of two genders.

Such individuals could be transgender (those whose gender identity does not match the sex or gender they were identified as having at birth), intersex (those with genitalia, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don’t fit typical definitions for males or females at birth), nonbinary (those whose gender identity is something other than strictly male or female) or something else.

How should the responsible writer deal with the relatively rare occasions when such concerns arise?

The answer isn’t to stick their heads in the sand and hope the whole thing goes away. Because it won’t. In fact, I suspect it will become ever more common as time goes by.

The sensible course is to determine, when feasible, the pronoun preference of the people you’re writing about and follow it. In the rarest of instances, you may encounter folks who don’t want to be identified by gender-specific pronouns at all. In those cases, you can rely on some of the suggestions offered above.

I’m less sanguine about the use of alternative pronouns invented for those people who do not identify as either male or female. One of the more common constructs is ze/zir, but there are many others and the number is growing. At some point, presumably, there will be an attempt to settle on one system for universal adoption.

I dislike these alternatives, not out of any political or grammatical convictions, but for the practical reason that most readers aren’t familiar with them. Our job is provide clarity, not spew confusion so we should find a way to write around the problem.

If you can’t, or if your subjects insist on their use, then you have no choice but to include an explanation of what you’re doing, despite its clunky and disruptive impact.

The lesson here? Language usage evolves, as does the social and cultural environment in which it exists. As writers, we have no choice but to evolve with it.