The structure

The personal pronouns:
I, she, he, we, they/me, her, him, them

`what'

nouns in the sentence

The genitive pronoun and -ing nouns

practice/practise, licence/license, etc.

numerical consistency and the verbials

`who’ `whom’

`affect' and `effect'

collective nouns

`which' and `that'

The subjunctives

The structure

The simple sentence is the basic sentence with or without brief embeddings. In the following examples of them verbials are rendered in bold italics and basic sentences are underlined:

We talked at length with the enemy. (verb basic sentence)

John teaches Mathematics. (`verb + subject’ basic sentence)

Umbrellas are indispensable on wet days. (copula basic sentence)

It is true that he was the fabled thief. (copula basic sentence)

They complained about the noise in the room. (copular-verb basic sentence)

Problems of the simple, or basic, sentence

Constructing a simple or a basic sentence is easy. Being simple, neither poses the structural problems of the other sentence styles. This is not to say that getting them right is problem-free. Their characteristic problems must be faced. Simple sentences are also the bases of complex sentences and the parts of compound and composite sentences. Badly constructed, they can destroy any sentence.

Chapter menu

Nouns in the basic or the simple sentence

Misnaming often happens when the writer does not know the expressions he uses. This one, for instance, really had nothing against the police. In fact, he was writing to bemoan the closure of local police stations:

Everyone knows the cause-and-effect relationship between police and crime. (defective sentence)

Crime does not produce police and police do not produce crime. So even if there is a relationship between police and crime, it cannot be called `a cause-and-effect relationship'. This writer probably meant something like:

There is less crime in areas that have police stations than in ones that do not.

He was in need of a comparison, thus of a compound sentence. His `everyone knows’ is particularly unfortunate. The copular verb `knows’ is specified by a noun phrase that is the product of fallacious reasoning: `the cause-and-effect relationship between police and crime’. Doing this, the sentence really shoots itself in the foot.

Misused nouns can do much mischief to the statement a writer intends to make. It can even cause him to say something he does not mean:

  Lynne's letter lacks the intellectual rigor she accuses the unions of. (defective sentence)

In this copular-verb basic sentence the noun phrase `the intellectual rigor she accuses the unions of’ specifies the copular verb `lacks’. But the sentence reads oddly. Did this writer really intend to say that Lynne `accused' the unions of intellectual rigor? (`Intellectual rigor' is not something we usually `accuse' people of. Rather, we praise them for it.) Intending it or not, his noun phrase has the writer saying that Lynne did accuse of intellectual rigor. A fair guess is that the writer misworded his noun phrase. He did not mean to say that Lynne accused the unions of intellectual rigor. He meant that she had accused them of the lack of it. He could have said so:

Lynne's letter lacks the intellectual rigor she accuses the unions of lacking.

Chapter menu

Numerical consistency and the verbials

Logically, the ratio between a subject and its act (denoted by the verbial) is equal. So when there is one actor named as the perpetrator of an act denoted by the verbial, that verbial is rendered in its singular form. When several actors are named as subject, the verbial that denotes their act is rendered in plural form. This consistency between subject and verb is called `agreement in number':

Mary goes to school.

Mary and the boys go to school.

Every competent English speaker knows this item of syntax and none has a quarrel with it. Yet we hear `Aren't I?' (`Are not I’!) and fail even to flinch. In fact it is the syntactically correct, and the far more rare, `Am I not?' that draws our attention as if it were an oddity. How on earth have we come to tolerate this plural copula `are’ with the singular subject `I’? And tolerating it, why do we continue to frown upon, say, `Is you’? Writers who review this situation and feel like laying about them sternly should indulge themselves.

 Chapter menu

The collective noun

Traditionally, the noun that names a collective is considered to be singular. Being singular, the verbial that denotes its act is also singular:

The family prays every evening.

Australia is playing against Portugal in the final round.

The government is going to propose tough legislation in this matter.

Yet we regularly hear and read `the government are', `the family are', and in sports commentaries, even `Australia are'. What, one might well ask, is going on? Is contemporary English denying the existence of the collective noun?

  This state of things is particularly bemusing for learners of English. That is little wonder, for the equivalent in their native tongues of `my government are' is impossibly ungrammatical. The English, they tend to conclude, are disturbingly sloppy with their grammar.

  But are we? Or is it that we are left free to use our language as we think reasonable, while everyone else is constrained to toe a pedant line? Unlike most other language areas, ours is not presided over by guardians who legislate upon its use. And that's just as well, in our estimate. For what, to take the case to hand, would be the good in our being ordered to respect the singular-noun status of the collective noun? Would respecting it add even a scrap to the lucidity of the meanings we make? Besides, when we talk about a `family' that is doing something, or about a `government' that is doing something, we envisage several people engaged in an activity. So why a singular verbial to pretend that only one person is doing it?

  Such a line of argument is handy. But it won't explain all. There is still this sort of thing: We treat `nation' as a collective noun:

A nation is valiant when it defends itself.

But we treat `people' as a plural noun:

A people are valiant when they defend themselves.

We do this even though the two expressions are equi-meaning. We just do, that's all!

  Nevertheless, what is `a', the indefinite article that normally goes with singular nouns (`a dog’, `a shovel’.) doing before the plural noun `people'? At this stage we might explain kindly to anyone who wants to know that the English article is something we use as we do because we know how to use it. Everyone else, sadly, does not.

  Other oddities assail us even as we wriggle out of the sticky mire that `a people are' landed us in. In this business, no news is good news. Now, hold it right there! `News’, apparently a plural noun, `is’? Oh dear. There's no making light of this one. `News', despite its plural form, takes the singular copula `is', not the plural `are'!

  As if this were not vexation enough, there is the prissy business of `the media are'. Why not `the media is'? The fact that the Latin word `media' is the plural form of `medium' should surely not deter us from using the singular copula with it. The plural form of `news' did not. But then, `news' does not have a singular form: We always hear the latest bit of news, never the latest bit of new. `Media' has a singular form: `medium'. But that is a spiritual person, not newspapers and radio and television.

  Are we getting somewhere, willy-nilly, having so far decided upon a policy of concluding nothing much? We probably are – into another mire: `Constabulary' is a group noun, has a singular form and its act is denoted as a singular verbial:

The constabulary needs to be free of political control.

`A true collective noun!’ one might celebrate it. But not for long. Its synonym, `the police', is a plural noun:

The police need to be free of political control.

So why is one name a collective noun and its synonym a plural noun? All is lost!

  What? What's this? `All is? `All are', surely? `All' is a plural noun! But wait:

All is lost if the cause is lost.

All are lost if particular things or people are lost.

`All' both is and is not a collective noun, and it is and is not a plural noun. Where are we now in the collective noun/singular verbial showdown?

  This sort of perambulation leaves us in no doubt that the collective noun/singular verb usage is in disarray in English. Can it be rationalised or is it now too late? In any case, how would we rationalise? What would happen, for instance, if a rule such as: `Any noun that names a group as an abstraction is a collective noun and must take a singular verb' were forced upon English usage? Under such a regime we could say both that:

A government is good only as a democratic construct

and

This Government are doing a good job

and be grammatically proper. But then, we can do this anyway, if we want. And if not, not. Legislation, on the other hand, would deny us the latter alternative. We, being English speakers, do not take kindly to legislation on usage. Nor should we. For once it begins, where does it stop?

  Sensible after-thought on a stand in support of the contemporary open-season on the collective noun is this: Tradition always has respectability. It also has clout, because traditionalists tend to out-number rebels and because traditional behaviour always has connotations of refinement. To hazard an analogy: One can make meaning creditably without respecting the collective noun/singular verbial, just as one can eschew knife and fork yet dine well on steak. But doing either, what does one lose in polish? Writers should consider respecting collective nouns for reason alone that failure to do so is not appreciated universally. Indeed, many see that failure an ignorance.

  There follows a representative list of nouns that are unequivocally collective nouns. It is a good idea to practise using them with singular verbials, if only to cultivate one's awareness of them.

 Chapter menu

Collective nouns and reference

  The peculiarity of collective nouns, other than their singular-noun status, is that they are referred to by the neuter pronouns `it’, `its’ and `itself’. This does not hold for the universals: `none’, `either’, `neither’, because universals by nature are nouns that do not have referents. Nor does it hold for the personal universals: `everyone’, `someone’, `somebody’. They are referred to by the singular personal pronouns `she’/`he’, `hers’/`his’ and `herself’/`himself’.

Representative sample of `group’ collective nouns

government, the executive, family, mankind, audience, choir, team, judiciary, administration, legislature, couple, pair, duet, trio, quartet, crowd, gang, gaggle (of geese), coven (of witches) school (of whales or fish)

The duet is coming on stage now. It will shortly begin its performance.

This coven needs to be investigated. It has earned itself a bad name.

Representative sample of names of repositories of information

the news, public opinion, the press

Public opinion has condemned the new tax on food It considers the tax unfair.

The press insists on its independence. It is responsible for itself to itself.

Representative sample of names of universals

none, either, neither, each, every, everything, everyman everyone, everybody, anybody, nobody, somebody, whoever, whomever

None is keener than she/he.

Each tries as hard as the other.

Everyone is welcome if he/she comes in good faith.

Whoever comes must behave himself/herself .

Representative sample of names of disciplines

politics, mathematics, carpentry, photography, art

Mathematics demands exactitude. It is a discipline known for its rigor.

Art is what an artist does. It justifies itself thus.

Representative sample of product-category names

footwear, clothing, furniture, glassware, tableware, cutlery, hosiery, Manchester

Good footwear is always expensive. It is worth the money for it pays for itself in foot health.

An array of silver cutlery is impressive on its owner's dinner table.

Representative sample of names of abstractions

justice, hospitality, truth, love, inspiration, cowardice, bravery, the good

The good that people do lives after them. Some, however, claim it dies with them.

Inspiration is every writer's hope. It is in itself the Muses' gift.

Incidentally …

  On the eve of the inception of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting [CHOGM], erstwhile British Prime Minister Harold McMillan was at a gathering of  fellow statesmen, and, in skittish mood, he mused aloud about what collective noun might be suitable for naming a gathering of heads of state: a `gaggle of principals’ ? a `babble of principals’?  … a `lack of principals’!

Chapter menu 

Personal pronouns and common use

  When a sentence raises a subject that is a person and represents it instead of naming it, the representation is done by the personal pronouns `I', `she', `he', we', `you', `they'. These pronouns are the subjects in all sentences:

 `I', `she', `he' `we', `you' and `they' are both the subjects and the complements in copula sentences:

  The objects in verb sentences are represented by the personal pronouns `me', `her', `him', `us', `you' and `them':

(The copular verb, by nature, does not have an object. Nouns that can be represented by personal pronouns do not, therefore, occur as complements in a sentence.)

  The foregoing use of personal pronouns is beyond doubt the syntactically correct use. It is, however, often not the common use. For instance, one rarely hears `It is I' in response to `Who is it?' Far more common answer is `It's me'. It is said in defence of common use that the personal pronoun in copula sentences has changed, so we no longer have to say It is I/she/he/they/we. We can say It is me/her/him/them. In fact, it is a trifle stuffy not to. Well, fine - if you believe that such a change has indeed happened. If not, feel free to use the syntactically correct personal pronoun forms.

  There is also that pointless abuse of the reflexive pronoun, particularly of `myself’, that sets one’s teeth on edge. A common television spectacle is the person being interviewed who takes his performance very seriously. He intends to be at his best, and accordingly sets a dignified visage, then proceeds in measured tones: `Myself and my staff waited for the police. I myself opened the door for them …'.  `Myself’ is the important person’s word, better class than `me’. (Hmmph!)

  It is revealing to discuss this outrageous abuse of the reflexive pronoun, which is necessarily the object in a sentence, with people who speak an Indo-European language other than English. It inevitably  transpires that the silly construction where the reflexive pronoun is used as the subject in the sentence (`Myself and my staff waited …’ ) is impossible in any language except English.

  Then there is the `I myself’ nonsense. It is supposed to work as emphasis. But then, `I … myself’ is more than a little unnecessary, since it is unlikely that anyone would think that `I’ might refer to someone other than me. Why oh why use the reflexive pronoun in any context except the proper one, where the subject perpetrates an act upon himself: `I cut myself’?

  Also prominent is the type who masticates words to speak them well and would not be caught dead using a common word like `me’. She, superior and self-assured, will inform you: `The mayor tells Susan and I everything. He has tea with Susan and I regularly'. (`I’, of course, is a much better class word than `me’, in her way of looking at it.) This superior lady suffers badly whenever she catches herself uttering a common word like `me'. But even she is unlikely to say `He spoke to I’. (What's the betting she would say `He spoke to myself'?)

  The kinds of abuse just discussed happen regularly. They are defended as `common use’ and are legitimised on the basis of that defence. Against this, it is just as well to keep in mind that giving right of way to common use just because it is common is not obligatory, nor is it safe. If we allow the demolition of our basic-sentence structures, the very cornerstones of our language discipline, what will remain to us that we can call `English syntax'? That we have not allowed their complete dismantling is obvious. For although many are happy enough to accommodate `it's me’, most of us tend to raise eyebrows when someone flouts the verb basic sentence and says `John spoke to I’.

  Why are we complacent about one abuse of syntax (`It is me/her/him/them’) and indignant about another (`John spoke to I’)? Both are abuses of the same syntactic canon: that pronouns have subjective (I, she, he, we, they) and objective (me, him, her, them) forms. No doubt part of the reason is that we are so often faced with objective-pronoun forms where subjective ones should be that they have become familiar there: indeed, more familiar than the rightful subjective ones. The other reason is the Liberal Linguist Factor [LLF].

  The LLF falls upon any abuse of syntax and splutters in goggle-eyed rapture that this is idiom and blest evidence that the wheels of change are churning up the language. `Language changes!' he gurgles, salivating with champion-of-the-people glee. Yet this LLF will bare teeth and spit chips of derision at anyone who dares suggest that abused syntax is less change than decadence, less idiomatic than dog rough, and as dynamic as any unseemly practice caught in the moribund grip of bad habit.

  Writers, given their special relationship to language, should not defer to the promoters of anti-syntax, not even when the latter are dressed to the nines in the robes of democracy. They should unfurl their irredentist flags and hail a new and glorious syntax-respecting age. `Don't mess with syntax' T-shirts will also do.

 Chapter menu

Personal pronouns and gender consistency

  The personal pronoun refers to a person already named in a sentence or in one that precedes it. Feminine pronouns refer to females persons and masculine pronouns to male persons:

Mary is her own worst enemy.
John is his own worst enemy.

Category, reference and gender

  When a sentence raises a subject and names it as the category `doctor' or `employer' or `child' or `person', that category is neuter (neither masculine nor feminine):

When you get a job you must tell your employer about your problem.

Reference to category is done with the pronouns `he' and `him':

When you get a job you must tell your employer that he is not entitled to exploit you.

The `he' that refers to the category `employer' is not referring to any particular employer who is a man, nor is it implying that the category `employer' contains only men. As a gender-free referent to category, `he' is the English neuter.

  A strong collective voice in contemporary culture has mounted a campaign to deny the English language the use of its neuter pronoun. This has seen writers reluctant to make statements of this sort:

If a person has good grounds for his belief he should fight for it.

They are likely to word the foregoing statements in a way that avoids `he':

If people have good grounds for their beliefs they must fight for them.

The plural pronoun diplomatically side-steps the neuter `he' issue. But when a category is named by the collective nouns `somebody', `anybody', `anyone', it is difficult to duck for this cover. These nouns are so pointedly singular that nobody would even consider using the plural form of the copula with them: `Somebody have arrived'. So if their singularity commands the singular copula `is', then surely it is also peremptory to refer to them with singular pronouns:

If somebody stops you, tell him you are my daughter.

Some writers get around this politically fraught issue by using the distributive `he or she' or `him or her':

If somebody stops you, tell him or her you are my daughter.

It is, however, awkward to be so accommodating when a sentence names a category and refers to it several times:

If you don't tell your employer then you are giving him or her a defence against you because he or she can say that he or she would have modified your working environment if he or she had known of your discomfort.

  To avoid such a cumbersome and unsightly way of going about reference, an increasing number of writers resort to using the plural form of a pronouns as the referent to category:

If you don't tell your employer then you are giving them a defence against you.

At the same time, many writers' and readers' sensibilities recoil at such offence against logic. Why refer to a category as if it were naming several people instead of itself? That is illogical syntax.

  Enterprising linguists have suggested that `s/he' should replace the neuter `he', and `shim' the neuter `him'. Until that or some other ingenious idea finds uptake, writers who wish to use the neuter `he' should do so confidently. Those who prefer to see it expunged might consider confronting the English-speaking world with the advent of the neuter `she'. That at least will not wreak havoc on sense in pronoun reference nor force an illogical syntax upon usage.

 Chapter menu

The genitive pronoun and -ing nouns

  There is a genitive relationship between two nouns when one is the performer and the other the performance. In the next sentence John is the performer and decision his performance:

John's decision to go upset us.

The same genitive relationship holds when the performer is named by a pronoun. The naming is done by one of the genitive pronoun forms: my, your, his, hers, their, its:

His decision to go upset us.

  Writers have no difficulty with this item of syntax. But it is remarkable how things go off the rails when the noun with which a pronoun is in genitive relationship is an –ing ending noun. It is all too often that one hears and reads expressions like: `Him leaving made things difficult for us' and `Us leaving made things difficult for him'. Once the -ing noun appears people seem to forget that there is a genitive relationship between performer and performance. Or, not realising that words ending in -ing can be nouns, they do not know they are dealing with a genitive relationship of pronoun and noun. That -ing nouns exist should be clear in every writer's mind:

His leaving made things difficult.

She insisted on their eating regularly.

Our inviting him pleased his mother.

  No reasonable case can be made for avoiding the genitive noun or pronoun. This is so because a notable power of making meaning would be lost to our language if we were to abuse the genitive pronoun out of existence. For example, we say something significantly different in:

John, leaving, annoyed us.
(As he was leaving John did something that annoyed us.)

and in:

John's leaving annoyed us.
(The fact that John left annoyed us.)

  The illiteracy `John leaving annoyed us' used in an attempt to say that `John's departure annoyed us' is just that: an illiteracy. Given the foregoing point, it follows that the appropriate pronoun to represent the genitive construction `John's’ is the genitive pronoun `his’, not the objective pronoun `him’ nor the subjective pronoun `he’. No writer can afford to be cavalier about this syntactic issue. Shortfalls in its application are eyesores that repel esteem.

Chapter menu

The relative personal pronouns `who’ `whom’

  The burning question is: why `whom’ and not `who’?’ This following comparison of structures will determine the reason. In:

The man who married Mary won the jackpot

the adjective `who married Mary’ describes `the man’ in terms of his direct state: he `married Mary’. But in:

The man whom Mary married won the jackpot

the adjective `whom Mary married’ describes `the man’ relatively, in terms of Mary’s state: `Mary married’ him.

  Traditional Grammar has sought to describe the `who/whom’ usage in terms of `subject and object of the verb’. That was not at all a clever thing to do. For one thing, in the sentences `The man whom Mary married’ and `The man who married Mary’, the sequences headed by `who’ and `whom’ describe the noun-subject. One is hard pressed to find either object or verb in such a context.

It’s no big deal!

  Whether or not the syntax of `who’ and `whom’ is respectable, it is worth while to come to terms with its usage. Knowledge is prestigious and unembarrassed. Most people avoid using `whom' for fear of misusing it. (They do not seem to mind misusing `who'.) An amusing few will venture `whom' tentatively then appear to regret it, uncomfortably aware that they may have got it wrong. (Quite often they had.) A superior few use `whom' relentlessly, thinking it `better’ than `who'. This is probably the most embarrassed item in contemporary usage. Fortunately, the embarrassment is wonderfully easy to cast off. One does not even have to contend with the syntax of it. Quite simply, when a relative phrase describes a noun without reference to another person’s state, that sequence is always headed by `who':

The lady who addressed the meeting has returned.

We invited Susan, who did a wonderful job of helping us.

  When a sequence describes a noun and it does include reference to someone else’s state, that sequence is headed by `whom':

The lady whom you met addressed the meeting.

Mary, of whom they know something, will not raise an objection.

  Much the same principle obtains in questions: When the question refers only to the person whom it addresses, `who' heads the sequence:

Who are you?

When the question is addressed to someone about someone else, `whom' heads the sequence:

Whom will you invite?

`Whoever' and `whomever' are stable-mates of `who' and `whom':

Come in, whoever you are.

Invite them in, whoever they are.

Whoever wants to can do it.

  Addressed to someone with reference to other people, the sequence is headed by `whomever':

Invite whomever you want. Invite whomever they want.

Whomever they want will be the person elected.

 Chapter menu

`Which' and `that': the relative-adjective phrase headers

  It is a mistake to think of `which’ and `that' as the heads of ordinary adjective phrases. In fact, they are adjective phrases that do more than describe. They also make distinct meanings. This pair of sentences will illustrate the point:

The explosion that caused the fire was the result of accumulated gas.
[There were several explosions and one of them caused the fire.]

The explosion, which caused the fire, was the result of accumulated gas.
[There was one explosion and it caused the fire.]

  The phrase `which caused the fire’ is demarcated by commas. That in itself is significant. (There is further discussion about the meaning-making comma in the Chapter `The Comma”.) Equally significant is the fact that the demarcated `which’-headed phrase describes `the explosion’ by singularising it: the description tells us that there was only one explosion and that it caused the fire:

  The other significant thing is that we cannot possibly make this construction:

The explosion, that caused the fire, was the result of accumulated gas. [Erroneous construction]

`That’ simply cannot function as the head of a phrase that describes by singularising. Now, people often ask when they should use `that’ and `which’. Just as often, unfortunately, they are ridiculed for their question. This happens because there is a prevalent belief that the two headers are interchangeable. Not so, as the foregoing discussion pointed out. Admittedly, it is not a hanging offence to say `The explosion which caused the fire … ’. But why use `which’ when the intention is only to describe?

 Chapter menu

`What’: the noun-phrase header

  `What' cannot head either the relative noun phrase or the relative adjective phrase. `What' in the relative phrase is the classic `bad grammar' usage:

The things what I like are expensive.

The relative phrase must be headed by `that', or by `where’ if the relative phrase is describing a place:

The things that I like are expensive.

Albury, where John spent his holidays, is on the Murray River.

`What’ can head only a noun phrase:

What I like about you is that you smile discerningly.

That is what I was trying to say.

Chapter menu

Troublesome spellings: `to practise’, `to advise’, `to devise’, `to license’, `to prophesy’

  This discussion is for users of Australian and British English only. American English has long done away with the `-ise’-ended infinitive, and hence with the spelling issue that will be discussed here. All verbs and many nouns are derived from the infinitive. In the case of the `-ise’ ended infinitives: `to practise’, `to advise’, `to devise’, `to license’ and `to prophesy’, the nouns formed from them acquire a `c’ to replace the `s’ in `-ise’.

Noun form

Hers is an excellent medical practice.

We have a licence to operate these premises.

Take our advice.

The astrologer's prophecy came true.

A hammer is a useful device.

Verb form

  Naturally, the verb forms of all five infinitives retain the `s’. So also do all the`-ed’ and `-ing’ ending forms that function as nouns (gerunds) and as adjectives (gerundives):

They practise what they preach, license only moral behaviours, advise everyone to emulate them and prophesy/prophesise the sad fates of those who do not share their views.

Mary practised medicine. She hopes to practise psychology.

John is practising his French.

The council had been licensing such activity for some time.

He had advised you. They tried to advise us. We will be advising them.

We need to devise a good story. They devised some ingenious ones.

He was asked to prophesy the events of the looming war. He prophesises willingly. He has prophesied/prophesised for some time.

Noun form (gerund)

Practising is the best way to master a skill.

To practise an act is to become its master.

The practised had no difficulty in negotiating the river.

Licensing is done by the council.

Their advising you as they do has dubious merit.

To advise as you do is a thankless task.

The well advised gained their objectives.

Devising plans is their strength.

Prophesying/prophesising is a practice of astrologers.

To prophesy is to foretell the future.

The prophesied/prophesised came true.

Adjective form (gerundives)

A practised surgeon, Mary baulks at no task.

No longer a practising teacher, Susan has time to paint.

Licensing officers are overworked by this council.

Only licensed dealers can operate on these premises.

He was the advising solicitor on the case.

The prophesied event actually did occur.

The prophesying/prophesising sages were admired for their skill.

Two deviations:

(i) `Prophecy' has an adjective form that derives from the noun `prophet’:

His utterance proved prophetic.

(ii) `To' precedes `practice' when `to practice' is a locative-noun phrase. (That is, it locates the direction - geographical - of the activity denoted by a copula verb). That should not be mistaken for a verb:

I am going to [piano] practice.

 Chapter menu

`Affect' and `Effect'

  `Effect' can function either as a noun or as a verb. With one specialist exception, `affect' always functions as a verb. Many writers have difficulty with distinguishing when their sentences need `affect' and when they need `effect'. It is well worth everyone's while to reflect upon the difference between these words.

`Effect' as a noun

  As a noun, `effect’ is synonymous with `result’, `impact' or `outcome’:

The effect of the lecture was obvious in the way the students clapped.
(The outcome/result/impact of the lecture was such that it made the students clap.)

That was an effect we sought.
(That was a result we wanted to get/find.)

`Effect' as a verb

  As a verb, `effect’ is synonymous with `bring about’, `bring into being’, `cause’:

We tried to effect a friendship between them.
(We tried to bring about a friendship between them.)

*That will effect the result.
(That will produce the result.)

**We effected the friendship between them.
(We brought about/into being the friendship between them.)

`Affect' is always a verb (with one Jungian exception)

  `Affect’ is synonymous with `influence’, `have an impact upon’, `interfere with’:

*That will affect the result.
(That will impact upon/influence the result.)

**We affected the friendship between them.
(We influenced/modified/interfered with the friendship between them.)

  Please note the difference in meaning between `effect' when it functions as a verb and `affect' the verb. Asterisks mark sentences that should be studied for comparison.

The Jungian exception

  A concept advanced by Carl Jung, the celebrated founder of the influential Jungian school of psychology, was translated into English as `affect’. `Affect’ is the name given to a highly sensitised state of mind. In this context it is therefore a noun. This is how it is used:

In the grip of the affect, he forgot his problems. That affective state of his was a protracted one.

Outside Jungian contexts we can be confident that `affect’ is verb.

 Chapter menu

`Effective' is an adjective

  `Effective’ means `productive of effect’, `good/appropriate/successful for the job’, etc. Something `effective' is something that has an `effect':

This is an effective strategy.
(This strategy gets the job done/has the desired effect or result or outcome.)

His was an effective way of going about the job.
(His was a good/result-producing way of going about the job.)

`Affective' is an adjective in Jungian contexts

  `Affective’ is a Jungian usage that has seeped into ordinary language. It is completely different in meaning from `effective'. Something `affective' produces an `affect': a highly sensitised, emotional, transported state.

The film was certainly an affective one.
(This film was capable of producing a certain state of mind. For instance, it was able to make one feel loving or angry or frightened, etc.)

The verdict was an affectively constructed one.
(The verdict was constructed under the influence of an affect. It was different from a verdict that is constructed rationally).

  The `affective’ version of the adjective occurs only in Jungian context. Otherwise, we can be confident that the adjective is always `effective’.

 Chapter menu

The subjunctives

  The subjunctive is neither a tense nor an aspect of verbials. It is a mood of theirs that posits a supra-time, a time concept that is not chronological.

The `be’ construction of the subjunctive

  Demanding of the writer’s attention is the `be’ construction that makes a distinct meaning. What, for instance, did the Prime Minister mean to say when he uttered the words:

`I insist that all voters are informed’?

Technically, he insisted that all voters are informed people. That is fine, if indeed that is what he meant. If, however, he meant to say that he insists upon all voters becoming informed, he should have said:

I insist that all voters be informed.

  There are other issues of meaning that make the use of the subjunctive obligatory. In such cases, the form of the subjunctive is take directly from that of the infinitive (`to drink’, `to speak’, `to bathe’, `to report’). Their contexts are noun phrases that name provisions:

He was given bail on condition that he report daily at the police station.

  It is not logical to use the present tense of a verbial unless the activity it denotes is taking place in the present time. In the statement: `The proposal is that an Australian president replaces the Queen as head of state’, the present tense replaces declares that an Australian president is presently replacing the Queen as head of state. Were that true, there would be no point in proposing that it become true. A proposal for a change to the present condition necessarily locates itself outside time:

The proposal is that an Australian president replace the Queen as head of state.

The `were’ construction of the subjunctive

  It pays to be careful with the `were’ construction. Its sequence : `were’ + infinitive + `would …’ + `verbial, indicative mood’, is inviolate:

At a recent film premiere she declined the host's offer of chocolate, saying if she were to indulge, the press would write that she is pregnant.

  This writer muffed the sequences:

At the film premiere she declined the host's offer of chocolate, saying if she indulged the press would write that she were pregnant. [erroneous construction]

  `She’ declined the offer of chocolate in real time. It is her `indulge’ that locates in a hypothetical time. `Indulge' is therefore the verbial to be given the subjunctive mood. It is the one that should have had the subjunctive `were’ construction: `if she were to indulge’. Were she to indulge, there would be a real-time consequence: `the press would write that she is pregnant’.

Antics with the subjunctive

  It is very common to hear: `I'd love you to come home'. Yet this is a very odd structure. No doubt the meaning template is `I should love it [that existential state] if you were to come home'. (Clearly enough, the activity of the subject `I’, denoted by the verbial `should love’, is not perpetrated upon `you’; `you’ is therefore not the object in this sentence.) This structure is worth examining on a grid: