I'm not making a political statement (and who knows how many grammatical errors might have been made in the recent DNC speeches), but the following grammar faux pas by Mitt Romney rang in my ears during the recent Republican National Convention:

But if you ask Ann and I what we'd give, to break up just one more fight between the boys...

Sorry, Mitt. That should be "Ann and me."

I and me are personal pronouns. We use the personal pronoun I (a subject pronoun) when referring to a subject (the doer of action); use me (an object pronoun) when referring to the object of an action. In the example from Mitt's speech, the "I" in the sentence is being asked a question; it is the object of the action. 

Most speakers and writers understand the basics of personal pronouns. It's when we're faced with a compound subject (like Mitt's) that some of us choke and use the wrong pronoun. For example, most of us know it's correct to say "I went to the concert last night"  instead of "Me went to the concert last night."  And "John gave the concert tickets to me" would be an easy choice over "John gave the concert tickets to I."  Still, some folks would easily (and incorrectly) say: "John gave the concert tickets to Jim and I."

An easy way to determine if you're using the correct pronoun is to break down the compound subject in a sentence and make it into two complete sentences with a single subject:

John gave the concert tickets to Jim. 
John gave the concert tickets to me. 
John gave the concert tickets to Jim and me.

If me is correct by itself, then it's the right choice when you're using it with with another noun.

Another common mistake is the misuse of the reflexive pronoun myself. For example:

Read the report and send your feedback to Tom and myself. (wrong)
Read the report and send your feedback to Tom and me. (correct)

As a reflexive pronoun, myself must be preceded by a noun, pronoun, adjective or adverb that it refers back to (its antecedent). In the example above, myself has no antecedent. Examples of correct usage include:

I saw myself in the mirror.
I treated myself to a cup of hot tea.

In these examples, myself refers back to its antecedent: I. Himself, herself and yourself are also reflexive pronouns. You could easily substitute he/himself or her/herself into the second sentence above. (She treated herself to a cup of hot tea.)

That's it for me, myself and I. I hope this post helped you sort out any issues you might have in using them. 

Have you been tripped up by personal pronouns? Do you notice when writers and speakers misuse the pronouns cited in this post? Please share your thoughts in the Comments. 

The proper use of who and whom is a grammar issue that stymies many writers and speakers. While some grammar pundits have called for doing away with whom altogether, I think it's a valid word that we just need to learn how to use properly. The good news is, with a few simple memory aids, it's easy to determine which of these subjective pronouns is the right choice in your sentence.

Whom/Him, Who/He
The whom/him memory tool helps you determine the right word choice by either rearranging the sentence or answering the question posed by it. If the answer/restatement includes him (or her), the correct choice is whom. (Because it's easy to remember that both him and whom end with m, I generally focus on the male pronoun.) If the resulting pronoun in your test is he (or she), then the correct choice is who.

Examples:
For whom are you making that pie?
I am making this pie for him (or her).

Steve was the student whom the teacher liked best.
The teacher liked him best.

Who is going with you to the movies?
He (she) is going with me with the movies.

Do you know who is coming to dinner?
He is coming to dinner.

Who is a subject. Whom is an object.
You'll sometimes come across a tricky sentence where the whom/him rule will trip you up. If the sentence has more than one clause, sometimes rephrasing it will lead you to make the wrong choice. In these cases, it's helpful to understand that who is always the subject in a clause and whom is always the object. As the subject, who is acting or doing something. As the object, whom is always the object of the action, having something done to it or for it. 

If you keep these two rules in mind, it's much easier to make the right choice.

Do you struggle with who and whom? Did this post help? Do you have examples to put to the test? Please share your thoughts or questions in the comments.

One of my faithful blog readers (thanks, Rick!) recently wrote in to ask the following:

Is "quote" a verb? Must "quotation" always be used when referring to the actual words quoted?"

The answer to that question depends on whom you ask. This is one of those thorny language issues that grammarians do not agree on. Some linguists cry foul, because they view it a solecism to use quote as a noun. Here's my take:

Historical use: quote & quotation
While the word quote has been used as a verb (Can I quote you on that?) since the 1500s, my research indicates its use as a noun (I need a pithy quote for my newspaper story.) dates as far back as the late 1880s. Even though quote has become a colloquialism synonymous with quotation, some linguists insist that quotation is the only acceptable noun form. As a moderate descriptivist, I'm all for using quote as a noun. I believe that language evolves and, in most cases, we should not impede that evolution. 

What about rules?
I am not advocating that we throw out grammar and writing rules with reckless abandon (and don't even get me started on those "rules" that aren't really rules at all.) I am not saying that "anything goes" when it comes to language. In fact, I am a staunch supporter of adhering to the rules — the "real" rules. Some wordsmiths have suggested that we do away with the use of whom. I would argue that just because many of us don't know when to use whom instead of who is no reason to abandon a perfectly good word; we simply need to learn the difference between the two. (That's a post for another day.) 

Not all black & white
The more I study language and grammar, the more I realize there are many gray areas in the world of words. We may desire the comfort of rules to always tell us we've written (or spoken) something correctly, but the truth is that not everyone agrees on what's right and what's wrong. (Who would have thought grammar could be so much like politics and religion?) 

What to do?
So, dear reader, if you want to use quote as a noun, I say go for it. Just be advised that prescriptivists out there may correct you (and judge you). Of course, now you have a ready answer to refute their pedantic protestations. (Yes, I love alliteration.) And while you're at it, you might even want to split a few infinitives, start a sentence with a conjunction or end one with a preposition. Just please don't dangle any modifiers; that is a solecism up with which I will not put. 

What are your thoughts on using quote as a noun? Lively debate is welcome; incivility is not. Share your thoughts in the Comments below. If you have a writing, grammar or language question, please share it here for consideration on this blog.

One of my online writing pals, the lovely and talented Molly Greene, recently asked the following writing question: 

What's the best way to write time?

The key to addressing this issue is consistency; it's more a matter of style than of right and wrong, so it really comes down to choosing a style and sticking with it. 

Because the bulk of my writing experience has been in the newspaper industry, I've become well acquainted with the Associated Press Stylebook, a manual that guides how journalists should punctuate, capitalize, abbreviate and otherwise handle language. AP Style dictates that time be written as figures (Arabic numerals*), except for noon and midnight, and that times be given as shown in these examples: 1 a.m., 11 p.m., 2:45 p.m., 6-10 p.m., 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. In AP Style, "even" hours read as 5 p.m. (not 5:00 p.m.). And if the time begins a sentence (as in: Ten o'clock came and went...) you should spell out the number instead of using numerals.

Personally, I find it easier to read time as numerals instead of words, so I generally follow AP Style: 5 o'clock instead of five o'clock and 5:15 instead of five-fifteen. While I work in the newspaper world, I know that many of my blog followers are novelists, and the standard style for this type of writing is a bit different. 

For novels (fiction and non-fiction), the general rule is to spell out time. When expressing time in words instead of numerals, you should use a hyphen, as in five-fifteen. But when a hyphen is necessary in the expression of minutes, only hyphenate the minutes, as in five forty-five. Other time expressions could include half past five and twenty to seven or seven in the morning and ten at night.

Here are a couple of cheat sheets for both formats:

There are exceptions to these guidelines, and rules can vary from book to book and publisher to publisher. I recently picked up a pair of paperbacks by a well-known author and found gross discrepancies in the way time elements were expressed. In fact, on the same page — same paragraph! — the narrator referred to "six o'clock on Sunday" and 8 A.M. on Sundays." A reference to a plane flight was given as 6:30. One page had six A.M. while another had 4 A.M. It is worth noting that while AP Style calls for the use of a.m. and p.m. (all lowercase), most novels I've researched for this post exclusively use A.M. and P.M. (all caps).

When it comes to numbers in general, style guides have many exceptions to the basic rules depending on how the number is used. While AP Style recommends numerals (5:15) for times and ages, it also calls for spelling out numbers in other instances. (A 5-year-old girl but five books.) And to make it even more confusing, in general usage, AP requires that numbers one through nine be spelled out and numbers 10 and above be expressed in numerals, but exceptions exist for everything from addresses and weights to measurements and dimensions.

Whether you spell out times with words or use numerals, either choice is acceptable. It's all about consistency. The important thing is to choose a style and maintain it throughout your manuscript. While there are many style guides out there, The Chicago Manual of Style is probably the best resource for novelists. I recommend adding a copy to your library. There are many exceptions to these basic rules, and it's best to have a guide handy so that you can refer to it as you write or edit. If you are writing for a specific publisher, ask which style guide they prefer and follow it.

It is worth noting that many magazines, newspapers and publishing houses create their own house style guide or add exceptions to an established guide (like Chicago or AP). It's perfectly acceptable to create your own exceptions to the established style guide you choose — as long as you consistently maintain that exception throughout your work.

This post gives the basics, but it doesn't cover every time scenario a writer might encounter; if you have a specific issue you'd like to see addressed here, leave a comment below and together we'll try to find an answer.

How do you write time? Do you have observations, tips or suggestions to share with other writers? Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments. Disagreement is welcome; incivility is not.

* The term numeral can refer to any symbol that represents a number, even a word. My references to the term numeral in this post are in reference to Arabic numerals (like 8, 9, 10).
       

I'm going to start things off with a contentious subject among some grammarians: the proper use of the word myriad.

Perhaps you've been told — and I believe, incorrectly — that you can never refer to "a myriad of" something. I contest this so-called "rule" and refer you to Merriam-Webster to back my claim. 

Those who insist on using myriad only as an adjective (as in: New car buyers have myriad options this year), either fail to recognize — or perhaps simply discount — the early use of myriad as a noun. Works as far back as Milton and Thoreau include use of the word as a noun, and that's good enough for me.

Perhaps this disagreement stems from the Greek origins of the word myriad, which literally means 10,000. But the word is also defined as "a great number." And even when used as an adjective, rarely does the writer or speaker literally refer to 10,000 of anything.

Personally, I use the word both ways, sometimes as a noun and sometimes as an adjective. I generally let my ear rule when deciding which usage best suits the sentence. I might say: 

"Authors Tess Hardwick and Tracey Hansen, inspired by the myriad voices in the world, compile a melting pot of life paths from over a dozen unique writers." (used as an adjective)

But I might also say: 

"The menu at the new restaurant offers a myriad of options." (used as a noun)

I advocate usage of the word in both its forms. And I contend it's time to stop giving writers or speakers literal or virtual "red marks" for using it one way when you happen to prefer the other. Myriad is an adjective AND a noun. Let's allow its use in both forms.

What about you? Were you taught to only use myriad as an adjective? Have you been corrected for using it as a noun? Feel free to share your thoughts in the Comments. Just remember: Disagreement is welcome, incivility is not. If you have a writing, grammar or language question, please share it here for consideration on this blog.

Due to requests from my writing friends who struggle with the rules of style and grammar, I've decided to launch a separate blog dedicated to answering writing and grammar questions. I'm still considering names for the blog, so send me your suggestions! 

Watch this space in the coming days for answers to questions that have been submitted. Some of you have already answered my call on Twitter, and I appreciate your participation! And if you have a question (such as: "Is it ok to start a sentence with a conjunction?"), please submit your question for consideration on the blog. I look forward to your queries!