We spend a lot of time discussing grammar rules here, so you might be surprised to learn we don’t actually like every grammar rule. The primary purpose of language is communication, so any rule that makes doing that more difficult or muddles people’s understanding is counterproductive. How people communicate today has changed from how they communicated decades ago, and in some cases, a guideline now seems out of date. If a grammar rule is routinely causing confusion, maybe the rule is the problem, not the speaker (or writer). So let’s loosen up a little — which grammar rules would you change?
Old-fashioned grammar rules say not to end a sentence with a preposition (including “with,” “at,” “for,” and “about”), but try applying that rule in regular conversation and see how unnatural it feels. “What are you talking about?” becomes “About what are you talking?” and “Who are you going with?” turns into “With whom are you going?” It sounds outdated and stilted. The preposition rule arises from attempts to force Latin grammar rules onto the English language, and the wording sounds awkward because we’re trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Most modern style guides agree that it’s fine to end a sentence with a preposition if it sounds more natural that way. We’re in favor of letting this rule go for good.
Is it time for “whom” to fade into retirement with “thee,” “thine,” and “thou”? Technically, “whom” is the object pronoun form of “who,” meant to be used when someone is receiving the action of the verb. For example: “To whom should I address the letter?” But most people don’t think about sentence structure that way mid-conversation — or mid-email. In casual speech and writing, “who” has pretty much taken over, and even grammar sticklers are starting to let it slide. “Whom” often adds formality where it’s not needed and can sound stilted or awkward. We won’t judge you if you let this one slide.
We were taught by writing teachers to fear the passive voice like it’s a grammatical boogeyman, but here’s our controversial take: It’s fine. As a quick refresher, passive voice is, “The ball was thrown by her,” while active voice is, “She threw the ball.” The active voice sounds stronger and more direct, but that doesn’t mean the passive voice is always wrong. “The dog was groomed,” for example, sounds better than “The groomer groomed the dog.” And in fact, science writing, legal documents, and formal reports often use passive voice to keep the tone objective: “The experiment was conducted under controlled conditions.” Other times, you don’t know who did the action, or it doesn’t matter: “A mistake was made.” There’s no need to twist yourself into knots in an effort to correct every instance of passive voice, especially because sometimes it makes sense stylistically.
Traditional grammar rules say you should never split an infinitive, meaning the “to” and the verb should stick together. Inserting any word (usually an adverb) in between them is considered incorrect. By those standards, Star Trek’s epic tagline — “to boldly go where no one has gone before” — would be a sanitized “to go boldly…” In this example, splitting the infinitive adds unforgettable panache. Sometimes a split infinitive is needed to change the meaning altogether. “She decided to gradually back away” has a different meaning than “She decided gradually to back away.” We could write, “She decided to back away gradually,” to avoid the split infinitive, but we think breaking the rule is worth it for the flow of the writing. So go ahead — dare to boldly, unapologetically split your infinitives. Just don’t get carried away and start flipping every sentence around, or you’ll end up in Yoda territory — and that’s Star Wars, not Star Trek.
More from our network
Word Smarts is part of Optimism, which publishes content that uplifts, informs, and inspires.
